An intelligent, balance article...

[XitUp]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/commen...

[thiscocks]

Haha! Great stuff!

[XitUp]

And I messed up spelling 'balanced'. Bums.

[RRS_Staffs]

he can fk right off the ttting

[the_lone_wolf]

[Sticks head above the parapet]

As a car driver, motorcyclist and avid cyclist, I think he has some valid points, even if it is hidden in the tongue-in-cheek banter...

[Ducks]

[XitUp]

Which points were valid?

[the_lone_wolf]

XitUp said:

Which points were valid?

Giving the cycling lobby what they want would require digging up and relaying a vast amount of our road infrastructure, as someone who's worked in highways engineering for a few years now the kind of things I hear being talked about are just laughable, in monetary cost and cost to the road network as a whole

Cycling is only cheap because cars are relatively expensive, requiring no license, insurance etc, in my day I attended cycling proficiency at middle school, when I'm out driving, riding, cycling, whatever I see cyclists that could do with a basic introduction to cycling on the road

Cities where cycle use is high have been designed that way, not converted as we would have to do here. People don't enjoy driving in city centres, I drive to town because the bus costs more than the car and I can't carry anything on a bicycle (and the reasons below as well) - despite the attempts to discourage people from using their cars the fact is that without a feasible alternative people won't stop using them


Basically, the problem I have with the "cycling lobby" is that they seem to think they're entitled to everything they want, just because of their choice of transport. Frankly I don't see any appeal in cycling on the road, it's boring as hell compared to off-road riding and drivers (for the most part) are a bunch of tools

That's just my opinion of course, you can disagree and argue but, and I mean this as politely as possible, I'm not that interested

[Long Drax]

the_lone_wolf said:

XitUp said:

Which points were valid?

A load of bull, none of which he is prepared to defend.

EFA.

[the_lone_wolf]

Long Drax said:

the_lone_wolf said:

XitUp said:

Which points were valid?

A load of bull, none of which he is prepared to defend.

EFA.

Very eloquent... Perhaps if you actually offered a countering opinion without being childish I'd be more inclined to defend my own?

[XitUp]

the_lone_wolf said:

Giving the cycling lobby what they want would require digging up and relaying a vast amount of our road infrastructure, as someone who's worked in highways engineering for a few years now the kind of things I hear being talked about are just laughable, in monetary cost and cost to the road network as a whole

Not true.
What cyclists want, in the main, is for drivers to treat them with respect.
You might know, from previous experience, what % of transport budget is spent on cyclists?

the_lone_wolf said:

Cycling is only cheap because cars are relatively expensive, requiring no license, insurance etc, in my day I attended cycling proficiency at middle school, when I'm out driving, riding, cycling, whatever I see cyclists that could do with a basic introduction to cycling on the road

I agree with the last part, but that has nothing to do with the first part.

the_lone_wolf said:

Cities where cycle use is high have been designed that way, not converted as we would have to do here. People don't enjoy driving in city centres, I drive to town because the bus costs more than the car and I can't carry anything on a bicycle (and the reasons below as well) - despite the attempts to discourage people from using their cars the fact is that without a feasible alternative people won't stop using them

You can carry plenty on a bike. What do you need to carry?

the_lone_wolf said:

Basically, the problem I have with the "cycling lobby" is that they seem to think they're entitled to everything they want, just because of their choice of transport. Frankly I don't see any appeal in cycling on the road, it's boring as hell compared to off-road riding and drivers (for the most part) are a bunch of tools

That's just my opinion of course, you can disagree and argue but, and I mean this as politely as possible, I'm not that interested

Yes, I agree with that bit too.
We ARE entitled to use the roads and not have people drive like bellends. Not sure why you disagree with this.

[Fetchez la vache]

As another cyclist & driver, I always assume everyone is a tosser no matter whether they're cycling or driving, and what I'm doing. I think these days it's the safest thing to assume, and is generally quite accurate given the skills of many cyclists and motorists.

Maybe I should write an article...

[the_lone_wolf]

XitUp said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Giving the cycling lobby what they want would require digging up and relaying a vast amount of our road infrastructure, as someone who's worked in highways engineering for a few years now the kind of things I hear being talked about are just laughable, in monetary cost and cost to the road network as a whole

Not true.
What cyclists want, in the main, is for drivers to treat them with respect.
You might know, from previous experience, what % of transport budget is spent on cyclists?

Not a lot, but how much do they contribute? (and don't say a lot of them are car drivers too, I pay twice for my car and motorcycle ;-) ) That's meant to be tongue in cheek, I'm not saying we shouldn't spend on encouraging cycling where it's feasible, but a great deal of the things I've seen cycling lobbying groups asking for, such as skybridges and dedicated road space at busy roundabouts, are simply not going to offer the best value for the road network as a whole, especially when highways budgets are strained...

XitUp said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Cycling is only cheap because cars are relatively expensive, requiring no license, insurance etc, in my day I attended cycling proficiency at middle school, when I'm out driving, riding, cycling, whatever I see cyclists that could do with a basic introduction to cycling on the road

I agree with the last part, but that has nothing to do with the first part.

Fair point, how would you increase the skills of those who are so obviously lacking though? Licensing or something else?

XitUp said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Cities where cycle use is high have been designed that way, not converted as we would have to do here. People don't enjoy driving in city centres, I drive to town because the bus costs more than the car and I can't carry anything on a bicycle (and the reasons below as well) - despite the attempts to discourage people from using their cars the fact is that without a feasible alternative people won't stop using them

You can carry plenty on a bike. What do you need to carry?

I don't know, but I'd like to have the option of bringing something home if I decide to buy it without having to come back in the car anyway. I'd also like to look fairly smart and not be a sweaty beast when I sit down for a coffee, and my partner doesn't enjoy cycling on the road. Car is simply easier and it would still be my choice of transport if it cost 10x what it costs now. I love to cycle, I spend thousands on cycling in bikes, trips, etc, but if it's not attracting me to cycle into town how are you going to convince people who don't love cycling?

XitUp said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Basically, the problem I have with the "cycling lobby" is that they seem to think they're entitled to everything they want, just because of their choice of transport. Frankly I don't see any appeal in cycling on the road, it's boring as hell compared to off-road riding and drivers (for the most part) are a bunch of tools

That's just my opinion of course, you can disagree and argue but, and I mean this as politely as possible, I'm not that interested

Yes, I agree with that bit too.
We ARE entitled to use the roads and not have people drive like bellends. Not sure why you disagree with this.

I don't disagree with that, but that's not what I said now, is it??

[Long Drax]

the_lone_wolf said:

Long Drax said:

the_lone_wolf said:

XitUp said:

Which points were valid?

A load of bull, none of which he is prepared to defend.

EFA.

Very eloquent... Perhaps if you actually offered a countering opinion without being childish I'd be more inclined to defend my own?

But you said you weren't interested in what other people thought.

I think being a lone wolf for so long has turned you into sociopath.

[the_lone_wolf]

Long Drax said:

...you said you weren't interested in what other people thought.

No, I didn't, but thanks for trying...

[XitUp]

the_lone_wolf said:

Not a lot, but how much do they contribute? (and don't say a lot of them are car drivers too, I pay twice for my car and motorcycle ;-) ) That's meant to be tongue in cheek, I'm not saying we shouldn't spend on encouraging cycling where it's feasible, but a great deal of the things I've seen cycling lobbying groups asking for, such as skybridges and dedicated road space at busy roundabouts, are simply not going to offer the best value for the road network as a whole, especially when highways budgets are strained...

Oh dear, are you one of those people who doesn't understand VED?

the_lone_wolf said:

Fair point, how would you increase the skills of those who are so obviously lacking though? Licensing or something else?

Something else. Road safety taught in schools would help.
Drivers need more education too.

the_lone_wolf said:

I don't know, but I'd like to have the option of bringing something home if I decide to buy it without having to come back in the car anyway. I'd also like to look fairly smart and not be a sweaty beast when I sit down for a coffee, and my partner doesn't enjoy cycling on the road. Car is simply easier and it would still be my choice of transport if it cost 10x what it costs now. I love to cycle, I spend thousands on cycling in bikes, trips, etc, but if it's not attracting me to cycle into town how are you going to convince people who don't love cycling?

As I said, you can carry plenty on a bike.
You don't have to get too sweaty, just ride slower/in appropriate attire.
Cars are easier, true. But they're also a lot more expensive and not as fun unless you've got plenty of open road.
Making the roads better for cyclists would help convince them.

[the_lone_wolf]

XitUp said:

Oh dear, are you one of those people who doesn't understand VED?

The source of the money isn't the point, it's how the more militant cycling lobbyists want it spent when in reality their assessment of their own importance in the transport network as a whole is grossly exaggerated...

XitUp said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Fair point, how would you increase the skills of those who are so obviously lacking though? Licensing or something else?

Something else. Road safety taught in schools would help.
Drivers need more education too.

Agreed, that's part of a much larger debate on driving standards

XitUp said:

the_lone_wolf said:

I don't know, but I'd like to have the option of bringing something home if I decide to buy it without having to come back in the car anyway. I'd also like to look fairly smart and not be a sweaty beast when I sit down for a coffee, and my partner doesn't enjoy cycling on the road. Car is simply easier and it would still be my choice of transport if it cost 10x what it costs now. I love to cycle, I spend thousands on cycling in bikes, trips, etc, but if it's not attracting me to cycle into town how are you going to convince people who don't love cycling?

As I said, you can carry plenty on a bike.
You don't have to get too sweaty, just ride slower/in appropriate attire.
Cars are easier, true. But they're also a lot more expensive and not as fun unless you've got plenty of open road.
Making the roads better for cyclists would help convince them.

You can't carry a rained on pissed off girlfriend I can promise you... And no, having my coffee is not an enjoyable experience after cycling into town, even if you don't go maximum attack, I've tried it. I don't cycle on the road because of the aforementioned reasons and riding on the off-road paths means you have to wipe either yourself, or the chair, afterwards...

Still not convinced that you'll tempt people onto bikes by creating more cycle lanes or improving driver behaviour, maybe in city centres. Fact is you can't apply blanket policies like increasing VED or fuel prices to discourage car use because in a city centre the ease of access to alternatives is orders of magnitude easier than in smaller towns and villages where the car is the only sensible means of getting around.

Going back to the original point I thought was valid, UK cities cannot simply be converted to areas of high cycle use such as the examples often touted, I dont have a solution other than spending astronomical amounts of money, and I've yet to see anything that suggests otherwise?

[Randy Winkman]

Cobblers from start to finish. Cyclists don't want half the stuff he says they do.

[XitUp]

I was reading The Times yesterday and they have a campaign for improving cycling safety.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/c...

p.s. the lone wolf, I've found the figures. Less than one % of the transport budget is spent on cyclists at present. Do you really think that's fair?
If more people cycled then we would be a healthier nation and the NHS would save money. More cyclists on the road makes cycling safer, the government should be doing everything they can to encourage this.

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/publication...

[the_lone_wolf]

XitUp said:

I've found the figures. Less than one % of the transport budget is spent on cyclists at present. Do you really think that's fair?
If more people cycled then we would be a healthier nation and the NHS would save money. More cyclists on the road makes cycling safer, the government should be doing everything they can to encourage this.

Have you got the source for your 1% figure there? I'm interested to see how it was calculated, as the reference in the Sky report is far too vague to locate the actual source

Without wanting to sound like a total cop out, whether it's fair probably depends on your definition of fair, I would bet as a proportion of road miles covered per year cyclists make up less than one percent so you could argue that the budget is completely "fair", or you could say they account for disproportionately high KSI figures and deserve a quarter of the budget to be "fair" - I suspect the quoted figure doesn't include money spent on all road users such as maintaining surfaces and other non user specific funding but without seeing the working I won't say for certain.

Of course none of the above addresses the points I raised to begin with, even if you gave half of the transport budget to "cycling" as an entity it wouldn't solve the problems and would create massive new ones

The Times campaign is difficult to counter, I saw it on Thursday, as any attempt to point out the flaws can be taken as not caring for the unfortunate journalist who is still very ill, but the bee in their bonnet over lorries, demanding sensors, mirrors, bars and new ATC systems could quite easily be accomplished by telling cyclists not to undertake lorries, even if they fail to indicate it's basic common sense - yes, if a truck fails to indicate you'll get your win in court, but you'll still be permanently disabled or dead, this is something motorcyclists have learned over time, but cyclists (as a group I should add) apparently have not

[XitUp]

What massive new problems would improving cycling infrastructure and awareness create?

From what I read in the Times they were pretty keen to stress that undertaking lorries and busses is a very bad idea and that cyclist training is a very good idea.