segregated cycling paths/routes

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

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?

On page 1 you called them abominations; I was just reading between the lines.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

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.

The cause of the problem and the solution is in your first sentence. Its the perceptions of the parents, not the roads that are the problem.So because of the selfish child obsessed parents, road cycling is to be made less pleasant because.

so to let little Jemima cycle the 500 yards to school all road cyclists will have to face even more resentment at their using the road?

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.

As soon as you start to take cycles off the road, you
a) reduce the number of cyclists on the road, marginalising cyclists as road users
b) You increase the number of motorists who think cyclists do not belong on the road.

The reality is that your traffic free routes are no safer at all, you are far more likely to have interactions with pedestrians dogs etc walking across your path, then we come to the question of junctions and the need to stop every 50 ft for a side road or alternatively you are expecting motorists to stop so you can cross their path.

You are living in a fantasy world self centred around you and your 3 year old.

I wouldn't let my 3 yeard old go to the local boozer on a friday night, and would not expect the local boozer to be converted to a children's play area.

Perhaps you need to accept that your 3 year old is too young to be riding on the road. End of matter. There are plenty of places to ride that are safe that do not involve roads without expecting to create new cycle only routes across the nation at f*cking huge expense when there are great routes called roads already in place for those old enough and sensible enough to use them

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

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?

On page 1 you called them abominations; I was just reading between the lines.

ahhh yes, you are inventing things. I have not called for them to be abolished. You are inventing things again.

Calling something an abomination is very different from calling for it to be abolished. Some of us can object to more of something without calling for existing ones to be abolished

simple_salmon

This has very little to do with me and my 3-year-old that was just an example.

Without traffic free routes to school or work many, many people will never be encouraged to try cycling, develop as cyclists and therefore move onto cycling on roads. All the available evidence shows this to be the case - safer routes and better cycle training results in more cyclists; more cyclists = more people cycling on the roads and fewer cars. Fewer cars = safer roads.

I've been putting off saying this but you don't know what you're talking about; the only way to make things better for us all is to take a mixed approach and to LISTEN to what people tell us they want.

Take your head out of your sand of opinion and look around you or actually read some accounts of what has happened in those areas that have indeed taken a mixed approach.

That's me done - feel free to abuse my points as much as you like; I will get back to increasing the numbers of cyclists in Leicester you get back to whatever it is you do.

Cheers
Salmon

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

This has very little to do with me and my 3-year-old that was just an example.

Without traffic free routes to school or work many, many people will never be encouraged to try cycling, develop as cyclists and therefore move onto cycling on roads.

Sadly this only works in your Utopia. Those people who are afraid of cars- remeber your pervious example about parents who wont let their children ride on the road no matter how safe they are- still won't ride on the road.

The down side is that you stoke up the motorists view that cyclists do not belong on the road

All the available evidence shows this to be the case - safer routes and better cycle training results in more cyclists; more cyclists = more people cycling on the roads and fewer cars. Fewer cars = safer roads.

And your "evidence" source for this is?

I've been putting off saying this but you don't know what you're talking about;

Really? Given I cycle 10,000+ miles per annum, am the child welfare officer at one of the most successful child cycling clubs in the country and have children of my own, who are older than 3 now- so have been taught to ride safely on and off road, I think I do know what I am on about.

however, if you want to resort to petty insults, it suggests to me that you have lost the debate. If the best you can do is insult...

the only way to make things better for us all is to take a mixed approach and to LISTEN to what people tell us they want.

And what evidence is there for saying that a mixed approach is what is needed?

Sadly the reality is that building more traffic free routes is not a mixed approach it is an approach that marginalises cyclists from being part of the traffic as they are now.

You fail to realise the consequences of the proposals you make. You also fail to identify where the cost of all these traffic free routes is going to come from and where are you going to put them?

Take your head out of your sand of opinion and look around you or actually read some accounts of what has happened in those areas that have indeed taken a mixed approach.

Erm I have and that is why I have the views I do have. I can see that cyclists are part of the traffic at present, but under your planss will be marginalised in the eyes of other road users.

That's me done - feel free to abuse my points as much as you like; I will get back to increasing the numbers of cyclists in Leicester you get back to whatever it is you do.

Cheers
Salmon

Abuse?

I think you are the person using abuse - such as suggesting I do not know what I am talking about.

But that is par for the course- invent things and accuse others of saying them. Remember my call to remove the traffic free facilities? the call I never made and you wrongly assumed I had made....

simple_salmon

OK I'll bite: saying you don't know what you're talking about is not abuse - as I don't think you're a Travel Planner with access to data and evidence I will claim that you don't know what you're talking about regarding increasing numbers of people cycling, which, to me, equates with making cycling safer.

For all the evidence you could need for everything I have stated please see:

Making Travel Plans Work; Lessons from UK case studies by the DfT.

As we are into stating what others may or may not have said; I am not claiming that introducing traffic free routes is a mixed approach on it's own; I have said that it is one measure amongst others including driver education.

I don't understand your point about parents and children - I can think of many parents who won't want their kids to ride on busy roads whilst they're going to school but will happily let them once they're older and more experienced - this is the sort of progression I'm talking about. Those who don't ride to school are FAR less likely to take it up later in life.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

OK I'll bite: saying you don't know what you're talking about is not abuse - as I don't think you're a Travel Planner with access to data and evidence I will claim that you don't know what you're talking about regarding increasing numbers of people cycling, which, to me, equates with making cycling safer.

Telling someone in a debate that they do not know what they are talking about is not abuse?

Clearly you have little concept of what abuse is if that is really your view?

I do not have to be a travel planner ( whatever one of those is) to know what happens daily on the roads I cycle on and how the provison of traffic free facilities affects the treatment of myself and those I cycle with.

I am presuming uyou are a travel planner with access to all this "data and evidence" even though you hasve failed to provide any data or evidence so far.

What's that, you are not a travel planner? So you know nothing about what you are talking about according to your own definition

For all the evidence you could need for everything I have stated please see:

Making Travel Plans Work; Lessons from UK case studies by the DfT.

As we are into stating what others may or may not have said; I am not claiming that introducing traffic free routes is a mixed approach on it's own; I have said that it is one measure amongst others including driver education.

I don't understand your point about parents and children

Erm.... I think you will find it was YOUR point actually. Hey however, you have repeatedly invented other things that those who disagree with you have allegedly said, so why not now turn things round 180 degrees. You raised the issues of parents not letting their children cycle on roads- not me. If you do not understand your example, then how is anyone else supposed to do so?

- I can think of many parents who won't want their kids to ride on busy roads whilst they're going to school but will happily let them once they're older and more experienced - this is the sort of progression I'm talking about. Those who don't ride to school are FAR less likely to take it up later in life.

There won't be that progression though. You are completely ignoring the point that by providing traffic free facilities, you are increasing the motorists perception that cyclists do not belong on the road, thus making the roads FAR more hostile to cyclists. Removing cyclists from the roads is not the way to increase cycling on the road.

Its as logical as f*cking for virginity

simple_salmon

I gave you the evidence you asked for in the form of a perfectly good reference from the DfT; please read my posts fully before replying - and, yes, I am a Travel Planner.

Please provide your evidence for saying that there won't be any progression from traffic-free routes to riding on the road.

If you actually responded to posts with counter arguments rather than just deconstructing them we might get somewhere.

Also answer my earlier questions:

Your answers please for the following groups of people to start / continue to cycle:

Children riding to school whose parents 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.

If these people stop cycling, motor traffic on the roads increases, which I think makes them more dangerous - if you have a better solution then please let's have it - including your evidence if you have any.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

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

:roll:
nit picking, pedantic, selective, aggravating...



I give up.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

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

:roll:
nit picking, pedantic, selective, aggravating...



I give up.

i agree it is "nit picking, pedantic, selective, aggravating..." to point out that you are wrongly accusing someone of doing what it was you had done

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

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

:roll:
nit picking, pedantic, selective, aggravating...



I give up.

i agree it is "nit picking, pedantic, selective, aggravating..." to point out that you are wrongly accusing someone of doing what it was you had done

:?
i didn't say you were wrong to google - just thought it was amusing that you suddenly had a load of information at your fingertips that you didn;t previously. If you said you'd been googling I wouldn't have given a sh.it. But you made it look like you knew all that stuff all along.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

...If you actually responded to posts with counter arguments rather than just deconstructing them we might get somewhere.

....

Tell you what, you tell me what I am to post and i'll just post that shall i? That will keep you happy will it?


Mean while, in the real world people debate things by expressing their thoughts and views, not by telling other people how to debate something.


So you are a travel planner? You have as a body not exactly succeeded so far have you? In fact I would go so far as suggesting that travel planning is a disaster in this country.

If yourproposals were sound, then they wouldn't be capable of being deconstructed would they? Hmmm - not thought that one through have you?

Porgy

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

[....
:?
i didn't say you were wrong to google - just thought it was amusing that you suddenly had a load of information at your fingertips that you didn;t previously. If you said you'd been googling I wouldn't have given a sh.it. But you made it look like you knew all that stuff all along.

You are adopting the salmon school of debate here.

I have not suggested you have said I was wrong to google anything.

I said you wrongly accused me of googling when it was you who had googled for data.

Try reading the posts. You admit to using google to search then claim you have better things to do than google for data.

i have not googled any data in this thread, nor have I criticised anyone for using google to obtain data

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

[....
:?
i didn't say you were wrong to google - just thought it was amusing that you suddenly had a load of information at your fingertips that you didn;t previously. If you said you'd been googling I wouldn't have given a sh.it. But you made it look like you knew all that stuff all along.

You are adopting the salmon school of debate here.

I have not suggested you have said I was wrong to google anything.

I said you wrongly accused me of googling when it was you who had googled for data.

Try reading the posts. You admit to using google to search then claim you have better things to do than google for data.

i have not googled any data in this thread, nor have I criticised anyone for using google to obtain data

It's you who can't read - I said I had better things to do at the weekend - and I meant better than arguing with a nitpicking pedant who seems to be arguing for argument's sake.

Do you have anything to say apart from just pulling apart the beliefs of others?

spen666

Porgy wrote:

...

It's you who can't read - I said I had better things to do at the weekend - and I meant better than arguing with a nitpicking pedant who seems to be arguing for argument's sake.

Do you have anything to say apart from just pulling apart the beliefs of others?

What you meant and what you typed are different things

Porgy wrote:
...

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

What you wrote is clear- ie that you have better things to do than google at the weekend.

Starange then that the only person who seems to have googled anything is you.

I'm arguing for arguments sake? well lets start by examining the fact that from the outset I put forward my proposalss for improving road safety.

I can't argue without anyone to agrue with can I? So if I am arguing for arguments sake, then you and or slamonm must be as well.

Alternatively, I'm arguing because I strongly disagree with the proposals put forward for segregated cycling facilities as I believe they wil contribute to increased danger to those who cycle on the roads and they represent an unwarranted cost that as a society we can ill afford

simple_salmon

Are you going to answer my questions or not?

Travel planning within the country may well be a disaster but luckily for me I'm not responsible for the whole country.

The Travel Plan I administer has cut driving rates among staff from 60% to <50% whilst cycling is up around 10% so not a complete disaster at all .

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Are you going to answer my questions or not?

....

I answered them pages ago!

You may not have liked the answers, but they are my answers.

So to use the parliamentary practice, "I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave earlier"

simple_salmon

Coincidentally I was going to liken you to a politician as well.

I can't find an answer to my SPECIFIC question regarding those groups of people who wish to cycle on traffic-free routes and for whom the alternative is to use the car.

E.g. children travelling to school and adults with less experience/skill commuting.

If they stop cycling then motorised traffic will increase; how does your plan allow for this?

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

I hope there is no such organisation.

I would oppose such moves.

Segregated paths will lead to cyclists being prevented from using the roads.

I want to ride on the road as has always been the right, so I oppose such an idea

fascinating

entirely selfish though

"I want "

well good for you.

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

Perhaps you need to accept that your 3 year old is too young to be riding on the road. End of matter. There are plenty of places to ride that are safe that do not involve roads without expecting to create new cycle only routes across the nation at f*cking huge expense when there are great routes called roads already in place for those old enough and sensible enough to use them

And for those neither old enough or sensible enough? Are they not allowed to cycle where they need to go in your world?

And all these new roads that are being built because of the increasing number of cars on the roads - are they free?

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

I wouldn't let my 3 yeard old go to the local boozer on a friday night, and would not expect the local boozer to be converted to a children's play area.

Perhaps you need to accept that your 3 year old is too young to be riding on the road. End of matter.

I missed this earlier - shocking really that any cyclist would think like this and equate a healthy and fun pursuit for children such as cycling with an entirely adult and rather dubious, for children, pursuit of drinking alcohol.

Obviously this was used to distract from the need to get children enthused with cycling at an early age, and to get them used to being out and about on their bikes. If children are unable to do this then it means the whole family end up stuck in a car - which is a bizarre thing for a cyclist to be promoting.

And the idea thta this centres around the need for three year olds to cycle is pure BS. How about 4 year olds, 5 year olds, 6 year olds....an so on. What age do you think someone should be on the roads, and at what age do you suddenly become big and brave like you and not afraid of heavy lorries and fast cars?
Even most adults need an easy way in, but no - mr macho and selfish wants the roads to himself becasue he's far too butch to use a cycle lane or admit even that others might prefer to use a cycle lane before they become confident to take to the roads and therby meeting your approval.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Perhaps you need to accept that your 3 year old is too young to be riding on the road. End of matter. There are plenty of places to ride that are safe that do not involve roads without expecting to create new cycle only routes across the nation at f*cking huge expense when there are great routes called roads already in place for those old enough and sensible enough to use them

And for those neither old enough or sensible enough? Are they not allowed to cycle where they need to go in your world?

And all these new roads that are being built because of the increasing number of cars on the roads - are they free?

Need to go?

Your 3 year old does not NEED to cycle to the shops

Your or your 3 year old may WANT them to cycle there - a totally different scenario

simple_salmon

So you have no concept of the fact that I need to go shopping but don't have access to a car?

Why are you fixating on my example of going shopping with my son? I've asked several times about children cycling to school and adult commuters but you seem to be avoiding that question.

I think Porgy sums it up nicely.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

So you have no concept of the fact that I need to go shopping but don't have access to a car?

Why are you fixating on my example of going shopping with my son? I've asked several times about children cycling to school and adult commuters but you seem to be avoiding that question.

I think Porgy sums it up nicely.

You may need to get shopping

However:
1. That does not mean your 3 year old needs to cycle to the shops - there are many potential possible alternatives including: -
a) home delivery shopping
b) walking to the shops
c) taking child in child seat/ trailer bike/ trailer etc
d) taking a taxi
e) arranging lift from friend/ neighbour

You CHOOSE that you want to take your child cycling. That is your choice and one you are entitled to make, but it is a CHOICE, not a need.

simple_salmon

simple_salmon wrote:

I cycle on the roads every day; I like cycling on the roads and I don't want to be prevented from doing so. However, on Monday I wanted to take my young son to our local out-of-town shopping centre about 6 miles away, the local bus route has been scrapped and as it was a lovely day I thought we'd take a bike.

The centre itself is along a very busy dual carriageway; I'd ride it on my own BUT NOT with a 3-year-old on the back.

Thought I'd made those points pretty clear. Aside from walking, which at a 12 mile round trip was not very appealing in the time available, all your other options require putting an additional motorised vehicle on the road.

Personally, as a road cyclist I would prefer to reduce such traffic rather than increase it; of course you may choose otherwise but I don't see how that makes cycling on the roads any easier or safer.

MrChuck

Tom Butcher wrote:

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.

+1
Those wishing for segregated lanes should be careful what they wish for. Aside from reinforcing the already far-too-prevalent view that we are second class citizens on the road, any segregated lane that is realistically ever going to be built is going to suck for any experienced and reasonably fit cyclist using their bikes as serious transport, and that's assuming even the right people are working on it- it's just not practical to do it otherwise.

As for evidence of segregated facilities not making life harder for riders on the roads, if it's from other countries then I'm not sure it's as simple as saying it worked in Sweden/Holland/Wherever so it'll work here- it's about attitude as much as infrastructure.

BTW Tom, I think the Highway Code wording was indeed amended in the end!

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

[....
Personally, as a road cyclist I would prefer to reduce such traffic rather than increase it; of course you may choose otherwise but I don't see how that makes cycling on the roads any easier or safer.

I'm afraid I have not got a clue what you are saying here. Can you explain?

What do you mean by "such traffic" are you referring to road cyclists, motorised traffic or what?

We as cyclists are part of the traffic

simple_salmon

'Such traffic' quite clearly refers to the 'motorised vehicle' mentioned in the line above.

Once again you choose to pick apart how I've said something rather than offer an alternative to what I'm saying.

This is totally pointless, you don't seem to have any valid additions to give to the discussion and have totally ignored the questions I posited.

simple_salmon

MrChuck wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

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.

+1
Those wishing for segregated lanes should be careful what they wish for. Aside from reinforcing the already far-too-prevalent view that we are second class citizens on the road, any segregated lane that is realistically ever going to be built is going to suck for any experienced and reasonably fit cyclist using their bikes as serious transport, and that's assuming even the right people are working on it- it's just not practical to do it otherwise.

As for evidence of segregated facilities not making life harder for riders on the roads, if it's from other countries then I'm not sure it's as simple as saying it worked in Sweden/Holland/Wherever so it'll work here- it's about attitude as much as infrastructure.

BTW Tom, I think the Highway Code wording was indeed amended in the end!

The evidence I offered was from the DfT and based on case studies from around the UK. So far no-one else has offered any published evidence that contradicts this view.

The argument I have been making (as a fit and experienced cyclist) is that if we wish OTHER types of people to take up cycling and leave their cars at home then we may have to provide them with some traffic-free routes IN ADDITION TO improving driver behaviour on the roads.