"Cycling has for too long been the Cinderella of transp

AndyManc

" Nearly half of all people in Britain over the age of 11 own a bike, and two in five of all journeys are under two miles so are in many cases well-suited to being undertaken by bike. The government is investing a lot more in this area; Cycling England has a three-year budget of £140 million"


The full report below .

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/speeches/transportmanifesto



.

iclestu

Hmmm - mixed news here.

I dont have too many miles under my belt and if an experienced bod wants to jump in and tell me that I am wrong (and why!) then I may stand corrected but here are my views:

If he really wants to encourage cycling as a means of transport then he needs to be careful about placing too much emphasis on the work of Sustrans and Cycle England both of which (most especialy the former) encourage cycling as a recreational activity rather than an actual means of transport.

As I understand it Sustrans and Cycle England promote the use of, create and maintain cycle paths, yes?

Are these really a viable network for bikes to be using as a means of transport? let me explain what I mean....

A cycle path (which is largely what Sustrans do, right?) is a 1m wide strip of path away from traffic, which bikes share with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. These paths are away from roads and very often follow abandoned railway lines. This means (in my, admitedly limited, experience) that they are often lined with trees, or in a 'ditch'. If I cycle on a 1m strip of tarmac, I cycle in the middle (should I really be trying to stick the the LHS!?). I am a long long way from being a fast cyclist, but I could not safely travel consistently at my normal 'flat pace' on these paths (at least not any of the ones I have seen so far) for fear of colliding into someone coming the other way. It does not need to be a paritcularly sharp bend to be a 'blind bend'.

Contrast this with a road. A road by its very nature is far wider, allowing me to see much further ahead unhindered. I can also reasonably expect oncoming traffic (be it a bike, bus or tram!) to be on the other side of the road. Someone overtaking me (junctions, roundabouts and the odd d1ckhead notwithstanding) can reaosnably expect me to maintain my position to the left and pass safely.

Don't get me wrong, I loved pootling along a cyclepath for an hour or 2 this afternoon. It is a magnificent facility, but IMHO it is a purely recreational facility. I simply would not have time to travel the 13 miles I need to go to get to work on one of these paths.

So whilst Mr Adonis here, is to be applauded for wanting to encourage cycling as a means of transport, it really bothers me to hear him talking about improved cycling 'facilities'. If he means cyclepaths and the like then he is entirely missing the point.

The 'facilities' for using a bike for transport are there already. The road network is already built. In my opinion he would be much better placed spending the budget on educating cyclists, drivers and pedestrians alike on the safest way to share these roads. That, together with much tougher reprimands for anyone found to be making cycling unsafe on our roads*, would be a much better use of the department for transport's resources and much more likely to encourage cycling as a genuine mode of transport (as opposed to something to do with your spare time). Of course, should there be any money left over then filling in the odd pothole on my commute wouldn't go amis . Just leave the cyclepaths to the minister for sport....


Ack - perhaps I should write him a letter....


*The laws are there already. They just need stronger enforcing an automatic 3 points for 'driving without due care and attention' to the driver who does not leave enough room when overtaking, or to the driver who hooks a cyclist when turning left. CCTV Cameras abound in our cities, noone can tell me that it is lack of evidence that is the problem getting convictions here. It is apathy. If it costs too much in terms of police time, etc to prosecute then start fining any offeders more to pay for it.

Kieran_Burns

A very large chunk of my 14 mile commute is on Route 54 and Route 68, which is a combination of disused railway line, suburban roads, shared cycle / footpaths and urban designated quiet roads.

I really genuinely, rarely have a problem with pedestrians sharing the route. A bell is absolutely essential as is a smile and "Thank You" whenever people move over. I am averaging less than an hour for the 14 miles and I *could* go faster, and I do know of an alternate fast A road route but the commute (for me) is not just about how fast, it's about winding down or waking up.

The quieter routes make this possible and I for one prefer them

This is the commute by the way: www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=8860

(awaits slagging for almost flat ride )

AndyManc

iclestu wrote:

The 'facilities' for using a bike for transport are there already. The road network is already built. In my opinion he would be much better placed spending the budget on educating cyclists, drivers and pedestrians alike on the safest way to share these roads.



.

Manchester council recently made a statement, something to the effect of " Main roads into the city centre are too dangerous for cycling, therefore they would be building cycle lanes in the back lanes of the city ".

Clearly that attitude is not acceptable, once again placing cyclists as second class road users that don't care how much time it takes to get from A to B. :evil:

I don't believe you can 'Educate' motorists in the same way you can't educate those that smoke , the general populous more often than not needs to be forced to change behaviour.

Ban motorised vehicles from city centres, double the price of petrol on the forecourt and then , and only then will the revolution start.

I think the enviroment will force the hand of the government more than anything else, even if they have left it too late .


.

always_tyred

Kieran_Burns wrote:

A very large chunk of my 14 mile commute is on Route 54 and Route 68, which is a combination of disused railway line, suburban roads, shared cycle / footpaths and urban designated quiet roads.

I really genuinely, rarely have a problem with pedestrians sharing the route. A bell is absolutely essential as is a smile and "Thank You" whenever people move over. I am averaging less than an hour for the 14 miles and I *could* go faster, and I do know of an alternate fast A road route but the commute (for me) is not just about how fast, it's about winding down or waking up.

The quieter routes make this possible and I for one prefer them

This is the commute by the way: www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=8860

(awaits slagging for almost flat ride )

Whereas, in a city, it can be a whole lot worse. I could take the Water of Leith Walkway and the Union Canal to within about 1/2 mile of my office. It would be hell. Its very well used by people walking to work, people cycling unfeasibly slowly, walking dogs etc. Thats fine, but its certainly not suitable for getting anywhere in a hurry.

Kieran_Burns

Except AT - I DO cycle into a City and right through the middle of it.

It's just that Derby has good cycle lanes available, and some good drivers. Plus I've found the quiet road variations that allow me to get through with minimal fuss

always_tyred

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Except AT - I DO cycle into a City and right through the middle of it.

It's just that Derby has good cycle lanes available, and some good drivers. Plus I've found the quiet road variations that allow me to get through with minimal fuss

Derby is pretty small, but in any case, the model of cycleroutes of that type doesn't work everywhere, or for everyone.

jimmypippa

A few better and simpler ideas would be to give cyclists on cycle tracks (and pedestrians) similar rights of way at T-junctions as traffic.

In other words, if a road has a pavement or a cycle track running parallel to it and another road joins it at the "T" then just as traffic on the main road have priority, *traffic* on foot or unpowered, on the parallel routes would also have priority.

Many cyclist dismount signs could then be rendered obsolete

It would also remove any uncertainties in priority as in this tragedy:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/jason-macintyre-death-driver-speaks-14093

Whether or not MacIntyre was using the cycle path is likely to prove central to the investigation into his death. Riders using the path do not have priority over vehicles turning into or exiting the depot - 'Give Way' markings make this clear. A cyclist on the road, however, would - like all other traffic - have priority over on-coming vehicles seeking to turn right.

If we want a lower-carbon transport network, we need to tilt the balance so the car becomes the default less frequently. Wlaking and cycling should both be encouraged, and a little tinkering with the highway code could help, at little cost.

skyd0g

IMHO One of the key areas that lets the UK transport network down is the poor rail system. If this could be improved, then potentially a whole chunk of road vehicles could be removed from the road.

One of the areas touched on in the report was cycle storage facilities at train stations being woefully inadequate. Agreed - there is no way I would currently consider leaving anything but a wrecker of a bike at a rail station for any length of time. Even then, I would be suprised if it was (all) still there on my return.

A potential area not mentioned is the facility to take your bike on the train. I'm sure there are many commuters who not only live a cycle-rides distance away from their local station, but also are a cycle-rides distance away from the nearest station to their place of work. If this facility was made available, I'm sure many more people would consider this option. I would also think that people would also use this option for leisure-rides out to the coast/country.

A greater (subsidised?) use of the rail network for freight. When was the last time you saw a goods wagon (other than on an old Hornby train set)?

AndyManc

skyd0g wrote:

IMHO One of the key areas that lets the UK transport network down is the poor rail system. If this could be improved, then potentially a whole chunk of road vehicles could be removed from the road.

One of the areas touched on in the report was cycle storage facilities at train stations being woefully inadequate. Agreed

I don't think anyone would disagree, of course, it wasn't always the case.

The railways were decimated in the 60's , 50% of the track was removed and 3000 stations closed, all because a few ministers had their grabbing fingers in the road building industry.

If there was the political will , the situation could be reversed, railways aren't cheap to operate, but there are ways to raise revenue, start taxing aircraft fuel for one, take the utilities (gas,water,electric) back into public ownership and stop a few individuals taking the profits they make through shares dividends.

Have a 'windfall' tax on company's like Tesco that are raking in billions.

A transport infrastructure that prioritises rail and cycling is the dream ticket.

There's no excuse for not having secure cycle facilities at rail stations and inner city area's, parking covered by CCTV is cheap and simple, then all car parks should have a secure parking system for bikes, and the car park being liable for any losses/damage.

Change can (and should) happen ..... why isn't it?




.

sarajoy

AndyManc wrote:

The railways were decimated in the 60's , 50% of the track was removed and 3000 stations closed, all because a few ministers had their grabbing fingers in the road building industry.

If there was the political will , the situation could be reversed, railways aren't cheap to operate, but there are ways to raise revenue, start taxing aircraft fuel for one, take the utilities (gas,water,electric) back into public ownership and stop a few individuals taking the profits they make through shares dividends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8099912.stm

It isn't much, but it's a start, if it goes ahead. Damn you, Beeching! /me shakes fist :evil:

Kieran_Burns

Well - the Beeching cuts DID give us some great cycle ways as well don't forget

mikeyboy12345

skyd0g wrote:

A potential area not mentioned is the facility to take your bike on the train.

A greater (subsidised?) use of the rail network for freight. When was the last time you saw a goods wagon (other than on an old Hornby train set)?

Bikes on trains ain't practical anymore; rather than have a goods van like the old days the space is now filled with seats. On most of the local trains I've seen nr Southampton/Portsmouth, most trains only have space for 3 bikes. I've seen a chap actually prevented by the train guard from boarding with his bike due to lack of space! A lot of trains run only 1 per hour, so you're never sure whether you'll be allowed on.

Rail freight: I've lost the stats on this, but working for a transport firm (road haulage!) outside Southampton docks I see plenty of freight trains (and plenty IS subsidised for firms like Freightliner). Containers, aggregates wagons, oil tankers. A helluva lot of freight is railed at night, but then you need a truck to deliver the goods from the railhead to the local shops/warehouses/distribution centres. I guess it's not practical to have a railhead and marshalling yard in every UK town.

skyd0g

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

skyd0g wrote:

A potential area not mentioned is the facility to take your bike on the train.

A greater (subsidised?) use of the rail network for freight. When was the last time you saw a goods wagon (other than on an old Hornby train set)?

Bikes on trains ain't practical anymore; rather than have a goods van like the old days the space is now filled with seats. On most of the local trains I've seen nr Southampton/Portsmouth, most trains only have space for 3 bikes. I've seen a chap actually prevented by the train guard from boarding with his bike due to lack of space! A lot of trains run only 1 per hour, so you're never sure whether you'll be allowed on.

Surely an argument for more trains with more carriages and more bike spaces. 8)

AndyManc

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

Bikes on trains ain't practical anymore;


, but then you need a truck to deliver the goods from the railhead to the local shops/warehouses/distribution centres. I guess it's not practical to have a railhead and marshalling yard in every UK town.

First point .... make them practical (I take mine on them all the time (off peak)) and never had a problem, they once had 'special' cycle trains (converted postal trains) that often catered for cycle clubs throughout the country.

Second point ..... as I said earlier, with the political will, distribution points throughout the UK will take many of the massive HGV's off the roads, smaller goods vehicles could be used to deliver goods within a 50 mile radius.

It needs finance and planning and an expansion of the railway, but it could be done.



.

chuckcork

I think something more insidious is the provision of poor quality cycle facilities that cyclists don't want to use whether they're poorly designed/maintained/located/enforced, which leaves the politicians and public servants responsible for the bad situation saying they've done something (that is really nothing), while not encouraging any actual activity and giving motorists something to moan about e.g. wasted tax dollars and why can't those bl**dy cyclists use those cr@p cycles lanes their taxes have paid for?

[/rant]

Personally I use my bike for any and all short journeys, only if it isn't a realistic option will I use the car. I don't get enough cycling as it is, can't be Rsed to walk, getting parking can take longer than cycling etc, so why ever not if I'm popping out for a paper or a load of bread?

mikeyboy12345

AndyManc wrote:

distribution points throughout the UK will take many of the massive HGV's off the roads, smaller goods vehicles could be used to deliver goods within a 50 mile radius.

It needs finance and planning and an expansion of the railway, but it could be done.
.

Well, it could be done at the mo, cuz everyday my company rails 40ft containers to Birmingham, Daventry, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds (and elsewhere). A lot of places are within 50 miles of these railheads (or the original Port of Arrival) and it's cheaper to use one HGV than to de-van the cargo in a warehouse and then employ 10 7.5t trucks to deliver the same load!

I reckon all that would happen is that we'd all pay substantially more for EVERYTHING. And as a cyclist I'd rather have to avoid one HGV than 10 times as many smaller trucks. It doesn't need political will, it's market forces that prevent it. Might solve the UK's unemployment problem though!!

laughingboy

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

Well, it could be done at the mo, cuz everyday my company rails 40ft containers to Birmingham, Daventry, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds (and elsewhere). A lot of places are within 50 miles of these railheads (or the original Port of Arrival) and it's cheaper to use one HGV than to de-van the cargo in a warehouse and then employ 10 7.5t trucks to deliver the same load!

I reckon all that would happen is that we'd all pay substantially more for EVERYTHING. And as a cyclist I'd rather have to avoid one HGV than 10 times as many smaller trucks. It doesn't need political will, it's market forces that prevent it. Might solve the UK's unemployment problem though!!

Good post. I'd say that you have described the situation perfectly: it is all about market forces. But it is a very distorted market. One could argue that the the odds are stacked against rail freight, because hauliers are effectively subsidised by public money - they use motorways that cost up to £1000 per inch :shock: to build.

Rail freight is also subsidised. So the public is paying one way or another. But the numbers aren't easy to find to run a comparison of cost/benefit. For instance, it would be good to know how much Road tax and fuel duty the HGVs contribute to the public purse. How much UK tax is paid by haulage firms in general, and so on.

Anyway, given the enormous cost of roadbuilding, I think that it is reasonable to consider if the public would be better off with more haulage being carried out by rail.

I am not an economist. The effect of moving freight traffic onto rail is complex (the cost of goods may rise, inflation may rise, jobs might be created in freight, but this might be countered by the inflation, etc.) but on quality of life and environmental grounds, I'd like to see the hauliers to pay more for their effect on quality of life and the environment. I'd like to see them pay more for their use of (and wear and tear of) public roads. The question is, how can this be achieved? Tax Eddie Stobart unfairly, and Willi Betz takes up the slack. Result? Fewer British jobs and less UK tax revenue.

On one point I am certain: fewer HGVs would mean fewer cycling fatalities (even if some of them are caused by undertaking cyclists).

skyd0g

One of the problems with the UK is that it's a small, over-crowded Island that has evolved to be how it is over many centuries. Together with a road transport infrastructure that is more suited to the horse & cart than modern day transport.

The UK simply does not have the same amount of free space that other countries have available. Therefore it cannot possibly have three-lane carriageways in each direction (such as New York, Paris etc.) As a result, all of the road traffic - HGV's, vans, buses, cars, motorbikes and bikes are shoe-horned to compete with one-another in whatever little space is left available.

Unfortunately, this puts cyclists at the nadir of the pecking-order.

thelawnet

iclestu wrote:

Hmmm - mixed news here.

I dont have too many miles under my belt and if an experienced bod wants to jump in and tell me that I am wrong (and why!) then I may stand corrected but here are my views:

If he really wants to encourage cycling as a means of transport then he needs to be careful about placing too much emphasis on the work of Sustrans and Cycle England both of which (most especialy the former) encourage cycling as a recreational activity rather than an actual means of transport.

As I understand it Sustrans and Cycle England promote the use of, create and maintain cycle paths, yes?

Are these really a viable network for bikes to be using as a means of transport? let me explain what I mean....

Don't get me wrong, I loved pootling along a cyclepath for an hour or 2 this afternoon. It is a magnificent facility, but IMHO it is a purely recreational facility. I simply would not have time to travel the 13 miles I need to go to get to work on one of these paths.
.

But they say that

" two in five of all journeys are under two miles so are in many cases well-suited to being undertaken by bike"

The difference between 10mph and 20mph is not particularly significant when it comes to sub-two-mile journeys.

Presumably these journeys are disproportionately urban (i.e. congestion-causing), and therefore good targets.

As a digression, we did 22 miles today, my 7-year-old, the wife and I, Woking to the playground in Windsor Great Park and back again.

The each-way distance was

1 mile on residential roads
2.5 miles on quiet country roads

6 miles on bridleway (track and paved)
1.5 miles on pavement shared as cycle path

We could have driven there, but thanks to public money invested in producing cycle maps for Surrey, I was able to determine that we could follow a child-friendly route to get where we were going, and we went by bicyle instead.

Sometimes it's just a question of better utilising what already exists.To get from Woking to Guildford, you can follow the A320, which is a fast, busy road, but there are back routes, which for a car would be significantly slower due to passing through small villages along the way, but by bicycle is only 0.4 miles longer and is just as fast as the main road, being a proper minor road. They've stuck up lots of blue signs and designated routes, such as the mile through the park as numbered cycle routes.

They haven't actually created any new infrastructure, but what they have done is signposted what's already there, which encourages people to get out and use it.

And when you get to the outskirts of Guildford, having followed the country lanes, they've given people permission to ride on the pavement for the last bit where there's no alternative route (other than the main road). Yes, it might be slow, but it's not intimidating for novices, and it enables them to get from A to B without fear of death. A proper segregated cycle highway would be nice, of course, but the Sustrans-type stuff is a great start. It's quite empowering for people to learn that actually they can go a long way without worrying about being run over.

Aidy

What on earth does "the Cinderella of transport" mean?

Do our bikes turn into pumpkins at midnight?
Does anyone have SPD-compatible glass slippers?

attica

I just thought I'd add this quote from a recent e-mail response to a question aimed at First Great Western, the answer is probably a stock answer as it doesn't address the original question, however it does demonstrate that the rail operators need to address both the needs of the cyclist (not just the folding cyclist) at the same time as keeping the trains running.

Surely the extra time could be built into the timetable or perhaps even a quicker way of getting bikes onto trains could be devised (bigger doors, access to the rest of the train from the bike compartments? - I'm thinking of the bigger faster trains here), anyway, here's the quote

Dear Mr Armstrong

Thank you for your email of 9 June 2009 regarding cycles on our services. I'd like to explain why we insist on a reservation and other information on the carriage of bicycles.

We keep our cycle policy under review, trying to achieve the best balance for all our customers. We really do want to help cycle owners but the problem we face is that even if there's space on the train, getting cycles on and off can take more time than the scheduled stop. The knock-on effect of even a few extra seconds can build up to serious delays for local and national services, especially at busy times.

This is because these peak time services are very busy and space on the train (for those services where cycles are carried in the carriage) is at a premium. Even where cycles are carried in the guards van they can cause delays to peak time trains. This is because each train has a 'pathway' - a set opportunity to use a specific section of track. If they miss it, they go down the queue and start to get in the way. As the pressure on the rail network increases, train pathways become more and more critical. Even if a train is only slightly late leaving, it can miss its pathway, and what started as a tiny delay can escalate into something surprisingly significant.

So on many services at busy times we have put conditions on the carriage of cycles, or have said we will not take cycles at all. We have set these out in advance to help with journey planning and we encourage our regular commuters to use folding bikes that are welcome on all trains. The full range of times and our cycling leaflet are set out on our website www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk, or you can call us on 08457 000 125 for details. We will be happy to advise you, or post you a copy of the leaflet.

Thank you once again for contacting us and for the opportunity to explain.

Yours sincerely

Cassie Dunton
Customer Services Advisor

Agent57

I just hope it never becomes mandatory to use cycle-specific routes where provided. That would be awful. Particularly the "shared use" ones which use pavements.

On the subject of trains, I must admit I've been put off taking my bike on journeys because I know I might turn up at the platform and be refused entry. The Inter City trains (or whatever they call them now) which operate on the west coast line can only take up to two bikes, I recall reading. 20 years ago it wasn't a problem. I'd just rock up and stick my bike in the guard's van; usually I'd stay with my bike as well.

Lancaster station does have some secure bike lockers, but they are quite limited in number (fewer than 20, IIRC), and they have to be rented from the Council in advance I believe, so it's not possible to just turn up and use one "on the day". Not long ago, I was commuting to Blackburn which involved a 30 minute walk to the station. I could have done that in 8 minutes by bike, but there wasn't anywhere at the station that I felt I could safely leave my bike all day. Still, at least I didn't resort to using a car to get to the station.

Roastie

I just finished reading a book covering this subject called Car Sick by Lynn Sloman. Well worth picking up for a read - very interesting.

mattybain

AndyManc wrote:

Manchester council recently made a statement, something to the effect of " Main roads into the city centre are too dangerous for cycling, therefore they would be building cycle lanes in the back lanes of the city ".

Clearly that attitude is not acceptable, once again placing cyclists as second class road users that don't care how much time it takes to get from A to B. :evil:

.

Just out of interest where did you see this quote? I can't find it via google and would be interested in understanding exactly what they were trying to say.

chuckcork

Attica wrote:

I just thought I'd add this quote from a recent e-mail response to a question aimed at First Great Western, the answer is probably a stock answer as it doesn't address the original question, however it does demonstrate that the rail operators need to address both the needs of the cyclist (not just the folding cyclist) at the same time as keeping the trains running.

Surely the extra time could be built into the timetable or perhaps even a quicker way of getting bikes onto trains could be devised (bigger doors, access to the rest of the train from the bike compartments? - I'm thinking of the bigger faster trains here), anyway, here's the quote

Dear Mr Armstrong

Thank you for your email of 9 June 2009 regarding cycles on our services. I'd like to explain why we insist on a reservation and other information on the carriage of bicycles.

We keep our cycle policy under review, trying to achieve the best balance for all our customers. We really do want to help cycle owners but the problem we face is that even if there's space on the train, getting cycles on and off can take more time than the scheduled stop. The knock-on effect of even a few extra seconds can build up to serious delays for local and national services, especially at busy times.

This is because these peak time services are very busy and space on the train (for those services where cycles are carried in the carriage) is at a premium. Even where cycles are carried in the guards van they can cause delays to peak time trains. This is because each train has a 'pathway' - a set opportunity to use a specific section of track. If they miss it, they go down the queue and start to get in the way. As the pressure on the rail network increases, train pathways become more and more critical. Even if a train is only slightly late leaving, it can miss its pathway, and what started as a tiny delay can escalate into something surprisingly significant.

So on many services at busy times we have put conditions on the carriage of cycles, or have said we will not take cycles at all. We have set these out in advance to help with journey planning and we encourage our regular commuters to use folding bikes that are welcome on all trains. The full range of times and our cycling leaflet are set out on our website www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk, or you can call us on 08457 000 125 for details. We will be happy to advise you, or post you a copy of the leaflet.

Thank you once again for contacting us and for the opportunity to explain.

Yours sincerely

Cassie Dunton
Customer Services Advisor

Presumably elderly passengers with large, heavy luggage; those travelling with luggage and young children and/or strollers never, ever slow down the process of getting on/off their trains, and hence problems with trains slotting into their place on the network?

A damned nuisance passengers, the railway would be run more efficently without them!

:roll:

Rockbuddy

thelawnet wrote:

As a digression, we did 22 miles today, my 7-year-old, the wife and I, Woking to the playground in Windsor Great Park and back again.

Your 7-year-old did a 22mile bike ride!? That's impressive, I'm sure I was in my teens before I was doing that kind of distance...

roger_merriman

Rockbuddy wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

As a digression, we did 22 miles today, my 7-year-old, the wife and I, Woking to the playground in Windsor Great Park and back again.

Your 7-year-old did a 22mile bike ride!? That's impressive, I'm sure I was in my teens before I was doing that kind of distance...

there where some small kids on the Capital to Coast probably 'only' 30 miles so quite possible...

Rockbuddy

roger merriman wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

As a digression, we did 22 miles today, my 7-year-old, the wife and I, Woking to the playground in Windsor Great Park and back again.

Your 7-year-old did a 22mile bike ride!? That's impressive, I'm sure I was in my teens before I was doing that kind of distance...

there where some small kids on the Capital to Coast probably 'only' 30 miles so quite possible...

Not doubting the guy just impressive is all...

Agent57

Rockbuddy wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

As a digression, we did 22 miles today, my 7-year-old, the wife and I, Woking to the playground in Windsor Great Park and back again.

Your 7-year-old did a 22mile bike ride!? That's impressive, I'm sure I was in my teens before I was doing that kind of distance...

A couple of months or so ago, I was repairing a puncture when a bloke and a young lad stopped to ask if I needed any assistance. I didn't, but we had a bit of a chat. The boy looked about 10, and it turned out they'd ridden from Manchester - some 60 miles away. And they still had about 12 miles to their destination of Silverdale. OK, it had probably taken them most of the day (it was about 6pm), but I was still impressed at the distance the young guy had covered. I've only ever done 60 miles once (the same day, as it happened).

AndyManc

mattybain wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Manchester council recently made a statement, something to the effect of " Main roads into the city centre are too dangerous for cycling, therefore they would be building cycle lanes in the back lanes of the city ".

Clearly that attitude is not acceptable, once again placing cyclists as second class road users that don't care how much time it takes to get from A to B. :evil:

.

Just out of interest where did you see this quote? I can't find it via google and would be interested in understanding exactly what they were trying to say.

I think I received it from GMCC (Greater Manchester Cycle Campaign) in a policy statement from Manchester council or it may have been from an internal memo.

I'll see if I can find it, but don't hold your breath.


.