Needed: Arguments, statistics, common sense in lue of inlaws

bluechair84

I heard an interesting argument that I found difficult to come back from today. My father in law reckons that if Boris pushes the cylcing thing in London he is actually taking away peoples freedom of choice. London is conjested because people choose to drive and he makes it harder for the people who choose to drive, (who are far more numerous and thus hold greater say) by turning over valuable tarmac to bike priority . He is pushing for more people to commute by bike and so is actually taking away peoples choice to drive in London.
I argued that as far as conjection goes, it is car drivers that make it bad for themselves. People complain about traffic but all those people drive their cars every single day - it's very hypocritical. If everyone rode bikes then there would be no congestion and no congestion charge. But of course, this is refusing the vast majority of people who choose to drive the right to drive. (Riders have no rights, they are a danger to themselves by not driving).
So, how many people actually WANT to commute by bike but choose not to, and how can you argue that more space should be given to bikes when the overwhelming majority of people want to go in by car?

Sorry if this is coming across as a rant, but he is very eloqent with his arguments, and has no room for greenies. I know that someone on here will be as annoyed as I am...

alfablue

Some freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good; no individual's right to freedom of choice necessarily takes precedent over the rights of others.

The right choose to drive a car is competing with the rights of others (or everyone) to enjoy breathing air free from pollution and to enjoy a long and healthy life for themselves and generations to come on a planet that is free from the effects of global warming. The freedom to drive looks a pretty flimsy case when matched against the impact of this freedom upon the population of the world (the majority of whom do not have this freedom due to poverty), who are likely to suffer death, ill health or greater poverty, if our fears of global warming are to be realised.

If cyclists have the freedom to cycle in space and safety in our cities, they may do so to the detriment of the freedom to drive, but this is complementary to the more significant and worthy freedoms for the world population outlined above.

I am afraid your father-in-law is one of those people who probably thinks "it's all about me" :roll: and is oblivious to the whole concept of "the greater good".

As for congestion - if the congestion charge is an anti-pollution tax, then fine, but there is no point in reducing congestion just so more people can drive faster. Congestion may be a more powerful deterrent to driving than the congestion charge itself! (However, I shed no tears for those who choose to drive and pay, and I think Mancunians were short-sighted in voting against a congestion charge recently).

W1

I want to commute by helicopter, but it's just not practical. More cyclists will generally mean less congestion for those who do want to drive, plus freeing up space on the tube, busses etc. Those who want to drive, can. Gently encouraging people out of their cars and onto bikes is good for everyone, especially those who insist on driving.

always_tyred

Why is person B's choice to cycle incompatible with person A's choice to drive? What about person C's choice to take the train? I tell you what, the footprint of the lines north of Clampham would make a very useful multi-lane highway into the heart of the city. Damn those train facilities for getting in the way of driving.

And busses. What on earth? - they are large, slow and stop all the time and they take up entire lanes for miles. I think that the choice of person D to take the bus is most certainly contrary to person A's choice to drive. And those pedestrians (Person E) - every single junction with lights has to wait an extra 15 seconds to let people cross the road. Rediculous; if you took the pavemets away, you would have an extra lane.

Parking is a real hassle as well, and there is so much uneccesary room taken up by trains and stations underground in the city centre. I think those people (F) who choose to use the tube are terribly selfish for impeding person A's choice to take the car.

So I think your tunnel visioned father in law is quite correct. All of the choices that persons B, C, D, E and F make to not drive get in the way of person A's choice to drive. This is clearly inequitable and person A's interests should take precedence over everyone else's. There is no special concession made to cars, no special facilities for them.

hondafanatic

mmmhhh...just point out that as a cyclist, you've the right to use the road, a car driver is merely licensed to use the road and that can be taken away.

Tell him a devote petrolhead pointed that out...

Infact, tell him David said so....

grrrrrrr....

David

bluechair84

Aah all good points well made.
Another problem with the pro cycling/train/bus commute is that the majority of people drive cars and in a democracy it's the majority vote that wins. On top of that, if there wasn't any traffic, no congestion charge and easy access around the city by car, wouldn't more people choose to drive? Isn't one of the biggest reasons people choose to take the underground to avoid sitting in traffic jams? If the underground was replaced with a carpark and the enterences made as on/off ramps, and the bus lanes and bike lanes turned into car use, and the overground routes made into motorways - basically the infrastructure supporting drivers was dramatically improved then the traffic in London would be dramatically reduced and thus more of the people who WANT to drive but feel they cannot will now be able to do what they would rather do; drive in.
Of course the logical argument is environmental and social - sharing public transport should also bring us together whilst driving cars only acts as another social barrier. A form of isolation. But if enough energy could be produced via green sources (which realistically it can't), and all those petrol chugging cars were gradually fazed out by electric cars which is slowly happening then doesn't it make sense to make more room for cars? The carbon footprint at this point becomes null if you don't take into account the impact of altering the infrastructure to car use... And that really is the only good argument I can offer. Our energy useage is far higher than that which can be produced by green sources and so we will never be able to replace all vehicals with electric vehicals and expect green energy to power them; In which case the carbon is moved from the city to the country side where the power plants are. And the change in infrastructure would be terrible for the city and for the environment. The only way ching our energy infrastructure to entierly green sources is for us to dramatically reduce our energy useage.
People who make the choice to drive by car also make the choice to make the traffic worse for everyone - and that is their burden to carry. Bikers do not have to carry that burden as no traffic is generated by biking.

He stands by his arguments and sees the pro-cycling arguments as weak against the choice argument. He has a beer belly anyway and wouldn't be able to commute by bike, so he has no choice.

biondino

bluechair84 wrote:

Another problem with the pro cycling/train/bus commute is that the majority of people drive cars and in a democracy it's the majority vote that wins.

No-o. You're thinking perhaps of a dictatorship, when the people are given one path and one path only? In a democracy people can choose to behave within an essential free society, and choose which form of transport they will take. There can never be a vote on which single form of transport people are allowed as it's against the very foundations of democracy.

Coriander

Boris is not taking away your father-in-law's choice to drive, that would only be possible by banning driving.

What he is doing is making your father-in-law's chioce more difficult to either make or execute as Boris makes the roads more accessible for users other than just drivers.

Your father-in-law needs to polish up his semantics.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Coriander wrote:

Boris is not taking away your father-in-law's choice to drive, that would only be possible by banning driving.

What he is doing is making your father-in-law's chioce more difficult to either make or execute as Boris makes the roads more accessible for users other than just drivers.

Your father-in-law needs to polish up his semantics.

Precisely. Your father in law is confusing freedom of choice with the quality of the activity.

He is free to choose to drive. He is as free to do that today as he was 20, 30 whatever years ago.

If he choose to drive, his driving experience may be less enjoyable than it was 20, 30, whatever years ago. That hasn't removed his choice though.

Incidentally, the enjoyability of driving in London has been affected by numerous factors: bus lanes, commercial deliveries during the day (esp during the rush hour), car volumes, inconsiderate driving, traffic lights phased to slow down traffic flow... You get the picture.

Sounds like he's needling you for a bit of fun. Why don't you pour boiling water into his lap. That will shut him up :twisted:

greg66_tri_v2.0

bluechair84 wrote:

how can you argue that more space should be given to bikes when the overwhelming majority of people want to go in by car?

Easy: the decision to give over space to bikes, or buses, or taxis, or whatever has nothing to do with the volume of people who are vying for roadspace. It's a policy decision, based on whatever the social objective of the day is.

Your father in law should have a think about this. Everyone really wants to drive. They'd much rather drive than use public transport. So why not concrete over all the major rail lines into London and turn them into motorways?

While he extolling this idea, ask him where everyone will park.

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

bluechair84 wrote:

how can you argue that more space should be given to bikes when the overwhelming majority of people want to go in by car?

Easy: the decision to give over space to bikes, or buses, or taxis, or whatever has nothing to do with the volume of people who are vying for roadspace. It's a policy decision, based on whatever the social objective of the day is.

Your father in law should have a think about this. Everyone really wants to drive. They'd much rather drive than use public transport. So why not concrete over all the major rail lines into London and turn them into motorways?

While he extolling this idea, ask him where everyone will park.

I told you - they'll park where the underground was.

bluechair84

"Easy: the decision to give over space to bikes, or buses, or taxis, or whatever has nothing to do with the volume of people who are vying for roadspace. It's a policy decision, based on whatever the social objective of the day is. "

But the increase in volume of cars has been far more dramatic than the increase in volume of bikes, isn't that societies policy if not the governments policy? I don't think that supporting drivers makes the government a dictatorship as they are making lives better for the large majority of people who are voting for more infrastructure for vehicular traffic. If everyone wanted to bike in, then matters would be reversed (or so we are told). They are surely acting very democratically by helping more people to drive in....

Am I wrong in suggesting that people don't necessarily know what is good for them? They were given the choice to drive into London and they just made it worse for everyone (and the economy - can we still hang people on grounds of treason?) so the government should encourage (as others have said here) people to use alternative modes of transport? Isn't that a dictatorship - but a positive one? And the trouble with the choice of transport is that public transport is renown for being crap. Now I haven't used PT in London for a long time, but I can tell you it's bloody crap in Yorkshire. Is it a dictatorship that the Gov provides alternative transport that actually encourages everyone to drive in? Doesn't the public transport make the congestion on the roads worse by being so bad itself? Is it so wrong to push the point upon people that a change would benefit everyone and just place a ban within the congestion zone on all vehicals larger than a golf? I know the problem then is that if this becomes a reality then we need to be certain we elect a government that only acts in our best interests - and we haven't done that in quite a long time. Otherwise all sorts of crap legislation will just get the go ahead.
I get the feeling Corriander ;
"What he is doing is making your father-in-law's chioce more difficult to either make or execute as Boris makes the roads more accessible for users other than just drivers."
That by restricintg his ability to drive is anti-democratic. Shouldn't he freely be able to make that choice? And in the same respect picking up from Alfablue that cyclists should have the same freedoms, which presently they do not. Road users have more freedoms which they could sacrifice to create a balance between the freedoms of all road users.

And yes - I'm fairly certain this is a test of my worthiness of his daughter and less a matter of politics. Trouble is it isn't really a debate with him but a monologue... Maybe I should leave post-it notes around so I can argue my point But no, pouring boiling water on him won't make me more eligable to become 'family'

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I find the whole thing very interesting.

EricaR

Oh, god I'm sick to death of discussing this with people reccently!

Make the point instead that it's not health for the economy to rely on not only a finite resource [how finite is still in dispute], but one which is mainly produced by some not-so-democratic countries. Oh s***t it already is! It's nice to know some peer appointed sheikh has control isn't it - not that free for us really.

Nor is it particularly free for the people that live in those countries. These days, it seems that tapping oil is a licence to start dishing out human rights abuses or violate other international laws, if you hold the oil card (heres looking at you chavez / putin). Not only that but international organisations don't seem to intervene. Mind you this could be a coincidence because there are loads of situations that are just left to escalate, and don;t sit on oil fields (zimbabwe)

list top oil exporters - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chart_of_e ... _by_nation

ERica

The Chingford Skinhead

Your father in law's right to a peaceful existance conflicts with my right to turn my hand into a fist and push that hand from my body at speed in any direction that I want. Which right takes precedent? Presumably the one that does less harm to society (which in this specifc case may mean I CAN punch him in the face ) Rights conflict all the time so there has to be a balance - at least in a civilised society.

Commuting by bike, rather than car, not only reduces the harm to the environment but produces a stonger, healtheri population, reducing the burden on the NHS etc etc. The government has a policy objective to reduce pollution and to promote healthy lifestyles.

Ask father in law if cars should be banned period, as they conflict with the rights of over 3000 people a year to live and over 27,000 people a year to not be seriously injured.

On the issue of public transport - the mark of a civilised society is that it cares for all its people. Not everyone can drive - while ther are lots of 2+ car households there are also a lot of NO CAR households - those people have a right to get to work, shop etc as well. Most people can afford a bike

But essentially he appears to be just trying to wind you up. Tell him to go boil his head or respond with equally extreme views - start with my banning cars one

Beeblebrox

I think he is confusing a right with a privilege - he may have forgotten what it is like to not being able to drive, but do not forget you pay through the nose, have to take a two part test for a license and are subject to numerous rules and regulations - for the privilege of being able to drive on our roads.*

The right, in this case, is the right to freedom of movement. The method you choose is either allowed or provided by the state and is left as a free choice.

As for this: 'democracy it's the majority vote that win', I must disagree. A modern democracy is about freedom for all, including the freedom of the minority - the 'majority rules' only ever applies to elections, really. It most certainly is not the 'mob rule' that is suggested, whatever the etymology of the word.



* - and as a privilege it can be revoked - if you speed, drive drunk or irresponsibly. Similarly, if too many people are trying to drive simultaneously, there is no conflict in removing the privilege for the benefit of other methods of movement and the right of freedom of movement for everyone.

bluechair84

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Commuting by bike, rather than car, not only reduces the harm to the environment but produces a stonger, healtheri population, reducing the burden on the NHS etc etc. The government has a policy objective to reduce pollution and to promote healthy lifestyles.

Ask father in law if cars should be banned period, as they conflict with the rights of over 3000 people a year to live and over 27,000 people a year to not be seriously injured.

These are the kinds of arguments that I thing are strongest. That as a nation we should be making decisions that are progressive. And though the news has made a big deal about a few biking accidents lately - on the whole people would be safer (though that may be a big assumtion).
Sorry if this has bounced around a lot, I'm usually in the MTB forum rather than Commute but thought you guys would give the strongest responses
My feelings are that you can't make more room for cars until they become a green mode of transport. For that to happen you need to have a green energy based national grid. If you are to allow people to drive then the infrastructure needs to be vastly upgraded. All three of which are incredibly unlikely to happen together, two of three at a push. So we need to make provisions for right now which means cycling should be a real alternative for the masses on the many grounds everyone has stated above - the right to life one I like particularly.

Next thread - hard line views on the baning of all cars in congestion zones

Thanks for your time guys, feel free to drop in anything else. I'll be reading and replying.

Pat920

I've enjoyed reading this thread. I particularly like the "right to cycle" bit.

I would just get back to the original post. The argument appears to be:
- Boris is promoting commuting by bicycle in London
- Bicycles and cars share the roads
- more cycles must mean some disadvantage to car drivers
- there are more cars than bicycles commuting in London
- this is not fair.

The simple answer is - your father-in-law is correct! Awful, isn't it?

However, I cannot see what the real disadvantages are to drivers - roads are not being closed to make way for cyclists, parking spaces are not being lost. And there are some benefits, such as the few drivers who take to cycling and reduce the numbers of cars on the roads. The people we should feel sorry for are the majority of commuters who use public transport - I had to use it yesterday, and it was not a nice experience.

As for statistics - there are more bicycles than cars in the UK - we are not the minority...

simple_salmon

[quote="bluechair84"My feelings are that you can't make more room for cars until they become a green mode of transport. For that to happen you need to have a green energy based national grid.[/quote]

This is an argument I've has a number of times at work. My response is always that I would be working to drive down car use even if they run on fresh air with no emissions. My reasons for this:

They will still kill pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
They will always be obesogenic (encourage the development of obesity).
They will always be a barrier to social integration.
Congestion costs the economy.

I don't believe cars should be banned. I do believe they should be used only when appropriate.

Good thread

symo

Here is a clue. The streets can't make themselves wider but people want to drive more cars down them. Ain't gonna happen.

bluechair84

It's an interesting debate, I'm enjoynig peoples responses. But I have to conceed a little to the in-law; if the vast majority of people want to drive then the government should be providing for them. The problem the government faces is persuading people to get out of their cars asnd they haven't been able to do that with public transport - so how are they goignt o be able to do it with cycling? The government makes a lot of money from drivers which goes to subsidise the public transport links - if more people chose to cycle in would that mean the PT system would crumble under a lack of funding? I doubt making areas of London non car priority would actually be healthy for the economy because where would the money come from to keep PT going?

I think the disadvantage to drivers is going to be less space, which is given over bike lanes. Whilst this probably won't mean fewer roads - just narrower ones, there will probably be an increase in bumps and scrapes, and an increase in overall stress. We all here know that cycling is the ultimate antidote to stress!

alfablue

if the vast majority of people want to drive then the government should be providing for them.

I think the vast majority of the public would want the death penalty and to be out of the EU, fortunately our elected representatives have greater intelligence than some of the electorate, and take a moral stance or apply their intelligence ...just sometimes. (don't start a hanging debate!).

bluechair84

Well that is how I feel - that people often do not have the experise to deal with complex issues. We leave the economy in the hands of the government; are we assuming that everyone has a good moral stance to decide effectivly what our environmental policy should be? And if we do have enough of a moral stance to know what is best for us - will that outweigh peoples selfishness or greed to have it implemented?
For instance, people know that driving cars creates traffic, kills and is bad for the environment - yet more and more people do it (for various reasons) only making the situation worse for everyone.
His argumet is that the more we leave to the government, the more we the people become dependent on the nanny state because we are stripped of the responsibility to learn from the consequences of our own decisions. We cannot grow as a society if we never given the opportunity to grow up. People choose to drive cars, this should be supported and people should accept the concequences of this. Then we come full circle back to the right to life argument.
I think that this is an aspect of our debate with no clear answer.

Rich158

bluechair84 wrote:

It's an interesting debate, I'm enjoynig peoples responses. But I have to conceed a little to the in-law; if the vast majority of people want to drive then the government should be providing for them. The problem the government faces is persuading people to get out of their cars asnd they haven't been able to do that with public transport - so how are they goignt o be able to do it with cycling? The government makes a lot of money from drivers which goes to subsidise the public transport links - if more people chose to cycle in would that mean the PT system would crumble under a lack of funding? I doubt making areas of London non car priority would actually be healthy for the economy because where would the money come from to keep PT going?

I think the disadvantage to drivers is going to be less space, which is given over bike lanes. Whilst this probably won't mean fewer roads - just narrower ones, there will probably be an increase in bumps and scrapes, and an increase in overall stress. We all here know that cycling is the ultimate antidote to stress!

Not strictly true. If the vast majority of people wanted to smoke dope would the government provide for them, I think not beacuse the general consensus is that Marijuana has significant health issues, without even getting into the moral arguments. You could also argue that making smoking in the workplace illegal infringes the rights of smokers, however the government has decided that the rights of the non-smokers not to suffer smoking relating diseases due to passive smoking far outweighs the rights of the smoker.

One could argue that the rights of the cyclist far outweigh the right of the driver, cycling being a healthy, clean form of transport. What the majority want may not be in the best public interests, and it is here that the politicians face a dilemma. Do they do the right thing and try to reduce pollution and congestion by restricting car use in the inner cities, or do they bow to public demand and allow the cars unfettered access, and put up with the pollution, congestion and loss of revenue to business this will inevitably cause.

GyatsoLa

The problem with your father in laws argument is that it assumes an infinity of public investment and an infinity of space for activities.

Providing infrastructure costs money. You can allocate it in several ways:

1. Ability to pay. i.e. leave it to private enterprise to provide it and charge a market rate.
2. A rational allocation designed to maximise utility according to available budgets.
3. Allocate it 'politically', i.e., according to politicians, or polls, or whatever system the law allows.

In reality, almost all societies allocate transport investments in a complex mix of all three.

If your father in law insists that driving to work is a 'right', then he needs to explain who will pay for the massive investment in roads that would be needed if everyone drove everywhere. Will he pay more in taxes? Does he agree that its right that, for example, someone who can't afford a car should still pay extra taxes so that car owners can still drive more? What about the 'rights' of the person who will lose their home to make way for the new, widened road to his house? What about the 'rights' of the asthma sufferer who will have to move from the city if he is to keep breathing? What about the rights of the person who insists on driving his combine harvester to work in the centre of London?

The reality is that allocating road space to bikes in most cases makes perfect economic sense. There can be simply no rational way of arguing that it is efficient to move people around in a tonne of steel for each commuter. Just as allocating road space for bus lanes is (in the great majority of cases) a more efficient use of road space, the same applies in most cases for cycling, as bikes use less space and don't result in a requirement for extra maintenance for wear and tear.

There is simply not economic, ethical or practical basis for his arguments.

biondino

The vast majority of people want to drive but they want to drive on fast, well-maintained, empty roads, and that's the rub. This just isn't possible, so a balance has to be achieved, and if this involves making some drivers think "you know, I might be happier taking another form of transport" then everyone wins because he is happier with his alternative and the drivers are happier as there is one car fewer in their way.

I read a few years ago that every extra car on London's roads adds 45 seconds in delays to other drivers. not each, obviously, but tens of thousands of 45 seconds add up, even when shared by everyone.

rhext

I think the argument is very simple really: personal transport is actually a limited resource, particularly in cities. I suspect that if the practical problems could be solved, most people would choose to drive. But the practical problems currently are pretty much insoluable, so the fact is that everyone who might prefer to drive into london simply can't.

The job of the government is to find a way to optimise the use of the infrastructure which we have, while making sensible investment decisions about how to improve it to give the biggest benefit. The question a good government will ask is 'how do we get as many people as possible flowing in and out of the city as smoothly as possible' not 'how do we make sure that everyone who can afford to drive can choose to do so'.

In a democracy, they can't simply do the obvious thing: close the bulk of the city to the private motor car and spend the resultant huge saving in resources on putting in a really great public transport system. That would be far too restrictive of individual choice. So what they have to do instead is introduce policies which encourage the use of more efficient forms of transport, while discouraging the use of less efficient forms. Which is pretty much what seems to be happening as policies are implemented which improve provisions for public transport and cyclists at the 'expense' of the private motor car.

In fact, there's a very strong argument that transport policy in London has actually increased choice. I lived in London 20 years ago, and still visit occasionally, and there is no doubt in my mind that traffic flows around the congestion charge zone much more smoothly now than it did then. I can still choose to drive to London, it will cost me a lot more, but I'll have a better experience when I get there.

Your father-in-law's argument assumes that optimising the transport infrastructure for private motor vehicles (at the expense of other 'less popular' forms of transport), would actually allow people to drive relatively freely about London. I do not believe that this is the case: remove bikes and public transport from the city and you'd be left with a choice between sitting still in your car or walking to work - assuming all the pavements hadn't been removed in a last-ditch effort to get the traffic moving that is.

Your father-in-law's freedom of choice is not being restricted, he's just having to pay a higher price for the disproportionate amount of resource he consumes should he choose to use his car. And as more and more people wish to use that resource, the price he pays will simply keep rising. My heart bleeds!!!!

bluechair84

Rich158 wrote:

You could also argue that making smoking in the workplace illegal infringes the rights of smokers, however the government has decided that the rights of the non-smokers not to suffer smoking relating diseases due to passive smoking far outweighs the rights of the smoker.

One could argue that the rights of the cyclist far outweigh the right of the driver, cycling being a healthy, clean form of transport.

Very true, I think the government should be making some decisions on behalf the people. This is a very good example of when the government has gotten it right - even smokers are now saying that this decision has helped turn around their lives. But there are occasions when the government hasn't faired so well in the public polls because of decisions it has made despite public protest.
As far as a 'right to drive' is concerned, it may very well be that people have a right to drive but they do not necassarily have a 'right to good standards of driving' - that is a priviledge afforded to them by the government. And whilst the government should make provisions to keep the standard of driving high, this is actually best achieved by encouraging people not to drive. Improving the standards of driving in London is not done by investing in infrastructure, but by investing in alternatives which each individually are of a high standard and are real alternatives to driving. Traffic will thus be reduced and keeping the roads tidy will be cheaper. Just as our energy needs cannot be met by fossil fuel alone, we need a spread of technologies to meet demand. Driving has grown obesce because people can afford to drive and that should not be to the detriment of other modes of transport which have equal if not more rights of prevalence on grounds of health and environment, bonding of society...

I think I'm getting the hang of this

bluechair84

GyatsoLa wrote:

There can be simply no rational way of arguing that it is efficient to move people around in a tonne of steel for each commuter.

Whats a good commute bike these days, 10-15lbs? He's always insisting on turning the lights off; it's all conservation of resources right? :P

Jeremy Parker

bluechair84 wrote:

I
ice. London is conjested because people choose to drive and he makes it harder for the people who choose to drive, (who are far more numerous and thus hold greater say) by turning over valuable tarmac to bike priority . He is pushing for more people to commute by bike and so is actually taking away peoples choice to drive in London.

Surely the most important rule about priority is that only one vehicle ever has it in any situation. You need that to stop collisions.

Second is the first come, first serve rule. People don't have to get off the road to let somebody more important past (except for fire engines, ambulances, and police cars). Motorists do not have to get off the road to make way for cyclists, even though cyclists are obviously more important. If somebody is aleady occupying the piece of road you want, you just have to wait your turn, even if the somebody is a pedestrian, crossing the side street you want to turn into

Third is potential collision points - the intersections. There is no equivalent of the "steam gives way to sail" rule. Instead there are stop signs, give way signs, and traffic lights that apply equally to all. Motorists do not automatically have to give way to bikes.

PRIORITY DOESN'T GO BY VEHICLE TYPE. You never have a rule that cars have to give way to lorries, or vice versa. All vehicles are equal.

Thus, if motorists find themselves delayed by other vehicles on the road, the cause of the delay is most often the most common kind of vehicle - other cars.

It's surprising how many people haven't noticed that

Jeremy Parker

sarajoy

Oooh a 15lb bike would be nice! Think me new one will go over 20, though...

Anyway the crux of the whole matter is that our infrastructure is pretty much stuck the way it is. We're an incredibly busy country - and around the cities, we're really squished.

In Bristol for example - as soon as there's any tiny problem in or around the town or within 20 miles on the motorways (or even further afield), the whole place sludges up. It's amazing. And often sheer weight of traffic just clogs it all up - it's even rubbish on a Saturday afternoon!

ANYWAY. Everyone would like the freedom to drive everywhere. But if you grant that - well, no one would /get/ anywhere. And thing is, there're SO many of us that as soon as you widen roads, add more roads, make some space - it would fill up straight away - just the jams would be wider, and the bottlenecks even worse.

So as already said we need the balance where some people don't fancy driving due to the situation they face, otherwise the drivers wouldn't get anywhere at all. And some people have no choice but to drive.

bluechair84

sarajoy wrote:

And thing is, there're SO many of us that as soon as you widen roads, add more roads, make some space - it would fill up straight away - just the jams would be wider, and the bottlenecks even worse.

So true, weren't all the motorways put in place to make it easier to get from A-B? Turns out that at 8am every mornnig they magically morph into blockades... More roads won't solve congestion... more bikes please!
Go C2W scheme