AA president speaks out in favour of cycling

Dave_C_2

This article in the Times from the AA president Edmund King makes interesting reading.

Selective quoting time

Most drivers think there are not enough cycle lanes even though spending money on special cycle facilities could reduce the road space available for motorists, a survey of more than 20,000 drivers has revealed.

and

But the growth of cycling in recent years had left many motorists feeling “insecure” and unsure how to interact with cyclists. Clearly-defined cycle lanes would put motorists at ease and remove cyclists from danger

There are a few versions of this but I think The Times article is the original. The others tend to emphasise the negatives such as

It appears that there is this minority that have a problem with cyclists and we have to do more to address that. It is almost like racial discrimination, there is no good reason for it

But it's a good sign that the AA are finally realising that cycling is now a major part of road usage and even more, publicising the fact

Dave

Crabman

Edmund King regularly speaks in favour of cyclists & motorists. The AA gave away free helmets to cyclists in London a year or so ago. Not sure how many actually use them...

I'd prefer if there were more cycle lanes as it would be safer for cyclists, less stressful for motorists and would probably encourage more motorists to commute on two wheels.

thelawnet

The helmet giveaway was criticised as the sort of equivalent of Marlboro sponsoring the lung cancer ward at the hospital. In rather poor taste. Studies show it would be more effective to issue helmets to motorists than to cyclists.

'More' cycle lanes is unfortunately much too vague, on the typical journey you find a cycle lane goes for 500 yards and then there's a parked car in it and you have to pull out into fast moving traffic, or it just disappears under a bus when the road narrows or whatever.

As I understand it proper cycle facilities would cost £billions. The Dutch spend €0.5 billion per year on cycle facilities, the result of which is that cycle usage in the Netherlands is 20 times higher than the UK. We could achieve the same, but it would cost, ooh, I don't know, about what we spend widening the M25 every year, and obviously that would be absurd and unreasonable....

ventureuk

Dave_C wrote: »

This article in the Times from the AA president Edmund King makes interesting reading.

Selective quoting time
and
There are a few versions of this but I think The Times article is the original. The others tend to emphasise the negatives such as
But it's a good sign that the AA are finally realising that cycling is now a major part of road usage and even more, publicising the fact

Dave

Call me cynical but I suspect an ulterior motive.

Policies are beginning to appear for cyclists which provide, damage/puncture/breakdown but not yet by the AA.

Cyclists are a potential revenue stream which has not yet been dammed and I'd put money on the AA releasing some sort of cover for the ever increasing number of leisure and commuting riders.

You've got to say you like your customers before they become your customers.

opinions4u

thelawnet wrote: »

As I understand it proper cycle facilities would cost £billions. The Dutch spend €0.5 billion per year on cycle facilities, the result of which is that cycle usage in the Netherlands is 20 times higher than the UK....

Do you think the lack of hills in Holland assists with its popularity a tad?

thelawnet

Not many hills in London. Or Amsterdam.

Most people aren't cycling 100 miles across the Pennines.

davidlizard

Because I am a bit of a tightwad, I cycle pretty much everywhere and probably drive less than 500 miles a year, and am all for cycle lanes - IF they are properly designed and are safe and convenient to use.

Too many are simply chucked down by the council to meet some sort of quota with little or no thought or logic, and this can make them more dangerous than the roads.

At a guess, I probably spend about 20% of my time on a bike in a cycle lane, yet four of the seven times I have been knocked off my bike have been in a cycle lane.

thelawnet

From what I see most cycle lanes are there for the benefit of motorists, to encourage them to pass cyclists closer than they otherwise would, and to corral cyclists in an undersized space in the gutter on the edge of the road.

Bus lanes on the other hand are a different story - these are very good for cycling in, and I like that the Highway Code advises to cycle in the middle of the lane.

Johno100

thelawnet wrote: »

Bus lanes on the other hand are a different story - these are very good for cycling in, and I like that the Highway Code advises to cycle in the middle of the lane.

I'm sure the 50 odd other people who were on the bus with me yesterday when we were stuck behind a slow moving cyclist for a couple of miles will not agree with you.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

I'm sure the 50 odd other people who were on the bus with me yesterday when we were stuck behind a slow moving cyclist for a couple of miles will not agree with you.

a couple of miles? what road was that?

thelawnet

Johno100 wrote: »

I'm sure the 50 odd other people who were on the bus with me yesterday when we were stuck behind a slow moving cyclist for a couple of miles will not agree with you.

Why didn't the bus overtake using the non-bus-lane?