Segregation of Cyclists - Good or Bad?
Comments
-
Aapje wrote:You need to keep in mind that walking is included in those figures. The Central Bureau of Statistics numbers for 2007 are:
48% car (driver or occupant)
26% bike
19% by foot
7% train, bus, metro, scooter, rollerskating, etc
The UK's figures for 2009 are
63% car/van (driver or occupant)
2% bike
23% by foot
13% train, bus, metro, etc
Not sure what that tells us except Dutch Statisticians ensure their %'s add up to 100.Aapje wrote:I think that (26% by bike)'s a pretty good score, especially when considering that...
Don't get me wrong, it's a good score but could be better so the Dutch Govt are investing money in providing extra facilities.
My local council are aiming for 10% by 2020 but no investment to improve facilities that doesn't include road improvements.
In fact we could lose £500k that was granted by Sustrans to reopen a viaduct as a cycle route.
I think the only thing that will get people out of their cars in this country is if motoring becomes much more expensive because the local & national govt are not encouraging people to leave the cars at home by providing viable alternatives.0 -
nation wrote:Strangely enough I was a big fan of Sustrans and their work until I actually started trying to use the routes.
Now I'm less keen. Personally I'm of the opinion that they need to stop going for what is perceived to be the low hanging fruit in terms of potential routes and be willing to put money into one or two really good and useful routes rather than ten abandoned railway lines.
I'm just biased: I use the Sustrans routes on the south of Derby every day and they're fantastic. There's also an abandoned railway line on the north of the city which is crying out for someone like Sustrans to take it on and put a surface on it, and which if they did so would give me direct traffic-free access all the way to work.
If they're going to build a network quickly though, they have to go for low-hanging fruit. Abandoned railway lines in the country are great for leisure cycling and long-distance tours. But abandoned railway lines and old canals in the cities are still fantastic opportunities for them to make really high-quality segregated cycle routes and still need to be explored.0 -
It tells us that:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Aapje wrote:You need to keep in mind that walking is included in those figures. The Central Bureau of Statistics numbers for 2007 are:
48% car (driver or occupant)
26% bike
19% by foot
7% train, bus, metro, scooter, rollerskating, etc
The UK's figures for 2009 are
63% car/van (driver or occupant)
2% bike
23% by foot
13% train, bus, metro, etc
Not sure what that tells us except Dutch Statisticians ensure their %'s add up to 100.
- Holland has 13 times as many cycling journeys as the UK, which tells me that the potential in the UK is huge.
- Holland has less use of public transport, despite the Dutch public transport being slightly better and The Netherlands being more densely inhabited. I find this quite surprising.
- When more bicycles are easily available, less walking is done, but the difference in walking is less than I expected.
I also think that the Dutch cycling stats are too low, since mixed-mode journeys seem to be reported based on the main mode of transport. A lot of people ride their bike to and/or from the train station.
Of course. It can always be better. However, you have to keep in mind that the existing infrastructure is very extensive already. It is hard to make huge strides, unlike in the UK. Improvements like cycling 'highways' are relatively cheap (a few dozen million euros over a few years) when compared to the cost of maintaining the existing 29,000 km of seperate cycling paths or the cost of the car and shared road network (billions a year). But I don't expect huge changes in cycling use due to those changes, unlike the UK, where better facilities could easily double cycling use.Don't get me wrong, it's a good score but could be better so the Dutch Govt are investing money in providing extra facilities.
Personally, I think that other measures/advances will help more. Electric bikes enable people to ride a bike with less effort, for longer distances. Perhaps someone could introduce an electric bike with a roof. Better compensation from employers could help a little. Higher/different car costs (higher costs per km) should help. This should happen automatically due to rising fuel costs.0 -
Already it's clear that pressure is forcing local authorities to do something about making safe provision for cyclists albeit not always particularly well thought out. One thing which we have which Holland largely doesn't is hills. Electrically assisted bikes can help level those out: couple that with rising car/rail costs and (if councils can get their act together) safe and useable cycling routes, and all of a sudden cycling starts to become an attractive alternative.
I don't think that complete segregation is the answer by the way, cyclists rights to use the roads need to stay. But I'd love to see more low-traffic options: I'd love to be able to let my kids cycle to school, for example. But there's no way I'd let them cycle along the main road to get there, despite the fact that I use it every morning on my way to work.0 -
Aapje - Holland's much smaller than the UK (and flatter) which makes it altogether much more cycle friendly anyway.
But yes, what is good about dutch cycling culture is that they feel it is safe and easy enough that no-one wears any gear, no expensive bikes - just you get on on your jeans, your suit, on a comfortable bike and just pootle along.
That's why when you look at the centres like Amsterdam you see 38% of journeys made by bike - and when you're there there's all manner of stuff being done by bike. Carrying potplants to work, carrying 2 kids on your bike to school etc.
It's just relaxed. People don't think about cycling - they just do it because it's effort and hassle free - it's the easier option. It's not effort - they don't arrive in a pool of sweat and BO. They pootle at 15kph.
That's why you need segregation. The reason UK cyclists don't want segregation is because in the UK only those who want to go a million miles an hour and don't mind arriving at work sweaty in nylon neon clothes, can tolerate the current cycling conditions, which are largely appauling. That's not what gets broad popular support for cycling. Cycling should be considered like walking but you can go further - not a car that keeps you fit.0 -
I agree with Rick!0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:That's why you need segregation. The reason UK cyclists don't want segregation is because in the UK only those who want to go a million miles an hour and don't mind arriving at work sweaty in nylon neon clothes, can tolerate the current cycling conditions, which are largely appauling. That's not what gets broad popular support for cycling. Cycling should be considered like walking but you can go further - not a car that keeps you fit.
I think its difficult to compare road transport in The Netherlands with that of the UK. To give an example, this is roughly the route I used to cycle to primary school when I lived in Holland: http://goo.gl/maps/ZK79
The Streetview there is of the road outside of my secondary school. As you can see there is no segregated cycle path there at all. But the road was considered safe enough for children to ride on quite casually. Heres that same road a bit further on with just some road markings http://goo.gl/maps/KnQN. Note the helmetless child following his parents on his own bike. Segregated cycle paths are common (heres one on the same route http://goo.gl/maps/m9QR). But they aren't ubiquitous enough that you can say that they're the key to NL's success with regards to cycling.
The main difference in my view is the attitude of people towards bikes while they're cars. In this country they're seen as just another obstacle, something thats in the way and is slowing them down. People in the UK feel that bikes don't belong on the road, and that roads were built specifically for motor vehicles. The main reason why I'm against the proliferation of segregated cycle paths as a means of encouraging widespread cycling is that it encourages this attitude. To the extent that drivers with this attitude would feel even more vindicated if they were to encounter a cyclist somewhere that there was no cycle provision.
Secondary to this is also the fact that most segregated cycle lanes I've encountered in the UK are pretty useless. I hate being made to feel forced to use gravelly, narrow lanes that often just stop abruptly or lead nowhere when theres pristine tarmac alongside that will take me precisely where I need to go. And I'm saying this as someone both rides recreationally in lycra on a light bike, and who commutes to work without breaking a sweat at a calm pace, in chinos and a jacket on a comfy hybrid.0 -
If done like the video in this blog, I'd be happy to support segregation.
http://lofidelitybicycleclub.wordpress. ... y-pickles/--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
You don't need segregation to make the roads less intimidating for pootlers. At least, you don't need segregation in the sense of relegating them entirely to cycle-only infrastructure.
All it requires is for a given journey, the optimum path for a cyclist to be different to the optimum path for a car driver, which is something that can be done with a bit of sensible urban planning. It will require sections of cycle infrastructure as links or bypasses, for example underpasses for multi-lane junctions or places passable to cycles but not cars, but it doesn't intrinsically require a whole new cyclist-only infrastructure.0 -
I don't use cycle lanes here because:
they're full of broken glass and thorns
They are mostly covered with parked cars
The ramps to get on them are as slippery as ice in the wet
you have to give way to turning traffic, pedestrians
Dog walkers with long extendible dog-leads
Bollards (need I say more?)
...is that enough?0 -
This is a telling point. French drivers are massively impatient when driving on the the French equivalent of our A roads. They will make suicidal overtake moves when dealing with other motorised traffic. I've never seen the same level of impatience when passing cyclists even if they have to slow down massively to do it safely.Il Principe wrote:2: Try cycling in France, on the roads. Drivers are on the whole, attentive and courteous to cyclists. Far more so than in the UK. This has nothing to do with facilities.
What helps this a lot is that once you get into the countryside the traffic levels are MUCH lower and the roads tend to be so wide that you could pass a cyclist with a generous gap and barely need to cross into the other lane. I can't vouch for this still being the case when traffic levels go up and roads narrow.
Mike0 -
mudcovered wrote:
This is a telling point. French drivers are massively impatient when driving on the the French equivalent of our A roads. They will make suicidal overtake moves when dealing with other motorised traffic. I've never seen the same level of impatience when passing cyclists even if they have to slow down massively to do it safely.Il Principe wrote:2: Try cycling in France, on the roads. Drivers are on the whole, attentive and courteous to cyclists. Far more so than in the UK. This has nothing to do with facilities.
This! Car on car and they are mental, if your a cyclist your treated like royalty on the roads.0 -
notsoblue wrote:I think its difficult to compare road transport in The Netherlands with that of the UK. To give an example, this is roughly the route I used to cycle to primary school when I lived in Holland: http://goo.gl/maps/ZK79
The Streetview there is of the road outside of my secondary school. As you can see there is no segregated cycle path there at all. But the road was considered safe enough for children to ride on quite casually. Heres that same road a bit further on with just some road markings http://goo.gl/maps/KnQN. Note the helmetless child following his parents on his own bike. Segregated cycle paths are common (heres one on the same route http://goo.gl/maps/m9QR). But they aren't ubiquitous enough that you can say that they're the key to NL's success with regards to cycling.
The main difference in my view is the attitude of people towards bikes while they're cars. In this country they're seen as just another obstacle, something thats in the way and is slowing them down. People in the UK feel that bikes don't belong on the road, and that roads were built specifically for motor vehicles. The main reason why I'm against the proliferation of segregated cycle paths as a means of encouraging widespread cycling is that it encourages this attitude. To the extent that drivers with this attitude would feel even more vindicated if they were to encounter a cyclist somewhere that there was no cycle provision.
Secondary to this is also the fact that most segregated cycle lanes I've encountered in the UK are pretty useless. I hate being made to feel forced to use gravelly, narrow lanes that often just stop abruptly or lead nowhere when theres pristine tarmac alongside that will take me precisely where I need to go. And I'm saying this as someone both rides recreationally in lycra on a light bike, and who commutes to work without breaking a sweat at a calm pace, in chinos and a jacket on a comfy hybrid.
I suspect that the difference in attitude in the Netherlands also stems from the fact that cycling is so much more widespread. It's difficult to characterise cyclists as sub human lycra-clad obstructions if your mum is one! So to me, anything which helps increase the critical mass of cyclists to the point where it starts to become 'the norm' is fair game.
The thing you have to be careful of is to make sure that segregation does not equate to second-class. I don't like riding along gravelly narrow lanes which stop abruptly. Good job, therefore, that the cycle path I use to ride into work is three miles of uninterrupted tarmac which is actually in considerably better condition than the local roads. We need more of those. My pet hate, in the uk, is cycle tracks running alongside roads: stop, start, stop, start... In Holland the rights of way are with the cyclist on these sort of tracks: people use them there, they don't use them here. I wonder why!
My view is that segregation has an integral part to play in getting more people cycling safely. But it needs to be done in a way which meets the needs of the cyclist, not merely as a half-witted attempt to get cyclists off the roads.0 -
That is true of a lot of them. Any well built and used cycle path would need to be kept clear of parked cars and given precedence over side roads in urban areas. They also need to be wide enough to allow bikes and pedestrians to co-exist peacefully. They do need to be kept clear of all bollards/signposts etc as well.EssieP wrote:I don't use cycle lanes here because:
they're full of broken glass and thorns
They are mostly covered with parked cars
The ramps to get on them are as slippery as ice in the wet
you have to give way to turning traffic, pedestrians
Dog walkers with long extendible dog-leads
Bollards (need I say more?)
The problem with this is the WELL BUILT part of my description. Most cycle lanes/paths are built poorly with the sole goal of satisfying a bike lane quota or as an attempt to take cyclists out of the way of cars. Until this attitude changes no serious cyclist is ever going to support the separation of bikes from cars. The only way this will occur is to ensure that the people designing them understand the problem. This is about as difficult as explaining to most car drivers why we don't use these ridiculous paths. :x This level of pain is why most serious cyclists just accept the small amount of additional hassle of riding on the road. Its still a lot less hassle than getting well built cycle facilities will be.
All of this is true for routes that go cross country. Once you get into urban areas in the UK separation just isn't practical. Nobody is going to accept the demolition of buildings required to create the additional infrastructure.
Mike0 -
Flatter it maybe, but the wind can be a real git (I remember 40miles into strong headwind coming into Zeebrugge and I was in pieces).Rick Chasey wrote:Aapje - Holland's much smaller than the UK (and flatter) which makes it altogether much more cycle friendly anyway.
The size of the UK and the Netherlands is of little consequence - what matters far more is the allocation of land use, town planning and factoring cycling into decisions regarding the urban realm (and of course investment).
The Dutch have done far more than insitute 1000kms of segregated facilities. It's also worth remembering that many Dutch people prefer to ride on roads that do not have segregated facilities, but do have low speed limits and traffic calming measures. That said, generally speaking, I enjoy using segregated facilities/roads in the Netherlands as it's far more convivial and pleasant than here.
To give you an idea of the raft of measures that have been taken:
• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle streets in cities and surrounding regions
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages through dead-ends for cars
Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike lanes facilitate safer and quicker crossings and turns
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and exemption from red traffic signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing intersections
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring consecutive green lights for cyclists (green wave)
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the right speed to reach the next intersection at a green light
Traffic calming
• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30 km/hr) and physical
infrastructure deterrents for cars
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars
• ‘Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists using the road
Bike parking
• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often featuring guards, video-surveillance
and priority parking for women
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit stops, paid for by the minute and left at any busy intersection in the city
• Bike rentals at most train stations
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with video-surveillance, special lighting, music, repair services and bike rentals Traffic education and training
• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school children with test by traffic police
• Special cycling training test tracks for children
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists and avoid hitting them
Traffic laws
• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists
The Dutch seem to be doing something right as they have one of the best road safety records in the world. The problem is trying to disentangle which measures (or which measures in conjunction with other factors/measures) has led to the very large cycling modal share and a safer environment for cyclists.0 -
Origamist wrote:
Flatter it maybe, but the wind can be a real git (I remember 40miles into strong headwind coming into Zeebrugge and I was in pieces).Rick Chasey wrote:Aapje - Holland's much smaller than the UK (and flatter) which makes it altogether much more cycle friendly anyway.
The size of the UK and the Netherlands is of little consequence - what matters far more is the allocation of land use, town planning and factoring cycling into decisions regarding the urban realm (and of course investment).
The Dutch have done far more than insitute a 1000kms of segregated facilities. It's also worth remembering that many Dutch people prefer to ride on roads that do not have segregated facilities, but do have low speed limits and traffic calming measures. That said, generally speaking, I enjoy using segregated facilities/roads in the Netherlands as it's far more convivial and pleasant than here.
To give you an idea of the raft of measures that have been taken:
• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle streets in cities and surrounding regions
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages through dead-ends for cars
Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike lanes facilitate safer and quicker crossings and turns
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and exemption from red traffic signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing intersections
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring consecutive green lights for cyclists (green wave)
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the right speed to reach the next intersection at a green light
Traffic calming
• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30 km/hr) and physical
infrastructure deterrents for cars
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars
• ‘Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists using the road
Bike parking
• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often featuring guards, video-surveillance
and priority parking for women
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit stops, paid for by the minute and left at any busy intersection in the city
• Bike rentals at most train stations
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with video-surveillance, special lighting, music, repair services and bike rentals Traffic education and training
• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school children with test by traffic police
• Special cycling training test tracks for children
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists and avoid hitting them
Traffic laws
• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists
The Dutch seem to be doing something right as they have one of the best road safety records in the world. The problem is trying to disentangle which measures (or which measures in conjunction with other factors/measures) has led to the very large cycling modal share and safer environment for cyclists.
(I'm Dutch btw...)
I meant more in terms of the UK countryside where the only roads are national speed limit narrow country lanes, and the nearest shops are MILES away.
You just don't get that so much in Holland, even in Friesland. Everything is a little closer together.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:[
(I'm Dutch btw...)
I meant more in terms of the UK countryside where the only roads are national speed limit narrow country lanes, and the nearest shops are MILES away.
You just don't get that so much in Holland, even in Friesland. Everything is a little closer together.
That's true, to a degree (however the road network is more diverse than you're suggesting in rural areas and community infrastructure takes different forms), but you've also got to remember that the key determinant of rurality is population density. FWIW, the Netherlands does have a higher population density than the UK (we're the third highest in Europe and the Dutch are second), but there's very little in it.0 -
mudcovered wrote:Once you get into urban areas in the UK separation just isn't practical. Nobody is going to accept the demolition of buildings required to create the additional infrastructure.
There are plenty of roads with enough room for car parking (even right in the centre of London).
All it would take is the political will and the car parking could be removed & a cycle lane created in its place.0 -
tarquin_foxglove wrote:mudcovered wrote:Once you get into urban areas in the UK separation just isn't practical. Nobody is going to accept the demolition of buildings required to create the additional infrastructure.
There are plenty of roads with enough room for car parking (even right in the centre of London).
All it would take is the political will and the car parking could be removed & a cycle lane created in its place.
Finally some sensible posts here.
You are very right - it's not the amount of space - it's the allocation that matters. If you can fit 4-5 lanes of traffic why can't you take one away and put in a cycle path. How is it anyway that you can make pavements narrower and clutter it with railings and bollards but still be able to fit in a on street parking.0 -
Which is never going to happen. Any council that tried that would never be elected again.tarquin_foxglove wrote:All it would take is the political will and the car parking could be removed & a cycle lane created in its place.
Taking away on street parking outside people's houses is never going to be vote winner.
Mike0 -
ndru wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:mudcovered wrote:Once you get into urban areas in the UK separation just isn't practical. Nobody is going to accept the demolition of buildings required to create the additional infrastructure.
There are plenty of roads with enough room for car parking (even right in the centre of London).
All it would take is the political will and the car parking could be removed & a cycle lane created in its place.
Finally some sensible posts here.
You are very right - it's not the amount of space - it's the allocation that matters. If you can fit 4-5 lanes of traffic why can't you take one away and put in a cycle path. How is it anyway that you can make pavements narrower and clutter it with railings and bollards but still be able to fit in a on street parking.
So all the cars just float around in the air then.
Sensible? Really?
Some of the people on this thread really need to get a grip on reality.0 -
W1 wrote:So all the cars just float around in the air then.
Sensible? Really?
Some of the people on this thread really need to get a grip on reality.
Don't be silly. All of the car owners will see the new cycle lane and trade in their cars for utility bikes. They'll be grateful for the opportunity to get fit, save money and enjoy the open air.0 -
If the unrest in the middle east continues fuel prices will keep going up normal people wont be able to afford to drive leaving room for bike infrastructure.rhext wrote:W1 wrote:So all the cars just float around in the air then.
Sensible? Really?
Some of the people on this thread really need to get a grip on reality.
Don't be silly. All of the car owners will see the new cycle lane and trade in their cars for utility bikes. They'll be grateful for the opportunity to get fit, save money and enjoy the open air.I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.0 -
Cycling is relatively short distance, which means that you can make great strides in areas with a high population density, such as London. I bet that most Londoners travel inside London for 95% of their trips. Bikes are perfect for big cities where cars simply aren't. Space for parking is too expensive, the pollution is too concentrated, too much congestion, etc. Right now, cars are undoubtably already impractical for many Londoners.Rick Chasey wrote:I meant more in terms of the UK countryside where the only roads are national speed limit narrow country lanes, and the nearest shops are MILES away.
You just don't get that so much in Holland, even in Friesland. Everything is a little closer together.
A bike + occasional car rental is perfect for the big city. What you need is a Mayor with balls to push it through and really prioritize biking (not just Boris bikes, but good facilities as well), starting with central London. If it is made into a success, other cities will follow, then the increased number of cyclists will ask for nice bike lanes just outside cities, etc.
That is how it is done, you don't start with the most costly bit, bike lanes into rural areas.0 -
Fact is that city streets can never offer enough parking spots for the people who live there and/or who shop there. The parking spots are always going so expensive and/or overcrowded that owning a car or driving it into the city will be impractical for many. So car parking there is going to be for the (un)happy few.mudcovered wrote:
Which is never going to happen. Any council that tried that would never be elected again.tarquin_foxglove wrote:All it would take is the political will and the car parking could be removed & a cycle lane created in its place.
Taking away on street parking outside people's houses is never going to be vote winner.
Right now, people who live in/near central London have already accepted high parking fees, a very limited number of spots and a congestion zone, all of which are very unfriendly to car parking. I don't see why taking away some parking spots (which can be partially replaced by car parks) will suddenly be impractical. I actually think that high parking fees and a congestion zone are much harder to sell, since those don't have a group of vocal supporters. Of course, politicians have to placate some complainers (by creating a new car park here and there, for instance). But it's ultimately very sensible, so why can't it work?0 -
I say Good. I lived for several years in Amsterdam, prior to which I'd never ridden as an adult. Then I moved to London.
It's bloody horrible to cycle here. I couldn't care less what the safety statistics say, I don't like sharing space with buses and taxis and white vans but any trip of a decent length requires me to do just that (or go via ridiculously convoluted quiet routes). And most people will never want to do it, no matter how much training they have. I find that riding on the back streets in London isn't that much worse than riding on the back streets of Amsterdam - it's the distributor roads where the problems lie.
Not every road needs segregated space, but some sure do! Without proper infrastructure we're dooming the UK to a 2% modal share forever and cycling being mostly confined to the brave few.0 -
W1 wrote:So all the cars just float around in the air then. Some of the people on this thread really need to get a grip on reality.
Removing on street parking is done on many roads to aid traffic flow, create bus lanes etc. Why is it beyond the bounds of reality that it would be done to create cycle lanes?0 -
tarquin_foxglove wrote:W1 wrote:So all the cars just float around in the air then. Some of the people on this thread really need to get a grip on reality.
Removing on street parking is done on many roads to aid traffic flow, create bus lanes etc. Why is it beyond the bounds of reality that it would be done to create cycle lanes?
Kekulé say: Because only 2% of journeys are made by bike
0 -
tarquin_foxglove wrote:Removing on street parking is done on many roads to aid traffic flow, create bus lanes etc. Why is it beyond the bounds of reality that it would be done to create cycle lanes?
Can you really see a local electorate who no longer have anywhere to park their car anywhere near where they live being happy about the change regardless of whether it is done for cycle lanes, bus lanes or even general traffic flow?
To give you an example a council member where my parents live wrote a letter to the newspaper complaining about cycle lanes added on a wide road in an affluent part of the town. His reason for complaining: rich people don't ride bikes. This is on a wide road with very little on street parking so nobody lost out at all an the cost was that of the effort and materials to provide them. If that is the opinion of a council member in some areas of the country can you imagine the grief if residents lost parking spaces to a bike lane as well.
Mike0
