The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?

[TSCfree]

Not a lot of hope at all IM.

It does tickle me that some can't see past the 'Lycra' and have consciously decided to pass as close as possible. I'm almost certain they'd not pass their own family in this manner, which brings this back to a perception thing. Maybe we could design lycra to look like jeans and t-shirt!

Edited by TSCfree on Tuesday 1st November 09:19

[DonkeyApple]

WinstonWolf said:

I've got two cars, last year I cycled further than I drove in both of them put together. Sometimes the car is better, in rush hour it's utterly st.

But I agree, albeit you are a sample of one, but all logic doesn't really point to putting everyone on bikes to be the long term solution but rather that the 20th century car is failing to work properly in the 21st century. It makes more sense to invest our resources into evolving the superior means of transport to be suitable than to step backwards in time and try and force people into an inferior means of transport.

[Ken Figenus]

Cycled daily in London for 15 years and have the scars to prove it so in no way anti-bike BUT 'they' (I am still one of 'they') often do themselves no favours. Driving along Sandbanks the other day and a nice wide cycling lane was provided and there was a chap with his kid behind him cycling in it. Mummy was however in the main carrigeway jabbering away to husband and cars could rarely get past due to loads of oncoming traffic. I thought it selfish and inconsiderate but gave her plenty of space when I was able to pass. I have a militant cycling mate who would probably defend her right to do that to the hilt. And thus we part into 'us and them'!

[herewego]

Ken Figenus said:

Cycled daily in London for 15 years and have the scars to prove it so in no way anti-bike BUT 'they' (I am still one of 'they') often do themselves no favours. Driving along Sandbanks the other day a nice wide cycling lane was provided and there was a chap with his kid behind him cycling in it. Mummy was however in the main carriageway jabbering away to husband and cars could rarely get past due to loads of oncoming traffic. I thought it selfish and inconsiderate but gave her plenty of space when I was able to pass. I have a militant cycling mate who would probably defend her right to do that to the hilt. And thus we part into 'us and them'!

Sounds like the cycle lane was so narrow that two people couldn't cycle side by side?

[aclivity]

DonkeyApple said:

It's clear the car is superior as a means of transport over the bike is it not?

Not for all journeys - my journey to work is cheaper and the same time taken on my bike, driving means I have to park between half and three quarters of a mile away.

18 miles driven vs 7 miles cycling and 11 miles on a train. I'd rather take the bike than get stuck in Warrington / Birchwood traffic.

[WinstonWolf]

DonkeyApple said:

WinstonWolf said:

I've got two cars, last year I cycled further than I drove in both of them put together. Sometimes the car is better, in rush hour it's utterly st.

But I agree, albeit you are a sample of one, but all logic doesn't really point to putting everyone on bikes to be the long term solution but rather that the 20th century car is failing to work properly in the 21st century. It makes more sense to invest our resources into evolving the superior means of transport to be suitable than to step backwards in time and try and force people into an inferior means of transport.

Watch BBC Breakfast when they're outside parliament. The bicycle is a far superior method of getting about, all those car drivers sitting in traffic while their arteries harden because they can't get where they're going. No thanks...

I use the best means of transport for a journey, sometimes the car is superior, sometimes the bike is.

[DonkeyApple]

aclivity said:

DonkeyApple said:

It's clear the car is superior as a means of transport over the bike is it not?

Not for all journeys - my journey to work is cheaper and the same time taken on my bike, driving means I have to park between half and three quarters of a mile away.

18 miles driven vs 7 miles cycling and 11 miles on a train. I'd rather take the bike than get stuck in Warrington / Birchwood traffic.

Again, this is a sample of one and I'm not arguing that there are no journeys where the old bike isn't the right tool for the job. But it's about looking at the whole picture. The logic would be that where bikes are clearly superior the State should assist but not go beyond that logic. For example, creating congestion so that a small number of wealthy elite can have private roads doesn't seem all that palatable when viewed in the alternate context.

Besides, you say 'you'd rather' but if you look around you on that journey the majority are clearly showing you that they would rather use a car. It is a more logical argument therefor that they are using the wrong type of car, using it inefficiently or that societies recent trend of living further away from employment etc that is worth focussing on.

It makes sense to utilise the potential of cycling but vital to ignore the fact that it simply isn't an efficient means of transport for the majority and it's horribly flawed to not evolve the car and to make the car even less efficient just for an excessive political agenda.

Realistically, in 30 years time we aren't all going to moving around on bikes regardless of policy so you do need to draw the line in favouring the bike at the point at which it impacts on the efficiency of other more credible alternatives.

[Mave]

DonkeyApple said:

It's clear the car is superior as a means of transport over the bike is it not? Surely the fact that almost no one wants to cycle and almost everyone who can afford a car tends to use a car as their means of personal transport suggests that pouring billions into trying to force people into bikes may transpire to be a real waste of taxpayer money?

So if the bike is genuinely the inferior means of personal transport then what is the logic in continuing down State driven enforcement? Surely that is what is inferior?

Clogging up cities by removing car space and yielding it to massively inefficient and unwanted bikes or pushing so many minicabs into the cities that the number of cars just constantly driving around filling roads and chucking out poisons for 12 hours or by ignoring the impact of larger cars etc just doesn't seem superior by any logical means in the cold light of day.

I disagree with a number of your statements.
IMHO there are different "superior" modes of transport for different journey types.
I really don't see how it is "superior" to drag a tonne and a half of metal back and forth along a crawling commuter trail every day, rather than getting a bit of excercise.

A key reason people don't want to cycle is due to the attitudes of a minority of drivers towards cyclists. Eg punishment passes, rather than cycling being intrinsically inferior.

I really don't see how you can talk about cyclists clogging up city space by removing car space, when cars are so much less space efficient. On open roads I agree that cyclists can very occasionally slow down traffic whilst waiting for an opportunity to overtake, but in most cities the average speed of cars is falling below bikes, and the extent and duration of the car volume related congestion is growing year on year. Pushing cyclists back into cars is not going to improve that situation.

[Mave]

DonkeyApple said:

It makes sense to utilise the potential of cycling but vital to ignore the fact that it simply isn't an efficient means of transport for the majority

The majority of car journeys are less than 5 miles - and 20% are less than a mile. Cycling isn't an inefficient mode of transport at these distances, especially if the routes are congested.

[DonkeyApple]

Mave said:

DonkeyApple said:

It's clear the car is superior as a means of transport over the bike is it not? Surely the fact that almost no one wants to cycle and almost everyone who can afford a car tends to use a car as their means of personal transport suggests that pouring billions into trying to force people into bikes may transpire to be a real waste of taxpayer money?

So if the bike is genuinely the inferior means of personal transport then what is the logic in continuing down State driven enforcement? Surely that is what is inferior?

Clogging up cities by removing car space and yielding it to massively inefficient and unwanted bikes or pushing so many minicabs into the cities that the number of cars just constantly driving around filling roads and chucking out poisons for 12 hours or by ignoring the impact of larger cars etc just doesn't seem superior by any logical means in the cold light of day.

I disagree with a number of your statements.
IMHO there are different "superior" modes of transport for different journey types.
I really don't see how it is "superior" to drag a tonne and a half of metal back and forth along a crawling commuter trail every day, rather than getting a bit of excercise.

A key reason people don't want to cycle is due to the attitudes of a minority of drivers towards cyclists. Eg punishment passes, rather than cycling being intrinsically inferior.

I really don't see how you can talk about cyclists clogging up city space by removing car space, when cars are so much less space efficient. On open roads I agree that cyclists can very occasionally slow down traffic whilst waiting for an opportunity to overtake, but in most cities the average speed of cars is falling below bikes, and the extent and duration of the car volume related congestion is growing year on year. Pushing cyclists back into cars is not going to improve that situation.

That's kind of the exact point. You mention 'a tonne and a half of car'. That's the point. That's a 20th century car and it's very clear that such types of car are not suitable for 21st century urban use. What it doesn't mean is that the car is wrong and that everyone should be moved onto 19th century bicycles. What it means is that the concept of the car needs to be evolved to fit. Likewise with size. You don't need a big, 5 seat car for transporting one person. That is again an example of a 20th century product being out of date.

The car is superior. But not our 20th century version of it. Yet even that is still clearly the better option for the majority over the old bike. Trying to push society onto bikes is really a very backward, short term it's act that is doomed to failure.

[djohnson]

I don’t think the debate around what traffic types roads were designed for has much value. However taking into account the roads, traffic levels and driving standards my personal risk assessment is that no way in hell would I take a cycle out onto the public road in the UK and anyone who does (and there’s many) clearly has a vastly different attitude to risk than I do (in fact in my view is likely barking mad). However it’d be a boring world if we were all the same.

[DonkeyApple]

WinstonWolf said:

DonkeyApple said:

WinstonWolf said:

I've got two cars, last year I cycled further than I drove in both of them put together. Sometimes the car is better, in rush hour it's utterly st.

But I agree, albeit you are a sample of one, but all logic doesn't really point to putting everyone on bikes to be the long term solution but rather that the 20th century car is failing to work properly in the 21st century. It makes more sense to invest our resources into evolving the superior means of transport to be suitable than to step backwards in time and try and force people into an inferior means of transport.

Watch BBC Breakfast when they're outside parliament. The bicycle is a far superior method of getting about, all those car drivers sitting in traffic while their arteries harden because they can't get where they're going. No thanks...

I use the best means of transport for a journey, sometimes the car is superior, sometimes the bike is.

I think Westminster is a rather perfect example of the exact point that I am highlighting. The majority have been penalised to suit a political agenda of favouring a minority and the end result is greater pollution and wasted time. Change the car. You can't force everyone into bikes and the political force has a clear elastic limit as seen by the Brexit situation.

[TSCfree]

Off Topic

A lot of the topographical issues can be address with an electric bike these days for those who aren't quite fit enough or where terrain poses an issue. I suppose it depends how much people want to invest in their health and where they seek the benefit from a particular journey.

The only reasons the car is not superior in every way is the amount of congestion on todays roads and no amount of traffic managing is going to relieve this problem any time soon.

You'd have though that the boomers after accumulating all this wealth would want to be fit and active for as long as possible...maybe that's why it's an agenda. Er hmmm, no scrub that, lets get rid of the cycle lanes and kill the buggers off

[Mave]

DonkeyApple said:

That's kind of the exact point. You mention 'a tonne and a half of car'. That's the point. That's a 20th century car and it's very clear that such types of car are not suitable for 21st century urban use. What it doesn't mean is that the car is wrong and that everyone should be moved onto 19th century bicycles. What it means is that the concept of the car needs to be evolved to fit. Likewise with size. You don't need a big, 5 seat car for transporting one person. That is again an example of a 20th century product being out of date.

Ok, so if the car that you think is superior isn't the current car, rather it's something else, then what is it? And in what way is it superior to a bicycle for commuting? (and let's compare your future car with a 21st century bike rather than a 18th century bike just to keep it fair!)

Donkeyapple said:

The car is superior. But not our 20th century version of it. Yet even that is still clearly the better option for the majority over the old bike.

It's not clearly the better option, for the reasons I stated and which you acknowledged above :-)

[RumbleOfThunder]

Cyclists are s and should be confined to the gym if they wan't to pedal about.

[gazza285]

RumbleOfThunder said:

Cyclists are s and should be confined to the gym if they wan't to pedal about.

Have you tried breathing through your nose?

[DonkeyApple]

Mave said:

DonkeyApple said:

It makes sense to utilise the potential of cycling but vital to ignore the fact that it simply isn't an efficient means of transport for the majority

The majority of car journeys are less than 5 miles - and 20% are less than a mile. Cycling isn't an inefficient mode of transport at these distances, especially if the routes are congested.

It all depends on how you pick and chose your metrics and what data you chose to deliberately omit.

For example, your data that you put forward is far too simplified to enable you to draw the conclusion that you do. It ignores topography, it ignores weather, it ignores the person's sex, it ignores health, it ignores the school run, it ignores the purpose of the journey, it ignores almost all the variables that serve to highlight why the car is superior.

The most efficient mode of transport is the one that incorporates the requirements/reason of the most type of journeys and that won't ever be a bike. Just looking at an elementary metric such as the length of the journey is very wrong and wholly misleading. In fact, the problem is quite strongly highlighted by how few housewives use bikes as opposed to the car.

The bike is far too inflexible a tool which is why it was superseded in the first instance. It works only for a rigid minority, it is a massive failure for a society.

[Mave]

DonkeyApple said:

It all depends on how you pick and chose your metrics and what data you chose to deliberately omit.

For example, your data that you put forward is far too simplified to enable you to draw the conclusion that you do. It ignores topography, it ignores weather, it ignores the person's sex, it ignores health, it ignores the school run, it ignores the purpose of the journey, it ignores almost all the variables that serve to highlight why the car is superior.

The most efficient mode of transport is the one that incorporates the requirements/reason of the most type of journeys and that won't ever be a bike. Just looking at an elementary metric such as the length of the journey is very wrong and wholly misleading. In fact, the problem is quite strongly highlighted by how few housewives use bikes as opposed to the car.

The bike is far too inflexible a tool which is why it was superseded in the first instance. It works only for a rigid minority, it is a massive failure for a society.

So... The data I provided isn't detailed or nuanced enough so you responded with... No data! So let's see a description of your 21st century commuter car backed up by detailed data showing why it's superior :-)

[Ken Figenus]

herewego said:

Sounds like the cycle lane was so narrow that two people couldn't cycle side by side?

It was not 'narrow' but single file would have been more appropriate and considerate to other users of the road - a road that had already been narrowed by having cycle lanes either side. Well single file is certainly the way I would have cycled anyway - if only from the point of view of reducing my own personal risk.

[yellowjack]

RumbleOfThunder said:

Cyclists are s and should be confined to the gym if they wan't to pedal about.

I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but it is very clear that you are unarmed.

I shall therefore attempt to descend to your level of debate...

You .


...there. That's about the right level, I think.


That's probably going to earn me a ban. But if it does, I'd suggest that it needs to earn RumbleOfThunder similar punishment. After all, "he started it". It won't make any difference to my participation in this thread anyway. I can contribute no longer with such a high proportion of knuckle draggers concentrated into such a small debating space. I fear being dragged down to their level, and so it is that "Ahhhm oot!"