Another "cyclist vs driver" rage story in the news...
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
walm said:
What planet are you on?
It would be a GREAT solution - no question.
But we have neither the money nor the space.
So while the rest of Europe either gets on with doing it or did it decades ago, we continue to deny it's possible.It would be a GREAT solution - no question.
But we have neither the money nor the space.
If there's space for big vehicles (in the shape of cars usually with one person in) there's definitely room for bicycles with 1 person on.
What there isn't room for is a car to pass a cyclist in a separate segregated lane.
Have you ever been to London?
I am rabidly pro-cyclist but even I admit that for the vast majority of London's single carriageway roads turning them into 4-lane cycling nirvana simply isn't possible.
Even if the topology allowed it (which it doesn't) it is incredibly expensive and quite frankly I would FAR rather the government spent money paying junior doctors, bombing ISIS and/or allowing the country's less well off to keep £1,300 a year in tax credits.
Almost the very last thing I want is millions upon millions spent on infrastructure to save a completely paltry number of lives.
walm said:
Absolutely, that's obvious.
What there isn't room for is a car to pass a cyclist in a separate segregated lane.
Have you ever been to London?
I am rabidly pro-cyclist but even I admit that for the vast majority of London's single carriageway roads turning them into 4-lane cycling nirvana simply isn't possible.
Even if the topology allowed it (which it doesn't) it is incredibly expensive and quite frankly I would FAR rather the government spent money paying junior doctors, bombing ISIS and/or allowing the country's less well off to keep £1,300 a year in tax credits.
Almost the very last thing I want is millions upon millions spent on infrastructure to save a completely paltry number of lives.
Woah, it's not about saving lives imo, it's about making the place a nicer place to be.What there isn't room for is a car to pass a cyclist in a separate segregated lane.
Have you ever been to London?
I am rabidly pro-cyclist but even I admit that for the vast majority of London's single carriageway roads turning them into 4-lane cycling nirvana simply isn't possible.
Even if the topology allowed it (which it doesn't) it is incredibly expensive and quite frankly I would FAR rather the government spent money paying junior doctors, bombing ISIS and/or allowing the country's less well off to keep £1,300 a year in tax credits.
Almost the very last thing I want is millions upon millions spent on infrastructure to save a completely paltry number of lives.
I found the link posted earlier in this thread http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...
The 18,000 pedestrians are squeezed to the sides while most of the space is afforded to the 1,600 who want to bring their 1,430 vehicles through. In the pic these seem to be mostly commercial vehicles but it's be interesting to see how many cars come through per hour.
But that gross imbalance seems a barking mis-use of space to me. God knows why so much money is spent moving so few people about.
heebeegeetee said:
Woah, it's not about saving lives imo, it's about making the place a nicer place to be.
I found the link posted earlier in this thread http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...
The 18,000 pedestrians are squeezed to the sides while most of the space is afforded to the 1,600 who want to bring their 1,430 vehicles through. In the pic these seem to be mostly commercial vehicles but it's be interesting to see how many cars come through per hour.
But that gross imbalance seems a barking mis-use of space to me. God knows why so much money is spent moving so few people about.
Your argument gets even WORSE!!I found the link posted earlier in this thread http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...
The 18,000 pedestrians are squeezed to the sides while most of the space is afforded to the 1,600 who want to bring their 1,430 vehicles through. In the pic these seem to be mostly commercial vehicles but it's be interesting to see how many cars come through per hour.
But that gross imbalance seems a barking mis-use of space to me. God knows why so much money is spent moving so few people about.
It's not about saving lives (even though your link says that's exactly what it is) its about making somewhere "nicer"!!
Seriously - which branch of the Monster Raving Loony Party do you work for that suggests we spend millions on re-laying entire road networks to make it a bit "nicer" rather than spending on say the NHS, schools or even bloody Trident (the gum, not the nuclear warheads
).Lastly and most hilariously you say "why so much money is spent moving so few people about" - THERE IS NO MONEY SPENT!!
YOU are the one suggesting spending money on completely changing the layout. The layout we ALREADY HAVE.
Leaving the roads well alone COSTS NOTHING.
The status quo is by definition cheapest because NOTHING IS BEING SPENT!!
walm said:
Your argument gets even WORSE!!
1. It's not about saving lives (even though your link says that's exactly what it is) its about making somewhere "nicer"!!
2. Seriously - which branch of the Monster Raving Loony Party do you work for that suggests we spend millions on re-laying entire road networks to make it a bit "nicer" rather than spending on say the NHS, schools or even bloody Trident (the gum, not the nuclear warheads).
3. Lastly and most hilariously you say "why so much money is spent moving so few people about" - THERE IS NO MONEY SPENT!!
4. YOU are the one suggesting spending money on completely changing the layout. The layout we ALREADY HAVE.
Leaving the roads well alone COSTS NOTHING.
5. The status quo is by definition cheapest because NOTHING IS BEING SPENT!!
Only time for a quick reply:1. It's not about saving lives (even though your link says that's exactly what it is) its about making somewhere "nicer"!!
2. Seriously - which branch of the Monster Raving Loony Party do you work for that suggests we spend millions on re-laying entire road networks to make it a bit "nicer" rather than spending on say the NHS, schools or even bloody Trident (the gum, not the nuclear warheads
).3. Lastly and most hilariously you say "why so much money is spent moving so few people about" - THERE IS NO MONEY SPENT!!
4. YOU are the one suggesting spending money on completely changing the layout. The layout we ALREADY HAVE.
Leaving the roads well alone COSTS NOTHING.
5. The status quo is by definition cheapest because NOTHING IS BEING SPENT!!
1. Well it's what every developed society does, everywhere. Make life better for it's citizens, improve health, safety, wellbeing and longevity. There's no modern developed society locked in the past, you'd probably have to look at North Korea to find that.
2. All of the road network will be relaid anyway over time. It all is, it's a never ending process. We can change the way we do it though.
3. It is very expensive not to maintain infrastructure, so therefore we do.
4. Not maintaining infrastructure does not cost nothing. It is very, very expensive not to keep infrastructure maintained.
5. You couldn't be more wrong.
heebeegeetee said:
1. Well it's what every developed society does, everywhere. Make life better for it's citizens, improve health, safety, wellbeing and longevity. There's no modern developed society locked in the past, you'd probably have to look at North Korea to find that.
2. All of the road network will be relaid anyway over time. It all is, it's a never ending process. We can change the way we do it though.
3. It is very expensive not to maintain infrastructure, so therefore we do.
4. Not maintaining infrastructure does not cost nothing. It is very, very expensive not to keep infrastructure maintained.
5. You couldn't be more wrong.
1,2,3 & 4 - I know. 5 - I disagree. None of points 1-4 justify you writing point 5.2. All of the road network will be relaid anyway over time. It all is, it's a never ending process. We can change the way we do it though.
3. It is very expensive not to maintain infrastructure, so therefore we do.
4. Not maintaining infrastructure does not cost nothing. It is very, very expensive not to keep infrastructure maintained.
5. You couldn't be more wrong.
But thanks for yet more moronic and patronising replies.
Part of my job is infrastructure investment finance so I am well aware how it works, but I sincerely appreciate you pointing out that roads are relaid - I didn't know that!
Perhaps you were confused by me saying it costs nothing to leave the status quo as it is.
In fairness, if you are hard of thinking you might have genuinely believed that I honestly thought that roads are built once and then never repaired... that I hadn't ever noticed the large yellow trucks relaying road all over the country... that I hadn't noticed potholes appearing and getting fixed.
You might think that is the kind of person you are dealing with on PH, but remember I am a cyclist and therefore entirely more intelligent than the majority on here - better looking, with larger man parts and certainly with a highly attuned sense of road quality and pot hole frequency.
(Just kidding about the man parts... I'm a grower not a show-er... I blame the lycra.)At the very least as a typical cyclist I must come close to your level of high-horsedness and sanctimony.
You seem to have missed the entirely obvious point I was trying to make which is that what you are suggesting costs MORE than maintenance.
That's what makes you look like such a fool with no grip on reality.
Obtuse - that's what you are being - obtuse. Feel free to look it up.
Of course we should be moving forward and improving society and plenty of capital is, quite rightly, spent on such endeavours.
But again, your suggestions are so far away from the best use of that spend that it is hilarious!
walm said:
1,2,3 & 4 - I know. 5 - I disagree. None of points 1-4 justify you writing point 5.
But thanks for yet more moronic and patronising replies.
Part of my job is infrastructure investment finance
You can't be busy then if you're right that there's no money spent and you've clearly got more time than I have.But thanks for yet more moronic and patronising replies.
Part of my job is infrastructure investment finance
Fact is, what I am say is being done now as we speak and will continue to do so. We will continue to lag far behind our European neighbours and I know we will never catch up thanks to having too many little englanders like you. No doubt Dutch children will continue to be recorded as the happiest children in the world whole British children continue to be ranked as amongst the unhappiest and unhealthiest in Europe - 'cos we've just got so many luddites in my opinion, who believe that nothing can change.
But have a bit of reading for the weekend - 'All those myths and excuses in one post'
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-t...
Dutch cycling infrastructure
is now 42 years and 268 days
ahead of the UK.
On the 4th of March 2013, London's cycling
commissioner Andrew Gilligan claimed that
'it took 40 years to turn Amsterdam into
Amsterdam'. In reality, progress was fast
in The Netherlands & could also be so
in London. The gap will continue to grow
until there is genuine change in policy and
funding so that London starts to catch up.
The clock is ticking.
walm said:
So now we DO need more money to do it.
Make your mind up.
It hasn't said 'more money'. Presumably they want a share of the existing money.Make your mind up.
Have a read, it'll answer all your objections to change.
"Providing for cyclists is too expensive. It's simply not true. Providing infrastructure for cyclists is actually incredibly cheap in comparison with providing infrastructure for the same people to make all their journeys by car".
heebeegeetee said:
It hasn't said 'more money'. Presumably they want a share of the existing money.
Have a read, it'll answer all your objections to change.
"Providing for cyclists is too expensive. It's simply not true. Providing infrastructure for cyclists is actually incredibly cheap in comparison with providing infrastructure for the same people to make all their journeys by car".
Am reading... honest!Have a read, it'll answer all your objections to change.
"Providing for cyclists is too expensive. It's simply not true. Providing infrastructure for cyclists is actually incredibly cheap in comparison with providing infrastructure for the same people to make all their journeys by car".
I saw that one which just made me laugh.
Perhaps too London-centric but I don't know anyone who swapped a car for their bike.
The vast majority appear to shift from public transport to bike.
They would rather get sweaty in the fresh air than sweaty in the tube.
Also his response to my "roads are too narrow" simply shows a bunch of roads getting cars banned on them and paved for cycles and pedestrians. Obviously there is room for that.
And I WISH that were to happen. I would vote for it in a heart-beat.
I think sadly though you are right about the little englanders.
walm said:
I saw that one which just made me laugh.
Perhaps too London-centric but I don't know anyone who swapped a car for their bike.
The vast majority appear to shift from public transport to bike.
They would rather get sweaty in the fresh air than sweaty in the tube.
Perhaps you are too London-centric. I don't know anyone who switched from bus to bike. Everyone I know who cycles to work does so instead of driving. Admittedly only a few of us continue all year round, but in the warmer months quite a few people leave their cars at home now. Company participation in the cycle to work scheme has helped, that and cycling being the new golf. The new way to climb the corporate ladder...Perhaps too London-centric but I don't know anyone who swapped a car for their bike.
The vast majority appear to shift from public transport to bike.
They would rather get sweaty in the fresh air than sweaty in the tube.
Devil2575 said:
Perhaps you are too London-centric. I don't know anyone who switched from bus to bike. Everyone I know who cycles to work does so instead of driving. Admittedly only a few of us continue all year round, but in the warmer months quite a few people leave their cars at home now. Company participation in the cycle to work scheme has helped, that and cycling being the new golf. The new way to climb the corporate ladder...
Nothing like a bit of incentiveheebeegeetee said:
Digby said:
At least we agree. How do I stop them swamping me? That's all I have ever wanted.
You won't. Mixing cyclists and hgvs in the same road space at busy junctions will never work imo. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff