CycleCraft - a discussion...

modsandmockers

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Neither of those have anything to do with building cycling infrastructure.

John

No - but they might have something to do with usage levels, and/or national priorities.

fred246

Never had any trouble cycling in storms. I think cycling rates would be reduced in very steep areas but otherwise hills are not a problem. Electric bikes could be used.

Babbawah

One of the most contentious ideas that I instantly agreed with, was from a traffic cop about to begin the journey to inform the next of kin of a fatac that I attended to recover the vehicle.

"The best safety device you could fit to a car is a 6" spike in the middle of the steering wheel, pointing at the drivers throat".

Contentious I agree, you are unlikely to suggest such a thing and find that everyone understands the intended principle.

A few days later I had the fortune to make the traffic cop a mug of tea back at the yard, so we had a sit down and a long chat.

We both agreed that the cyclist / motorist problem is a complex one, it doesn't have a simple solution.

We also agreed that it is possibly wrong to dedicate every highway with a major bias to the motorist.

To understand this you need to imagine the average residential road, everyone who lives there has a vehicle and every day big lorrries use it for deliveries.

But why does the road need to be dedicated to vehicles?

Why does it have to have a pavement each side with kerbstones seperating them from the wide expanse of vehicular tarmac?

Why can't it be one big wide pavement with benches and flower beds, trees and streetlight columns in the middle?

You'll still be able to thread a vehicle through to deliver in a big lorry or park your car at home, but it would place the emphasis of who has priority around here to the pedestrian first, then the cyclist, with the motorist coming last.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Would I love my cycling to be devoid of risk from third parties? Yes.
Will that risk stop me enjoying my cycling here and now? No

Would you have nearly as much cycling fun in Holland?

modsandmockers

Babbawah wrote: »

One of the most contentious ideas that I instantly agreed with, was from a traffic cop about to begin the journey to inform the next of kin of a fatac that I attended to recover the vehicle.

"The best safety device you could fit to a car is a 6" spike in the middle of the steering wheel, pointing at the drivers throat".

Contentious I agree, you are unlikely to suggest such a thing and find that everyone understands the intended principle.

A few days later I had the fortune to make the traffic cop a mug of tea back at the yard, so we had a sit down and a long chat.

We both agreed that the cyclist / motorist problem is a complex one, it doesn't have a simple solution.

We also agreed that it is possibly wrong to dedicate every highway with a major bias to the motorist.

To understand this you need to imagine the average residential road, everyone who lives there has a vehicle and every day big lorrries use it for deliveries.

But why does the road need to be dedicated to vehicles?

Why does it have to have a pavement each side with kerbstones seperating them from the wide expanse of vehicular tarmac?

Why can't it be one big wide pavement with benches and flower beds, trees and streetlight columns in the middle?

You'll still be able to thread a vehicle through to deliver in a big lorry or park your car at home, but it would place the emphasis of who has priority around here to the pedestrian first, then the cyclist, with the motorist coming last.

Another of my insane ideas, which I have posted on here before, is that instead of a 20mph speed limit, it would make sense to pave the area completely and designate a 'shared area'. I may be wrong, but I think that's something they do in Holland.

modsandmockers

fred246 wrote: »

Electric bikes could be used.

Yes - and how long would it be before we had yet another sub-division in the argument between the good guys and the bad guys?

fred246

You really do need to have motorists controlled in residential areas. I think the dutch have lots more paving stones and less tarmac. They have 30kph zones but they have cameras to police them.

Tobster86

The problem with speed limits and the manner in which they are enforced in the UK is that it just generates resentment. It needs to be consistent, safety-orientated and fair, which it is not; it's all politically motivated.

Someone who drives past a school at 40mph can go on a speed awareness course, yet someone who does 100mph on an empty motorway can get the book thrown in their face. Meanwhile you can tailgate, cut-up and use the wrong lane as much as you like, provided that you're not being watched by the increasingly non-existent traffic police, who will probably just give you a bit of a roadside ticking-off anyway because the legal system hasn't made it easy to prosecute for those things.

So we have a dangerous combination of "I'm resentful because of this" and "I can get away with this, this and this"; and are then presented with a cyclist to get past.

I actually agree with modsandmockers regarding shared areas. It needs to just be socially unacceptable to tear-!!!! around residential areas; and the pedestrians and people who live their should have right of way. Outside of residential areas, however, there should be a German-style encouragement to take advantage of the technical marvels that make the modern car.

Babbawah

modsandmockers wrote: »

Another of my insane ideas, which I have posted on here before, is that instead of a 20mph speed limit, it would make sense to pave the area completely and designate a 'shared area'. I may be wrong, but I think that's something they do in Holland.

Gosh !

I agree with someone on MSE !

It wouldn't work for every road, but I look outside at the road that I live on and wonder why we didn't do it years ago.

Rotor

This thread has been the calmest and most rational and reasonable debate on cycling I think I have ever read on MSE. Keep it up guys!