Cycling and the Economy
Options
Comments
-
It doesn't matter if they're a fraction of what they were, the problem is they're still dangerously high and resulting in many people dying due to air quality issues - currently estimated to be around 10,000 deaths a year in London alone. The levels of nitrous oxide are dangerously high and predicted to remain that way for some time.
No not 10,000 deaths caused by pollution, a theoretical reduction in the life span of individuals. That can be as little as a couple of days at the end of a long life.
Pollution levels are dropping and will continue to do so as technology improves over time.0 -
You can beg to differ all you want but sadly the facts tell a different story, the spend per person on cycling is extremely low and the percentage of journeys completed by bike is also extremely low - a few token cycles lanes don't change that.
Bet you million quid we're int he top 50 countries in the world.
The current rate of journeys completed by bike is extremely low.
Compared to what, cars? I bet it is. Bet its extremely high compared to completed journeys on horseback or by skateboard.
It's not nigh on impossible, there's plenty of evidence from countries who have put the money into cycling and reaped the benefits.
Please tell me how much hollands pension bill has increased as a direct result of the increased usage of bicycles there? I assume you have that evidence. This is what i mean by nigh on impossible. When you can tell me exactly how much it costs to fund the benefits (better health longer life) of cycling and you can offset it against the the income generated from motorists we can have that discussion, until then i will deem it nigh on impossible to produce such statistics
It's difficult to know how to even respond to this aside from the fact that it's very wrong to apply such a crude generalisation to all cyclists, a very diverse group and it's most certainly not accurate. You think its wrong, i dont. I have to deal with people on a daily basis and their generalisations about my cycling.
When you come across as an arrogant so and so and youre attempting to represent me as a cyclist by suggesting more needs to be done when im perfectly happy with the current set up i will highlight, just as you have done.
I'm kind of concerned I need to point this out but unless we're thinking of a different sport, badminton is not a viable commuting solution nor an effective way to reduce congestion and pollution. Neither is horse riding but cycling is, it's an efficient way to travel with no pollution, takes up less space than a car and improves health - that's why other countries have focused on cycling and they they've seen the benefits. That's a combination of benefits neither badminton, horse riding or motorcycling offer.So you need the government to tell you how to get to work? Personally i get up and either just get in my car or jump on my bike. Hell on a good day i might be crazy and decide to walk.
John
I dont understand why tax payers should subsidise how i choose to commute more than they already do.
Its already completely tax free (excluding VAT on purchase which can be reclaimed througha government incentive). What do you want the government to do pay you to cycle? Or charge tax on motorists (they already do this in the form of VED and taxes on petroleum)
What exactly do you want doing? If youre going to say spend more money can you say what you would like the money to be spent on and probably more importantly where you would choose to take the money from?
Like i say my council has created cycling routes, every new or resurfaced roads has considered cyclists including a substantial increase in marked cycle lanes. What more as a cyclist should i be asking for? Ive got everything i need for commuting, a bike and the roads to get there safely. Fill me in on where im going wrong?0 -
Not on cars, on the roads generally to help all road users. Of course taking away already congested road space and handing it over for ZiL lanes for the lycra elite is going to cause resentment.
The reason for congestion is that motoring is too cheap. If demand isn't rationed by price then it will grow until it's limited by something else such as congestion. The average time a worker spends commuting is half an hour regardless of mode of transport, so if you make people's journey less congested they just live further from work. Since the road network has grown enormously over the last 80 years, and congestion has got worse, not better, people's appetite for sitting in traffic jams must also be increasing.0 -
No not 10,000 deaths caused by pollution, a theoretical reduction in the life span of individuals. That can be as little as a couple of days at the end of a long life.
Pollution levels are dropping and will continue to do so as technology improves over time.
They certainly aren't dropping in highly congested areas like London. EU regulations on safe pollution levels have been broken year after year.
I'd say cycling has become more popular in recent years, thanks to sporting success from Hoy and Froome etc
If we cant afford to repair roads properly I'd be surprised if there was any extra effort to make cycle lanes etc.0 -
My own city has recently spent several million pounds on a cycle route. Every new road that has been installed in the last few years locally has incorporated cycle lanes.
Why? Cyclists never use them.
It would improve the economy if all expenditure on cycling infrastructure was cancelled and the money used more productively for things people did use.0 -
Patrick_Stewart wrote: »They certainly aren't dropping in highly congested areas like London. EU regulations on safe pollution levels have been broken year after year.
Yes, pollution levels are dropping there as well, note the second graph in my post #8 relates specifically to London.Patrick_Stewart wrote: »If we cant afford to repair roads properly I'd be surprised if there was any extra effort to make cycle lanes etc.
Over a billion pounds has been spent or allocated to cycling infrastructure in London alone. And only a third of what is received by the government in motoring taxes is re-invested into the roads network, so the money is there.0 -
Properly segregated cycle routes are well used. The problem is that painting a bit of road or making footpaths dual use is not safe or attractive for a cyclist to use if they have to give way at every side road or driveway. Many prefer to take their chances on the roadway.Why? Cyclists never use them.
It all comes down to how well designed cycle routes are.0 -
Here is an example of cycle planning that makes sense
it is a junction i use several times a week
i remember when it was introduced the daily mail brigade were "spitting feathers"
old junction layout
new junction layout0 -
Properly segregated cycle routes are well used. The problem is that painting a bit of road or making footpaths dual use is not safe or attractive for a cyclist to use if they have to give way at every side road or driveway. Many prefer to take their chances on the roadway.
It all comes down to how well designed cycle routes are.
That sounds reasonable, if you can't put in a "properly segregated cycle route" then the authorities should save their money and not put anything in place.
And for those where there is a "properly segregated cycle route" to gain the benefit from the expenditure the authorities should obviously prohibit cyclists from using the roads that are bypassed by the "properly segregated cycle route".0 -
Why? Cyclists never use them.
I admit it. In my defence can I just say I blinked:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20161124-worst-worst%E2%80%A6-shocking-cycle-lane-stories0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards