segregated cycling paths/routes

Porgy

I don't see that more segregated facilities and more cyclists using the road are mutually exclusive.

It should help form a strategy of getting more people on their bikes and building up their confidence, and eventually they too will want to leave the cycle lanes behind and join the rest of us on the road.

Overall, decent cycle lanes should increase the number of cyclists on the road. But as campaigners we must ensure we keep the right to cycle on the road and ensure that facilties come up to a decent standard...and that's why I'm in the LCC.

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen666 - what are your views on parents cycling with children? Should they be taking them on busy roads or do cyclepaths have their place for them?

Cyclists are traffic.

Even when it's a 3 year-old and we need to go along a dual carriageway? A risk too far I'm afraid, have you ever tried cycling with a young child?

All cyclists are not the same - try to take a broader view of the problem.

I do take a broader view - that is why I would not take a 3 year old on a dual carriageway- but that is no reason to selfishly call for all cyclists to be made unwelcome on roads.

I don't allow a 3 year old to play with matches, but that dopesn't mean I campaign to make it so no one can use matches

I didn't take my 3-year-old on the dual carriageway; I used the very handy dual-use path that allowed me to avoid it. Had it not been there I would have had to drive - one less cyclist, one more car. How am I being selfish?

Do cyclists who transport their children around not have a voice in your world?

beverick

sirmy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

sirmy wrote:

Ok then lets see if you can manage to disagree with this (followed the link from Copenhagenize) http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i7wf.html!

And if you actually read to the end you would see that I advocate an increase in the amount of training available for adults. As for you dsmissing the use of off road facilities by less cofident riders, I just hope to god that you are never involved professionally in cycling development because under you the number of rders would fall lie a stone.

PEOPLE NEED ENCOURAGEMENT NOT TOLD TO GO AND PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC

And of course treating the symptoms is often the first step in treating the disease

Treating the symptom becomes the means in the end and the cause of the symptoms is not tackled.




Wake up and smell the coffee.

It already happens now that people tell you that you should be using the cyclepath when you ride on the road- build more cyclepaths and this problem just increases.

Make the roads safer to use and there is no need for seperate parallel off road cycle paths.

Don't know what you're smelling but I can tell you one last time (I'm not playing with you any more, you're a nutter)

YOU ARE WRONG!

You're going to lose but I'll enjoy watching you trying to win.....

Bob

Tom Butcher

For me this one is an argument with valid points on both sides. II welcome away from road cycle facilities - I'm talking about paths that do not run alongside the road - often built on old railway lines or canal routes etc. I would be all in favour of campaigning for those kind of cycle paths.

It's where paths run alongside roads that I think there is a real danger that we would become obliged to use them. In fact did the Highway Code include advice that we should use cycle paths where provided or did the protests prevent that being included ? Now as we all know these paths are not going to be a real alternative to the road for most proficient riders. On the whole then I think Spen is right - an organisation that campaigned specifically for cycle lanes away from the road would be putting our right to use the road at risk. At the very least these lanes would narrow the road and as we've seen in Derby where they've squeezed bus lanes into existing roads - narrow lanes are not cyclist friendly.

The Chingford Skinhead

I'm not clear how wanting segregated cycling facilities makes cyclists selfish or how having them demeans our status. There are lots of segregated roads in the country - which we all pay for. They are called motorways. As a cyclist I can't use them even though I pay for them. There are also a number of roads that ban certain classes of vehicle either entirely or for periods of time (e.g. HGV/LGVs).

As for the space - if we as a country are serious about reducing co2 ommissions and encouraging a fitter healthier population through, among other things, encouraging more cycling then we need to grasp the nettle and reduce road space for motorists and reclaim it for cyclists and pedestrians. Unfortunately we are heading in the opposite direction. My local borough is about to do some significant remodelling on a nice wide road, which gives cyclists some protection from fast moving traffic. No, it isn't going to provide a segragated facility, it is going to narrow the road and allow parking on both sides. In order to do this it needs more space. Ah look - a nice pavement. Cycle lanes will be introduced but with no door barrier. Result - less space and safety for cyclists, less space and safety for pedestrians. More parking space for car drivers. Sorry, but dutch cities have limited space too but they have got the priority right.

cedargreen

So the road is fine as it is- nice and wide. And in order to put in a cycle lane, the road will be narrower. This happened last year near me- now the road is narrower with little room for cyclists and there is a sub-standard cycle lane along the pavement. I think you've just presented a very clear argument against cycle lanes- segregated or not which inevitably lead to cyclists being expected to use them no-matter how bad they are.

I see no evidence that traffic engineers in Britain are capable of designing good quality cycle facilities, and even if they ever do it will only be a partial solution because there will aways be places where it is necessary to ride with the traffic. The real solution to making cycling safer lies in better driver training/ awareness, better policing and stiffer penalties for drivers who endanger vulnerable road users.

The Chingford Skinhead

cedargreen wrote:

So the road is fine as it is- nice and wide. And in order to put in a cycle lane, the road will be narrower. This happened last year near me- now the road is narrower with little room for cyclists and there is a sub-standard cycle lane along the pavement. I think you've just presented a very clear argument against cycle lanes- segregated or not which inevitably lead to cyclists being expected to use them no-matter how bad they are.

I see no evidence that traffic engineers in Britain are capable of designing good quality cycle facilities, and even if they ever do it will only be a partial solution because there will aways be places where it is necessary to ride with the traffic. The real solution to making cycling safer lies in better driver training/ awareness, better policing and stiffer penalties for drivers who endanger vulnerable road users.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. The road is wide. If you painted in cycle lanes or even put in segregated lanes you would still have the same amount of space. What is different is that the council are putting in half pavement half road parking bays on both sides of the road and a central reservation to narrow the road as it apparently reduces speeding. If you widened the pavement or put in a wide segregated cycle lane then you could narrow the road without making the environment worse for cyclists or walkers. Instead on street parking is the priority. The cycle lane will be a maximum 1.5m with no door buffer zone from the new line of parked cars (currently no parking at all).

spen666

[quote="The Chingford Skinhead "...
As for the space - if we as a country are serious about reducing co2 ommissions and encouraging a fitter healthier population through, among other things, encouraging more cycling then we need to grasp the nettle and reduce road space for motorists and reclaim it for cyclists and pedestrians. Unfortunately we are heading in the opposite direction.



[/quote] Firstly I agree with encouraging cycling.


However, removing cyclists from the road to segregated facilities is not the way forward for several reasons.
This approach reduces our right to be on the roads in the eyes of motorists. This is so not just where there are cycling facilities but everywhere. Thus you increase the antagonism motorists have towards cyclists on the road, thus making it more unpleasant for cyclists using roads.

Secondly, you are only treating the symptoms of the problem by building segregated facilities. Such facilities do nothing to improve driving standards around cyclists. In fact they encourage the oposite. They encourage motorists to see cyclists using the road asa nuisance.

We need to trweat the cause, not the symptom. We need to improve road safety, not remove cyclists from the road

My local borough is about to do some significant remodelling on a nice wide road, which gives cyclists some protection from fast moving traffic. No, it isn't going to provide a segragated facility, it is going to narrow the road and allow parking on both sides. In order to do this it needs more space. Ah look - a nice pavement. Cycle lanes will be introduced but with no door barrier. Result - less space and safety for cyclists, less space and safety for pedestrians. More parking space for car drivers. Sorry, but dutch cities have limited space too but they have got the priority right.

shouldbeinbed

I don't think we need to give motorists any more reason to throw the equally misguided arguments of 'pay up to use the road' or 'roads are for cars not cycles' and I think that having segregated cyclepaths will give rise to far more accusations of both.

The motorist will lim to be be paying for our cyclepaths (igoring the fact that cyclists pay for motorways too) and as we've got our own special routes we should not be using the roads as well.
not to mention that many cyclepaths are frankly crap. subjugating us below motorists, taking us out of our way, randomly stopping and starting and invariably havens for puncture inducing debris. I've also seen cars mounted on the kerbs segregating paths at the side of the road just to park on them, completely blocking even segregated lanes - we can't win. (Alan Turing Way in Manchester FWIW)

life will be worse not better for cyclists with more segregation.

again FWIW my views on parenting ad bikes

I'm a dad of 3 and have brought mine up responsibly in their cycling, allowing them more leeway and bigger roads as they became safe to be there, it did inconvenience me on occasions but thats what being a responsible parent is about, if you couldn't go to the shopping center or had to use a different transport method cos of your 3 year old, so what? it's not like it'll be forever
I wouldn't send my 19yo son (brand new driver) onto a motorway ghtr now either. The argument that it's one more car is a bit feeble as its only one journey of choice and is totally unsuitable for your travelling companion of choice.

How will kids ever get to be confident around cars and learn roadcraft if not by using roads, at an appropriate level for their experience on the bike. Learner drivers are carefully supervised and only able to access certain parts of the road network until qualified and deemed safe to do so. If their destination is at the end of something that they can't handle then tough they have to find an alternative route or method of getting there. Maybe they should they get special trainer roads.

I'd rather see money spent on bike routes for leisure purposes and fight to give cyclists/pedestrians equal safety and rights on the regualr roads than erode our already much abused and maligned equal right to be there.

simple_salmon

Shouldbeinbed - I do allow my children to ride on the road with me in appropriate areas just as you suggest - to allow them to learn roadcraft.

However, your argument about not being able to take my 3-year-old shopping by bike 'not being forever' is nonsense. If we are serious about getting more people to use bikes on a daily basis then we need to encourage parents that they can take children shopping by bike as a matter of daily business and although my lad won't always be 3 there will be others around forever.

To state my argument again - there are different types of cyclists and we should be encouraging them all; some will be happy on the roads and some should not so we should provide for both. The ideas are not IMHO mutually exclusive, having some people off-road does not need to be an argument for having everyone off-road so long as drivers are educated properly.

Worth remembering that most of us drive too - drivers aren't some alien species it's just that some (as in all walks of life including cycling) are better people than others.

Porgy

simple_salmon wrote:

Shouldbeinbed - I do allow my children to ride on the road with me in appropriate areas just as you suggest - to allow them to learn roadcraft.

However, your argument about not being able to take my 3-year-old shopping by bike 'not being forever' is nonsense. If we are serious about getting more people to use bikes on a daily basis then we need to encourage parents that they can take children shopping by bike as a matter of daily business and although my lad won't always be 3 there will be others around forever.

To state my argument again - there are different types of cyclists and we should be encouraging them all; some will be happy on the roads and some should not so we should provide for both. The ideas are not IMHO mutually exclusive, having some people off-road does not need to be an argument for having everyone off-road so long as drivers are educated properly.

Worth remembering that most of us drive too - drivers aren't some alien species it's just that some (as in all walks of life including cycling) are better people than others.

There's no point me posting other than to say +1

shouldbeinbed

simple_salmon wrote:

Shouldbeinbed - I do allow my children to ride on the road with me in appropriate areas just as you suggest - to allow them to learn roadcraft.

However, your argument about not being able to take my 3-year-old shopping by bike 'not being forever' is nonsense. If we are serious about getting more people to use bikes on a daily basis then we need to encourage parents that they can take children shopping by bike as a matter of daily business and although my lad won't always be 3 there will be others around forever.

To state my argument again - there are different types of cyclists and we should be encouraging them all; some will be happy on the roads and some should not so we should provide for both. The ideas are not IMHO mutually exclusive, having some people off-road does not need to be an argument for having everyone off-road so long as drivers are educated properly.

Worth remembering that most of us drive too - drivers aren't some alien species it's just that some (as in all walks of life including cycling) are better people than others.

I think we're pretty much saying the same thing. particularly here.

I'm a driver too and deplore bad road use from whoever. Even my wife who drives a lot and has never been a cyclist admits she's far more conscious of cyclists through being with me. Driver ( or maybe better to say general road user) education and familiarity are the key and I still maintain that they're not best served by making us seem even more of an alien & unwanted species on the roads with our own special network.

Or maybe its just because the cycle paths round my way are so poorly planned and implemented as to be inconvenient and in places downright dangerous that I've a low opinion of them and wouldn't allow my kids near them.

I spent most of my time carrying my 3 year old's bikes when they got tired or bored, fair play to you if yours is hardier than mine were.

simple_salmon

You and I may be saying similar things but other posters were not. I think to call for all off-road routes to be abolished is wrong BUT to call for bad off-road routes to be improved is a different argument.

I am interested in improving things for all cyclists; the logic of my argument is that more people will cycle regularly if they are provided with what they want and for a proportion of those people it's off-road routes. This benefits all of us because more people cycling equates to fewer cars and more drivers who empathise - thus we all win.

The argument made by Spen666, that driver education is the answer, does not spell out exactly how that education is to be achieved and does not cater for the group of people who are never going to want to ride on the roads no matter what the traffic is like.

I believe that I have provided are workable idea to improve the environment for as many of us as possible whilst others seek only to imrpove what is best for themselves.

PS My 3-year-old is not at all hardy - I was referring to a child seat on my bike not his own

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

You and I may be saying similar things but other posters were not. I think to call for all off-road routes to be abolished is wrong BUT to call for bad off-road routes to be improved is a different argument.

I don't think anyone has made such a call have they?

I am interested in improving things for all cyclists; the logic of my argument is that more people will cycle regularly if they are provided with what they want and for a proportion of those people it's off-road routes. This benefits all of us because more people cycling equates to fewer cars and more drivers who empathise - thus we all win.

The argument made by Spen666, that driver education is the answer, does not spell out exactly how that education is to be achieved and does not cater for the group of people who are never going to want to ride on the roads no matter what the traffic is like.

It wasn't meant to be a detailed analysis- the same criticism can be levelled at you and most people posting here. This is an internet forum, not a detailed action plan.

As for those who don't respond to education etc, that is what we have the criminal justice and licencing systems for

I believe that I have provided are workable idea to improve the environment for as many of us as possible whilst others seek only to imrpove what is best for themselves.

PS My 3-year-old is not at all hardy - I was referring to a child seat on my bike not his own

I disagree with you- your solution aims to make it best for you and your 3 year old and ignores the effect it has on those who use the road

simple_salmon

But my solution does not ignore the effect on those who use the road (I believe) - I also use the road on a daily basis and like you I want to improve things whilst I'm cycling on it. I'm primarily a road cyclst I was just trying to wear a diferent hat for the sake of discussion.

I think where we differ is that you believe that education and policing (criminal justice) are solutions I do not e.g. mobile phone use, drink/drug driving, speeding are still as bad as ever.

I believe that the solution lies in as many people as possible experiencing cycling because it results in fewer cars and more drivers with experience of cyclists. All the evidence I have read whilst working in this field suggests that cycling routes do have a positive impact in the number of people cycling.

Porgy

simple_salmon wrote:

But my solution does not ignore the effect on those who use the road (I believe) - I also use the road on a daily basis and like you I want to improve things whilst I'm cycling on it. I'm primarily a road cyclst I was just trying to wear a diferent hat for the sake of discussion.

I think where we differ is that you believe that education and policing (criminal justice) are solutions I do not e.g. mobile phone use, drink/drug driving, speeding are still as bad as ever.

I believe that the solution lies in as many people as possible experiencing cycling because it results in fewer cars and more drivers with experience of cyclists. All the evidence I have read whilst working in this field suggests that cycling routes do have a positive impact in the number of people cycling.

I don;t wish to be annoying or anything, but +1

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

But my solution does not ignore the effect on those who use the road (I believe) - I also use the road on a daily basis and like you I want to improve things whilst I'm cycling on it. I'm primarily a road cyclst I was just trying to wear a diferent hat for the sake of discussion.

I think where we differ is that you believe that education and policing (criminal justice) are solutions I do not e.g. mobile phone use, drink/drug driving, speeding are still as bad as ever.

you are totally wrong re drink driving. The numbers of people drink driving have fallen massively from what they were say 40 years ago. You will never prevent all criminal acts and I have never suggested otherwise.

You seem to be inventing things to argue against.

The aim is to manage and reduce risks. You will only eliminate the risk by banning the activity[/quote]

I believe that the solution lies in as many people as possible experiencing cycling because it results in fewer cars and more drivers with experience of cyclists. All the evidence I have read whilst working in this field suggests that cycling routes do have a positive impact in the number of people cycling.[/quote]

People experiencing cycling in a sterile and wholly unrealistic environemnt off the road will do nothing to improve how they treat cyclists on the road. Indeed it will only reinforce their wrongly held view that cyclists should not be on the road.

Quite frankly, you claim your solution does not ignore the effect it hasd on cyclists on the road, but that is exactly what it does.

You are treating symptoms not the cause and you are making the lot of cyclists who use the road far worse

It is also a pointless debate as there never will be 100% provision of segregated cycle facilities, and even if there were there would be insuufficient mainrenance/ cleaning of them to make them a realistic option.

Work to improve the standing of cyclists as traffic, not try to reduce their position as part of the traffic. We need to be respected as part of the traffic, not forced off the road

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

you are totally wrong re drink driving. The numbers of people drink driving have fallen massively from what they were say 40 years ago.

The figures have been rising sonce the early 90s and there is the added and probably not very understood problem of increasing numbers of people driving on drugs to contend with now.

The early success of tackling the problem in the 70s came through instilling a sense of social responsiblity in people - itr became socially unacceptable to drink and drive. It seems this effect is now wearing off - probably due to younger people who were not subject to the soical pressure not to drink drive around in the 1980s.

simple_salmon

I will inform all those working in sustainable transport that their ideas are wrong, that the evidence of modal shift they have is flawed and that driver education is the way forward.

We shall base our new ideas on the examples shown by the clampdown on other poor driver behaviours e.g. mobile phone use, whereby driver education, criminal justice and licencing systems have been so successful.

Thanks for all your advice, which has been well considered carefully weighing up the pros and cons of each side and taking different types of cyclists views into account.

You are a true star and an example to use all of how to produce behaviour change - I thank you.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

People experiencing cycling in a sterile and wholly unrealistic environemnt off the road will do nothing to improve how they treat cyclists on the road. Indeed it will only reinforce their wrongly held view that cyclists should not be on the road.

IME people who start off cycling in safer environments progress to the roads when they become more confident and proficient at cycling.

But if you don;t have the safer environment for beginners, then a few years down the line you're going to have far fewer cyclists on the road than you would have done if you'd had a network of safe places to cycle.

Seems obvious to me.

simple_salmon

You're wasting your time Porgy...Spen says that's wrong - good enough for me.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

You're wasting your time Porgy...Spen says that's wrong - good enough for me.

once again you are inventing things to argue against.

i have never said there should not be safe places to cycle orr to learn to cycle.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

you are totally wrong re drink driving. The numbers of people drink driving have fallen massively from what they were say 40 years ago.

The figures have been rising sonce the early 90s and there is the added and probably not very understood problem of increasing numbers of people driving on drugs to contend with now.

Your source for such figures is? ( I'm not disagreeing, just want to see the figures and understand them)

however, to give a true comparison of whether legislation works, you need to compare the figures from the time before the legislation came in/ its first introduction with the figures now, not select partial periods that support your argument. That is an abuse of statistics

The early success of tackling the problem in the 70s came through instilling a sense of social responsiblity in people - itr became socially unacceptable to drink and drive. It seems this effect is now wearing off - probably due to younger people who were not subject to the soical pressure not to drink drive around in the 1980s.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

you are totally wrong re drink driving. The numbers of people drink driving have fallen massively from what they were say 40 years ago.

The figures have been rising sonce the early 90s and there is the added and probably not very understood problem of increasing numbers of people driving on drugs to contend with now.

Your source for such figures is? ( I'm not disagreeing, just want to see the figures and understand them)

It was the National Statistics website - the government's own stats i believe - I googled so i'm sure you can do the same

however, to give a true comparison of whether legislation works, you need to compare the figures from the time before the legislation came in/ its first introduction with the figures now, not select partial periods that support your argument. That is an abuse of statistics

the figures i saw covered the 80s through to 2000 - i coul'dn't find anything more comprehensive, but as the current law stems from 1988, by your critieria that should be fine.

I think the earlier drink driving law goes back to times when the majority of people didn;t drive - so i doubt you could really tell much from gouing back to before there was any legislation.

Simnilarly things have changed in the 90s onwards in that many more young people now drive - so obviously drink driving offences among the young have gone up dramatically.

i also read some background just to check i wasn;t talking absolute cra.p.

But - I deliberately didn;t go into detail or try to turn this thread into a drink driving thread - it'd be off-topic. Just pointing out that things might not be as you believe.

IME - for nearly 20 years now the situation wrt drink driving hasn't changed much - came old debate - same law - same level of policing - but it continues to go up.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

the figures i saw covered the 80s through to 2000 - i coul'dn't find anything more comprehensive, but as the current law stems from 1988, by your critieria that should be fine.

I think the earlier drink driving law goes back to times when the majority of people didn;t drive - so i doubt you could really tell much from gouing back to before there was any legislation.

You are confused re the law here.

The Excess alcohol offence as enforced by the breathalyser goes back to the 1960s. This is the offence most people get done for.

The 1988 legislation did not do much more than consolidate the law on this point. The comparison to be accurate needs to go back to the time of the introduction of the breathalyser

As I said in my earlier post, the use of figures from selective periods distorts a true comparison of the lawe. you are seeking to compare the figueres from 2 perioods when the legisdlation is in force

Simnilarly things have changed in the 90s onwards in that many more young people now drive - so obviously drink driving offences among the young have gone up dramatically.

i also read some background just to check i wasn;t talking absolute cra.p.

But - I deliberately didn;t go into detail or try to turn this thread into a drink driving thread - it'd be off-topic. Just pointing out that things might not be as you believe.

IME - for nearly 20 years now the situation wrt drink driving hasn't changed much - came old debate - same law - same level of policing - but it continues to go up.

The situation may not have changed much in the last 20 years, but the point I challeneged was that legislation is not a tool that helps change behaviour. It cannot be realistically disputed that less drivers as a proportion of total drink now than prior to the breathalyser legislation

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

The situation may not have changed much in the last 20 years, but the point I challeneged was that legislation is not a tool that helps change behaviour. It cannot be realistically disputed that less drivers as a proportion of total drink now than prior to the breathalyser legislation

who's been googling then? sorry - but i've got better things to do at the weekend.

But I will say this - even if what you assume is true, there's lots of potential reasons for it - society has changed almost out of recognition since the 1960s, and unless you can find evidence for your contention - it'll be difficult to continue this discussion won't it?

simple_salmon

Spen, I'm not inventing things to argue against, I'm using what academics would term 'an evidence based approach' to behaviour change i.e. look at how things such as changes to the law have affected behaviours such as (in the case mentioned) mobile phone use to see whether lessons can be learned regarding the best aproach to alter other undesirable driver behaviours e.g. attitude toward cyclists.

I have given my arguments in support of some traffic free routes which I feel would help promote cycling among certain population groups e.g. parents with children, safe routes to school, and adults who don't want to cycle among the traffic.

All you do is deconstruct my points line by line in your lawyer manner to try to weaken my argument. Unless you're actually going to offer something positive to this discussion that we can actually discuss the pros and cons of rather than just criticise my points then I don't think we can go any further.

Please tell me your plans for improving cycling in this country for all types of cyclists.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen, I'm not inventing things to argue against,
I'm using what academics would term 'an evidence based approach' to behaviour change i.e. look at how things such as changes to the law have affected behaviours such as (in the case mentioned) mobile phone use to see whether lessons can be learned regarding the best aproach to alter other undesirable driver behaviours e.g. attitude toward cyclists.

I have given my arguments in support of some traffic free routes which I feel would help promote cycling among certain population groups e.g. parents with children, safe routes to school, and adults who don't want to cycle among the traffic.

All you do is deconstruct my points line by line in your lawyer manner to try to weaken my argument. Unless you're actually going to offer something positive to this discussion that we can actually discuss the pros and cons of rather than just criticise my points then I don't think we can go any further.

Please tell me your plans for improving cycling in this country for all types of cyclists.

Erm and how am I meant o express my totsal opposition to your views, by pointing out how good they are and praising them.

The reason I deconstruct your views is because I think they are wrong and I disagree with them.

I think your academics may understand that you don't praise and support that which you oppose

As for offering something positive, I think you need to get your head out of the sand and look at what has been posted. I have offered suggestions to treat the CAUSES of the problem, thus providing a long term solution. You however want to treat the symptoms, which does nothing to deal with the causes and will long term increase the problem.

If people are afraid to ride on the roads, then the solution is to make the roads safer.

If you remove people from the roads, they may feel safer on the particular cycle path they have, but they will feel less safe on the roads when they need to use them and are less likely to cycle to other destinations on the road, thus reducuing the number of cyclists on the roads and increasing the wrong perception amongst motorists that roads are for motor vehicles only. Thus you have actually made the long term problem worse, but that's ok because YOU and your 3 year old can cycle to the local shop safely.

The fact that no road cyclist can cycle for leisure or commute safely because of your myopic approach to the issue is irrelevant because you and your 3 year old are ok.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

...

who's been googling then? sorry - but i've got better things to do at the weekend.

I think it was you in your previous post who said they had been googling

simple_salmon

Spen; your answers please for the following groups of people to start / continue to cycle:

Children riding to school whose parent have no wish for them to use any roads no matter how safe they are perceived to be. The current alternative is that they are driven.

Adults riding to work who have no wish to use the roads - in my experience of the 250 or so staff who cycle to work here a sizeable minority would switch to driving if the traffic-free route was removed.

Interesting that you call my approach (a mix of traffic free routes and safer roads) myopic to road cyclists since, as I have stated, I ride on the roads for commuting, leisure and racing pretty much every day.