Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • fred246
    • By fred246 26th May 17, 6:06 AM
    • 853Posts
    • 469Thanks
    fred246
    Cycling and the Economy
    • #1
    • 26th May 17, 6:06 AM
    Cycling and the Economy 26th May 17 at 6:06 AM
    The UK government has done little to promote cycling. Governments in Holland and Denmark have managed to increase cycle usage enormously. I think the UK government failure is mainly down to financial reasons. They like people to be employed making cars. They want the UK to be a big car producing country like Germany. They get tax from cars and tax from fuel. People are employed servicing and repairing cars. Holland and Denmark make very few cars so a car purchase there is bad for balance of trade. My spend on cycle commuting is probably about £20-30 a year for 3000 miles. People on the motoring forum are spending hundreds of pounds a month on new cars to do similar journeys. Why isn't cycling promoted in the UK - it's the economy stupid.
Page 2
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 17th Jun 17, 3:06 PM
    • 1,598 Posts
    • 2,104 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Why? Cyclists never use them.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    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-stories
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 18th Jun 17, 9:52 AM
    • 2,843 Posts
    • 1,677 Thanks
    Altarf
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    You make my point. Stop wasting money on ALL cycling provisions and you would prevent this nonsense.
    • brat
    • By brat 18th Jun 17, 10:29 AM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,092 Thanks
    brat
    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".
    Originally posted by Altarf
    If a fully segregated cycle route is available and convenient, then cyclists, even including Johno's favourite fulminati, would use them. But if not safe or convenient, the cyclist should and will still use the road. That wont change, nor do I understand why you would want it to.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 18th Jun 17, 12:17 PM
    • 32,471 Posts
    • 27,229 Thanks
    custardy
    You make my point. Stop wasting money on ALL cycling provisions and you would prevent this nonsense.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    I say build more roads,ease congestion and make car use more attractive............
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 18th Jun 17, 12:37 PM
    • 1,598 Posts
    • 2,104 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    You make my point. Stop wasting money on ALL cycling provisions and you would prevent this nonsense.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    I don't make your point at all. The fact that money is wasted on stupidities doesn't then follow that ALL cycling provision should be stopped. We've seen recently the fatal consequences of penny-pinching and spending money on appearances rather than fundamental safety.

    I'm not even a very regular cyclist - occasional trips to the shops or the sailing club - but the amount of stupidity I see below the line on newspaper cycling blogs and here leads me to the conclusion that it isn't the lycra brigade [and crikey, please use a different cliche somebody] who are the entitled mob but a curious breed of motorist who only want money spent on themselves.

    Don't know why I bother really, as even evidence fails to convince them of the part different means of transport play, or could play, in our society. I suspect it's breathing in too much NO as they sit in traffic. S0d it, I'm off for a cold drink at the sailing club, normal shorts and sleeveless top, although going bra-less might be a step too far. I'm not even going to wear my helmet.., but definitely suncream..
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 18th Jun 17, 4:19 PM
    • 2,843 Posts
    • 1,677 Thanks
    Altarf
    If a fully segregated cycle route is available and convenient, then cyclists, even including Johno's favourite fulminati.
    Originally posted by brat
    No they won't.

    I have mentioned before a wanabee organ donor I pass in the mornings who instead of riding down a perfectly designed £2.5 million cyclepath requested by Sustrans and designed by them, instead takes a longer route down a busy A road (and doesn't bother with high viz either).
    • custardy
    • By custardy 18th Jun 17, 4:24 PM
    • 32,471 Posts
    • 27,229 Thanks
    custardy
    No they won't.

    I have mentioned before a wanabee organ donor I pass in the mornings who instead of riding down a perfectly designed £2.5 million cyclepath requested by Sustrans and designed by them, instead takes a longer route down a busy A road (and doesn't bother with high viz either).
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Ahh the cyclist who sets the rules for all.
    you should have said. Didnt realise you meant him. of course that makes it different.
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 18th Jun 17, 4:39 PM
    • 2,843 Posts
    • 1,677 Thanks
    Altarf
    Ahh the cyclist who sets the rules for all.
    you should have said. Didnt realise you meant him. of course that makes it different.
    Originally posted by custardy
    I am glad you agree with my view that if dedicated cycling provisions exist, then cyclists should be prohibited from the road.

    It is only for their own good.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 18th Jun 17, 4:54 PM
    • 32,471 Posts
    • 27,229 Thanks
    custardy
    I am glad you agree with my view that if dedicated cycling provisions exist, then cyclists should be prohibited from the road.

    It is only for their own good.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Oh yes. I mean why is that cyclist on the road with a brand new segregated cycle route alongside it.
    Hanging is too good for her!

    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 18th Jun 17, 5:02 PM
    • 2,843 Posts
    • 1,677 Thanks
    Altarf
    Oh yes. I mean why is that cyclist on the road with a brand new segregated cycle route alongside it.
    Hanging is too good for her!
    Originally posted by custardy
    Now you have gone too far. She should be made to pay a severe fine and her bicycle seized and destroyed.

    It is for their own good.
    • brat
    • By brat 18th Jun 17, 11:13 PM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,092 Thanks
    brat
    No they won't.

    I have mentioned before a wanabee organ donor I pass in the mornings who instead of riding down a perfectly designed £2.5 million cyclepath requested by Sustrans and designed by them, instead takes a longer route down a busy A road (and doesn't bother with high viz either).
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Did you ever let us see that route? Where is it?
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • fred246
    • By fred246 19th Jun 17, 6:33 AM
    • 853 Posts
    • 469 Thanks
    fred246
    I cycled a lot as a child and then not at all from ages 10-35. Then I moved into a house with a segregated bicycle path passing the front door. I can't go far though on totally segregated paths though because the infrastructure isn't there. I then went to Holland and Denmark where the infrastructure does exist. It's clearly beneficial for EVERYONE. They've done all the work. We just need to copy it. I remember coming home being shocked and horrified that some UK cyclists DON'T want bicycle paths. In Holland it's all about normal people in normal clothes (no helmets) cycling quietly and reasonably slowly. The lycra racers are a tiny minority. There are so many people who would cycle in the UK given the infrastructure. Every road should be built with a cycle path. It's expensive but so worth it. If there is money to build a railway that no-one wants there should be money to build cycle lanes that benefit EVERYONE.
    • JP08
    • By JP08 21st Jun 17, 10:11 AM
    • 827 Posts
    • 893 Thanks
    JP08
    No they won't.
    I have mentioned before a wanabee organ donor I pass in the mornings who instead of riding down a perfectly designed £2.5 million cyclepath requested by Sustrans and designed by them, instead takes a longer route down a busy A road (and doesn't bother with high viz either).
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Pretty unusual behaviour - though I can guess a couple of reasons.

    1) the "perfectly designed" Sustrans route isn't as perfect as it could be - certainly the ones round here (the Sandy to Bedford one and the route from St Neots to Grafham Water) have sections that are ballsachingly uncomfortable to ride on or even completely unrideable on a road bike due to the nature of the surface - which in the Grafham Water route is actually unsurfaced farm track.

    2) the shorter route takes the guy out of his way for his destination. Eg cutting a long arc of A road with a straight line is great - unless you want to turn off the A road in a direction away from the cycle-route half way along that arc ...
    • brat
    • By brat 21st Jun 17, 4:43 PM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,092 Thanks
    brat
    No they won't.

    I have mentioned before a wanabee organ donor I pass in the mornings who instead of riding down a perfectly designed £2.5 million cyclepath requested by Sustrans and designed by them, instead takes a longer route down a busy A road (and doesn't bother with high viz either).
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Similarly, there's a route between Kendal and Shap designed primarily for the use of cars, namely the A591/A590 and M6. It is the safest road between the two locations, all dual carriageway and motorway, devoid of cyclists and pedestrians, and probably the fastest route too. Yet car drivers will use the A6, increasing their personal accident risk by a factor of about 5, and increasing the fatality risk to cyclists on that road by a factor of thousands.

    For their own selfish reasons (fuel economy, better scenery etc) motorists use a road with increased risk to vulnerable road users when the safe road that's designed solely for them, the motorway, is ignored.

    Do you agree Altarf that motorists should be banned from using the A6 when there is a much safer alternative designed specifically for them?

    And please can you identify the road that your organ donating cyclist is using. Otherwise your rant is meaningless.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 21st Jun 17, 7:58 PM
    • 2,993 Posts
    • 3,210 Thanks
    Johno100
    Similarly, there's a route between Kendal and Shap designed primarily for the use of cars, namely the A591/A590 and M6. It is the safest road between the two locations, all dual carriageway and motorway, devoid of cyclists and pedestrians, and probably the fastest route too. Yet car drivers will use the A6, increasing their personal accident risk by a factor of about 5, and increasing the fatality risk to cyclists on that road by a factor of thousands.

    For their own selfish reasons (fuel economy, better scenery etc) motorists use a road with increased risk to vulnerable road users when the safe road that's designed solely for them, the motorway, is ignored.

    Do you agree Altarf that motorists should be banned from using the A6 when there is a much safer alternative designed specifically for them?

    And please can you identify the road that your organ donating cyclist is using. Otherwise your rant is meaningless.
    Originally posted by brat
    Sorry but what road a road user, vulnerable or otherwise, decides to use and why is no-one elses business. I'm sure you'd take great exception if someone queried the actual purpose, if any, of the vast majority of those cycling journeys on the A6.
    Last edited by Johno100; 21-06-2017 at 8:01 PM.
    • brat
    • By brat 22nd Jun 17, 7:33 AM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,092 Thanks
    brat
    Sorry but what road a road user, vulnerable or otherwise, decides to use and why is no-one elses business. I'm sure you'd take great exception if someone queried the actual purpose, if any, of the vast majority of those cycling journeys on the A6.
    Originally posted by Johno100
    Thank you for making my point.

    My absurd response to Altarf was purely to highlight the nonsense of his earlier comment when he said that cyclists should be prohibited from using certain roads because there are others available.

    Athough the point will be lost on him, because he opts out of threads whenever he is asked to evidence his claims.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • Ryanfuego
    • By Ryanfuego 22nd Jun 17, 10:41 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Ryanfuego
    That's a great idea actually, but it needs to be worked out how Government will manage special routes for cyclists. I feel this will be a long term process where every step have to be foreseen. Generally it will be good for everyone I think
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 3rd Jul 17, 9:33 AM
    • 2,843 Posts
    • 1,677 Thanks
    Altarf
    Pretty unusual behaviour - though I can guess a couple of reasons.

    1) the "perfectly designed" Sustrans route isn't as perfect as it could be - certainly the ones round here (the Sandy to Bedford one and the route from St Neots to Grafham Water) have sections that are ballsachingly uncomfortable to ride on or even completely unrideable on a road bike due to the nature of the surface - which in the Grafham Water route is actually unsurfaced farm track.
    Originally posted by JP08
    The route in question is perfectly smooth straight, flat and 3m wide tarmac path along the whole length.

    2) the shorter route takes the guy out of his way for his destination. Eg cutting a long arc of A road with a straight line is great - unless you want to turn off the A road in a direction away from the cycle-route half way along that arc ...
    Originally posted by JP08
    He takes a longer route by using the road. I have passed him at various points in his journey including his destination at the railway station.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 3rd Jul 17, 4:42 PM
    • 32,471 Posts
    • 27,229 Thanks
    custardy
    The route in question is perfectly smooth straight, flat and 3m wide tarmac path along the whole length.



    He takes a longer route by using the road. I have passed him at various points in his journey including his destination at the railway station.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Why not simply provide a link to the location?
    • fred246
    • By fred246 4th Jul 17, 2:12 AM
    • 853 Posts
    • 469 Thanks
    fred246
    You will only get large numbers of people cycling if you provide traffic free cycle paths from where people live to where they want to go to. I can go from my house to my children's school on such paths. Half path, half road is no good. People won't do it.
    Where I work people whinge that our employer charges for car parking. I don't pay parking because I cycle to work. "Why don't you cycle to work?" "I'd rather pay and live a bit longer, thanks." is the standard response.
    When you cycle in the Netherlands you know that the paths have been designed for you. You know where you are supposed to be. You have priority at junctions.
    Trying to use cycle paths in the UK is a joke.
    So government need to instruct councils to look at maps. See where people live, where they work and install cycle paths along the whole route.
    In the Netherlands the motorists seem to understand that you should drive at a speed appropriate to the area you are driving through. 70mph on a motorway is fine. 70mph on a urban street where children are playing isn't. I am not sure how the Dutch do that. Cameras do seem to be the only way to get motorists to obey speed limits.
    When you have quality cycle paths and a large proportion of the population cycling then it would seem appropriate to ban cyclists from the certain roads as they do on in Holland.
    I have said before I am a cyclist who uses a bicycle to live their normal day to day life. Going to work, gym, shopping etc. Normal bicycle, normal clothes. My views are often opposite to those held by by lycra wearing, racing cyclists who go round in circles on a Sunday morning.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

314Posts Today

3,846Users online

Martin's Twitter