The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
Again, the importance of trying to take mainland European data and cite it as where we could be doesn't take into account key data that really does have a massive impact. You need to start looking a social cohesion, employment types, topography just for starters before you can say whether 15% in one city is better or worse than 5% in another.
You also cite another sample of one. I could cite my own example of the fact that I simply have no need for a car and that a bike would be far less convenient than walking or the tube for me but samples of one are worthless.
You mention moving closer to work. That is an incredibly relevant metric. If you look at where the bulk of the UK population work and then how far away they live and how regularly they change work then on that alone you can start to imagine some quite stark cultural differences between the UK and the mainland. Then you can also look at the topography, how many major U.K. Conurbations are relatively flat in contrast to the bigger geology of the mainland? Looking at the vital, smaller details and difference truly highlight how invalid arguments like 'look at some European cities' or 'our average journey is less than 5 miles'. The devil really is in the detail but in these threads the more militant views on either side are incredibly simplistic but drown out moderate debate especially as many people hold the base view that if you don't agree you have to be the opposition etc.
I know my "our average journey is less than 5 miles" is a simplistic metric - but if you want a "moderate debate" then you have to start by bringing a bit more of your own detail along! So far you've just said "cars are clearly more efficient / better / superior to bicycles" with no justification other than they're more popular!You also cite another sample of one. I could cite my own example of the fact that I simply have no need for a car and that a bike would be far less convenient than walking or the tube for me but samples of one are worthless.
You mention moving closer to work. That is an incredibly relevant metric. If you look at where the bulk of the UK population work and then how far away they live and how regularly they change work then on that alone you can start to imagine some quite stark cultural differences between the UK and the mainland. Then you can also look at the topography, how many major U.K. Conurbations are relatively flat in contrast to the bigger geology of the mainland? Looking at the vital, smaller details and difference truly highlight how invalid arguments like 'look at some European cities' or 'our average journey is less than 5 miles'. The devil really is in the detail but in these threads the more militant views on either side are incredibly simplistic but drown out moderate debate especially as many people hold the base view that if you don't agree you have to be the opposition etc.
Regarding the average journey distance, and distance to work - well over 50% of people travel less than 10km to work. Nearly 50% less than 5km. That statistic has been stable from the turn of the century, and is consistent across age groups. I imagine most people could cycle 5km straight off, and a significant proportion of the population could cycle 10km confidently after they were used to it. Topography makes some difference, but once you've done it a few times the main impact is on your average speed rather than whether its a practical commute - and if we are going to consider 21st century technology then this is one area where I think EV assist can be a huge leveller to keep speeds up on hills.
Regarding the school run? The average school run is 1.5 miles. Is it really more efficient to drive 1.5 miles, struggle amongst the school run chaos to find somewhere to park in a nearby street, then walk half a mile anyway to drop them off and walk back to the car again? Or to cycle with them all the way to the bike sheds, turn around and head straight off?
Regarding people who have bicycles also having cars -I imagine if we moved towards "urban optimised" cars for commuting, then they would also be compromised for longer journeys, so most people would still have a larger, faster, more comfortable vehicle as well.
Mave said:
I know my "our average journey is less than 5 miles" is a simplistic metric - but if you want a "moderate debate" then you have to start by bringing a bit more of your own detail along! So far you've just said "cars are clearly more efficient / better / superior to bicycles" with no justification other than they're more popular!
Regarding the average journey distance, and distance to work - well over 50% of people travel less than 10km to work. Nearly 50% less than 5km. That statistic has been stable from the turn of the century, and is consistent across age groups. I imagine most people could cycle 5km straight off, and a significant proportion of the population could cycle 10km confidently after they were used to it. Topography makes some difference, but once you've done it a few times the main impact is on your average speed rather than whether its a practical commute - and if we are going to consider 21st century technology then this is one area where I think EV assist can be a huge leveller to keep speeds up on hills.
Regarding the school run? The average school run is 1.5 miles. Is it really more efficient to drive 1.5 miles, struggle amongst the school run chaos to find somewhere to park in a nearby street, then walk half a mile anyway to drop them off and walk back to the car again? Or to cycle with them all the way to the bike sheds, turn around and head straight off?
Regarding people who have bicycles also having cars -I imagine if we moved towards "urban optimised" cars for commuting, then they would also be compromised for longer journeys, so most people would still have a larger, faster, more comfortable vehicle as well.
But I have supplied the reasoning and also responded to the same points you raise here previously. Regarding the average journey distance, and distance to work - well over 50% of people travel less than 10km to work. Nearly 50% less than 5km. That statistic has been stable from the turn of the century, and is consistent across age groups. I imagine most people could cycle 5km straight off, and a significant proportion of the population could cycle 10km confidently after they were used to it. Topography makes some difference, but once you've done it a few times the main impact is on your average speed rather than whether its a practical commute - and if we are going to consider 21st century technology then this is one area where I think EV assist can be a huge leveller to keep speeds up on hills.
Regarding the school run? The average school run is 1.5 miles. Is it really more efficient to drive 1.5 miles, struggle amongst the school run chaos to find somewhere to park in a nearby street, then walk half a mile anyway to drop them off and walk back to the car again? Or to cycle with them all the way to the bike sheds, turn around and head straight off?
Regarding people who have bicycles also having cars -I imagine if we moved towards "urban optimised" cars for commuting, then they would also be compromised for longer journeys, so most people would still have a larger, faster, more comfortable vehicle as well.
But also please note that all my points about needing more detail and listing very good reasons as to why the basic comparisons and data being put forward can't be held as pertinent is being continually ignored. And then the thread went off in an extremely weird tangent where people starting saying not cycling was why people were fat, again ignoring all the real reasons.
It's not really me ignoring any point or not supplying additional information as all my posts show but it is more about some quite strong opinions of others steadfastly refusing to accept that bikes may not be the logical solution to all the world's problems whether it be weight problems or congestion or that bikes aren't the answer to every commute. And to be honest when people do start deviating so immensely as to try and claim not cycling as much as Europe is why we are fatter than Europe it has just reached a point of silliness that suggests you andbi are going to struggle to continue to discuss this subject with such lunacy surrounding us.
Was enjoying an advanced driving video https://youtu.be/SjFWKVYfkpE Note the cyclists behaviour at about 5'20". No concept of the term 'defensive' only 'progress' 
DonkeyApple said:
But I have supplied the reasoning and also responded to the same points you raise here previously.
But also please note that all my points about needing more detail and listing very good reasons as to why the basic comparisons and data being put forward can't be held as pertinent is being continually ignored. And then the thread went off in an extremely weird tangent where people starting saying not cycling was why people were fat, again ignoring all the real reasons.
It's not really me ignoring any point or not supplying additional information as all my posts show but it is more about some quite strong opinions of others steadfastly refusing to accept that bikes may not be the logical solution to all the world's problems whether it be weight problems or congestion or that bikes aren't the answer to every commute. And to be honest when people do start deviating so immensely as to try and claim not cycling as much as Europe is why we are fatter than Europe it has just reached a point of silliness that suggests you andbi are going to struggle to continue to discuss this subject with such lunacy surrounding us.
But likewise you haven't answered why we can't do the same as Europe, or if Europe has it wrong and we have it right? But also please note that all my points about needing more detail and listing very good reasons as to why the basic comparisons and data being put forward can't be held as pertinent is being continually ignored. And then the thread went off in an extremely weird tangent where people starting saying not cycling was why people were fat, again ignoring all the real reasons.
It's not really me ignoring any point or not supplying additional information as all my posts show but it is more about some quite strong opinions of others steadfastly refusing to accept that bikes may not be the logical solution to all the world's problems whether it be weight problems or congestion or that bikes aren't the answer to every commute. And to be honest when people do start deviating so immensely as to try and claim not cycling as much as Europe is why we are fatter than Europe it has just reached a point of silliness that suggests you andbi are going to struggle to continue to discuss this subject with such lunacy surrounding us.
All the reasons for people being fat, they have too. All of them.
Pretty much all is the same between us and them, as I've said before we are a typical European country. Yet we are said to have the worst air quality and we are the fattest in Europe, so what is it that we are doing so different?
Please, watch this video and then tell me in all honesty that our school run is much better. Please? https://youtu.be/OrQ-d2PBUto?t=2m
Then just for a bit of (genuine) entertainment peeps, have a look at a clip of that good old Dutch 'King of The Road' video, 'cos I think it's brilliant. https://youtu.be/34FyWCutqvw?t=1m20s
Mave said:
Regarding people who have bicycles also having cars -I imagine if we moved towards "urban optimised" cars for commuting, then they would also be compromised for longer journeys, so most people would still have a larger, faster, more comfortable vehicle as well.
I hate driving in the city in anything other than my smart car, but yes, longer journeys are a bit challenging.
heebeegeetee said:
Please, watch this video and then tell me in all honesty that our school run is much better. Please? https://youtu.be/OrQ-d2PBUto?t=2m
That can't be right - where are all the fat kids?IroningMan said:
That can't be right - where are all the fat kids?
If you're somewhere touristic (like Bruges in Belgium, for instance), wait for the weekends and you'll notice that suddenly there are lots of fat people - and they're Brits. Seriously, if you're somewhere like that in the week, come the weekend the difference is really clear, when the tourists arrive.
heebeegeetee said:
DonkeyApple said:
Er, yes I have!!! Repeatedly.
i have supplied the reasoning and also responded to the same points you raise here previously.
But also please note that all my points about needing more detail and listing very good reasons as to why the basic comparisons and data being put forward can't be held as pertinent is being continually ignored. And then the thread went off in an extremely weird tangent where people starting saying not cycling was why people were fat, again ignoring all the real reasons.
It's not really me ignoring any point or not supplying additional information as all my posts show but it is more about some quite strong opinions of others steadfastly refusing to accept that bikes may not be the logical solution to all the world's problems whether it be weight problems or congestion or that bikes aren't the answer to every commute. And to be honest when people do start deviating so immensely as to try and claim not cycling as much as Europe is why we are fatter than Europe it has just reached a point of silliness that suggests you andbi are going to struggle to continue to discuss this subject with such lunacy surrounding us.
But likewise you haven't answered why we can't do the same as Europe, or if Europe has it wrong and we have it right? i have supplied the reasoning and also responded to the same points you raise here previously.
But also please note that all my points about needing more detail and listing very good reasons as to why the basic comparisons and data being put forward can't be held as pertinent is being continually ignored. And then the thread went off in an extremely weird tangent where people starting saying not cycling was why people were fat, again ignoring all the real reasons.
It's not really me ignoring any point or not supplying additional information as all my posts show but it is more about some quite strong opinions of others steadfastly refusing to accept that bikes may not be the logical solution to all the world's problems whether it be weight problems or congestion or that bikes aren't the answer to every commute. And to be honest when people do start deviating so immensely as to try and claim not cycling as much as Europe is why we are fatter than Europe it has just reached a point of silliness that suggests you andbi are going to struggle to continue to discuss this subject with such lunacy surrounding us.
All the reasons for people being fat, they have too. All of them.
Pretty much all is the same between us and them, as I've said before we are a typical European country. Yet we are said to have the worst air quality and we are the fattest in Europe, so what is it that we are doing so different?
Please, watch this video and then tell me in all honesty that our school run is much better. Please? https://youtu.be/OrQ-d2PBUto?t=2m
Then just for a bit of (genuine) entertainment peeps, have a look at a clip of that good old Dutch 'King of The Road' video, 'cos I think it's brilliant. https://youtu.be/34FyWCutqvw?t=1m20s
I very clearly asked for the additional information, repeatedly but to no avail. Because people don't want to look beyond their superficial and unfounded links and claims.
As I've highlighted again and again, you cannot make the leaps that are being made, for the reasons that I have explained yet people are choosing to completely remove gore this as it doesn't fit their view.
So please feel free to go back and see my responses and I would genuinely be interested to have the proper data to back up yours and others claims.
DonkeyApple said:
But I have supplied the reasoning and also responded to the same points you raise here previously.
Where? You keep saying that cars are clearly superior, more efficient, and that bikes are only suited to a few people but you haven't explained why or against what criteria!Donkeyapple said:
But also please note that all my points about needing more detail and listing very good reasons as to why the basic comparisons and data being put forward can't be held as pertinent is being continually ignored.
Really? I l've responded including comments about topology, school runs, commuting distance, health... Ken Figenus said:
Was enjoying an advanced driving video https://youtu.be/SjFWKVYfkpE Note the cyclists behaviour at about 5'20". No concept of the term 'defensive' only 'progress'
I genuinely can't see anything wrong with that?Do you think that as soon as the Clio overtakes he should pull over and stop? Everyone was paying attention and no one made the other have to stop or change direction.
If you're talking about him using the centre of the road on the left hander, again, what's wrong with that? I sometimes cross the white lines when driving if it gives me a better position on the road.
But hey ho. I guess you are the sort of s
t driver than gets flummoxed by other road users 
Maybe you NEED to watch a half hour video on driving.I did a similar advanced course recently for my job. Some was interesting, "maintain your space" was the mantra. If cars are stopping ahead you slow yourself down which slows the car behind down and allows you space in front if it all gets silly behind you. Also mentioned allowing space for other road users which shouldn't really require saying but judging from the people on here sometimes...
Ken Figenus said:
Was enjoying an advanced driving video https://youtu.be/SjFWKVYfkpE Note the cyclists behaviour at about 5'20". No concept of the term 'defensive' only 'progress'
So performing a manoeuvre, an overtake, where you force another road user to take avoiding action is acceptable?Advanced driving? Were you driving this car by any chance?
bloody cyclist!
Ken Figenus said:
Was enjoying an advanced driving video https://youtu.be/SjFWKVYfkpE Note the cyclists behaviour at about 5'20". No concept of the term 'defensive' only 'progress'
"Hi, if you're intending to overtake multple vehicles, you shoukd mentally treat each vehicle as a single overtake, tather than treating the line of vehicles as a single overtake. Weigh up the first overtake, move sideways to look and then if the first one is on, start to accelerate. Keep looking to the horizon, weighing up whether anything is going to come into view and be ready to pull back into a gap between vehicles if necessary. Don't accelerate up to an excessively high speed - keeping your speed to a reasonable level means it'll be easier to pull into a gap between vehicles if you need to return to the nearside."From the guy who made the video. I disagree. You treat it as a single overtake, you should have enough room to be able to take it in one go. Abandoning your overtake and diving in between vehicles should not be considered an option before the overtake. Surely this is common sense. Who on earth is this person making advanced driving videos
Rich_W said:
Ken Figenus said:
Was enjoying an advanced driving video https://youtu.be/SjFWKVYfkpE Note the cyclists behaviour at about 5'20". No concept of the term 'defensive' only 'progress'
Rich_W said:
I genuinely can't see anything wrong with that?
I can - doesn't pass my longevity test as a cyclist. Do you not even see the altercation and jostling for position with 2 tons of car for zero advantage? Rich_W said:
Do you think that as soon as the Clio overtakes he should pull over and stop?.
No.Rich_W said:
If you're talking about him using the centre of the road on the left hander, again, what's wrong with that?
Nothing.Rich_W said:
I sometimes cross the white lines when driving if it gives me a better position on the road.
Must try that one day lol.Ken Figenus said:
Was enjoying an advanced driving video https://youtu.be/SjFWKVYfkpE Note the cyclists behaviour at about 5'20". No concept of the term 'defensive' only 'progress'
Thought the cyclists riding was okay really, although it can be a bit annoying for anyone in the clio drivers position.Moving out to protect his position for the left hander was fine for me as well as the cyclist is clearly going the same speed as the traffic.
Its annoying when cyclists do this when they are going about 15mph slower than the rest of the traffic though.
I thought the video at 6.20 was a bit more interesting, mainly as you don't see many motorbikes with sidecars about anymore.
DonkeyApple said:
Before you can seek to answer you have to know what the question is.
I very clearly asked for the additional information, repeatedly but to no avail. Because people don't want to look beyond their superficial and unfounded links and claims.
As I've highlighted again and again, you cannot make the leaps that are being made, for the reasons that I have explained yet people are choosing to completely remove gore this as it doesn't fit their view.
So please feel free to go back and see my responses and I would genuinely be interested to have the proper data to back up yours and others claims.
Hold on, I seriously don't understand. It was you making the claims, you have started this particular conversation in this thread. You say stuff like:I very clearly asked for the additional information, repeatedly but to no avail. Because people don't want to look beyond their superficial and unfounded links and claims.
As I've highlighted again and again, you cannot make the leaps that are being made, for the reasons that I have explained yet people are choosing to completely remove gore this as it doesn't fit their view.
So please feel free to go back and see my responses and I would genuinely be interested to have the proper data to back up yours and others claims.
DonkeyApple said:
Why isn't the solution to congestion more logical if focussed around the more obvious needs of using cars more suited to the modern urban life, enhancing public transport, encouraging more use of the simple act of walking or expanding the Boris Bike network further. Private bikes are only genuinely of use to quite a small number of transport users so it is very important to recognise that as a beneficial solution they can only ever go so far and that doing things that are detrimental to the more popular and efficient means of transport is not wise.
That's why I asked if you're confining your conversation to the UK because I would say that just about the entire continent of Europe shows you to be completely wrong.Europe shows that cycling is not "only genuinely of use to quite a small number of transport users so it is very important to recognise that as a beneficial solution they can only ever go so far and that doing things that are detrimental to the more popular and efficient means of transport is not wise."
That simply isn't true, in Europe trips by bike can account for 10-30% of trips made, here it's 1-2% and that's probably only in London.
A recent visit to Netherlands and Germany taught/reminded me of quite a bit. Netherlands does as much motorised congestion as we do, but then their cars are stationary, on both sides of the road lots of people are passing by on bikes, *lots of people*. In the UK when the cars, buses and lorries are stopped nobody is moving.
When we were driving through The Hague to our hotel I noticed that there were plenty of women and children on bikes keeping pace with us, on cycle paths adjacent but parallel to our road, (and they were stopping at red lights too). But while we're sat in our car they were out in the sunshine, getting vitamin D, they were breathing fresh air, they were doing exercise, all at the same time as they're travelling. The motor car can't do any of that, so how is it more advanced in that environment? When we got to our hotel we struggled to park, but those on bikes just dropped their stands down, locked up and were off. Again, far superior in that environment.
Of course our car had carried us and our luggage from UK to Germany to Netherlands which obviously the bike can't do (not in that timescale anyway) but once we parked our car at the hotel it didn't move for the next few days, because it was the worst option of travel into and around the city.
You can't take cars into the Hague city centre without quite a bit of hassle and expense - there's nowhere to put them for a start, the reason we stayed at the coast nearby was none of the good hotels in the city centre have car parking (or extremely little and expensive), but you can take like a million bikes and park them, and exercise at the same time.
There is no way the car is better in that environment.
You don't need data, you can see it for yourself. Go and see the sheer freedom and liberty children have that ours simply don't. Go and see how they can ride their bikes in complete safety, and when they come to driving age they have already been using the roads independently for 12 years possibly.
I think it's absolutely terrific to see and you take my breath (if that's not a pun) if you're suggesting it's all wrong and the way we do our school run (as a for instance) is much the better way.
If you want some evidence, here it is: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-t...
I'm expecting you to tell me that that's all wrong, in true PH style, but you cannot deny the evidence of your eyes. If you don't want to see it for yourself there's about a bazillion videos on Youtube, it's not possible for them all to be wrong.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 2nd November 08:50
SirSamuelBuca said:
Try passing a cyclist on the hagley road in rush hour. They make rush hour 10 x worse as you cannot get round them. The whole thing is moronic.
What the Hagley Road where the traffic is solid ? I've cycled down this a few times in the morning and evening rush hours. I now choose an alternative route as the traffic is very slow moving or stopped and it holds me up when cycling. Plus it's too narrow for 2 lanes but too busy to have 1 lane.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff