If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

Funniest thing I've read all day. You've been presented with statistics, diagrams, photos and many personal anecdotes and examples.

Plenty of people have engaged with you in reasoned debate. I think your problem is that they don't agree with you.

Why do all these attempts to engage me in a reasoned debate begin with some kind of attempt at some kind of put-down?

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Why do all these attempts to engage me in a reasoned debate begin with some kind of attempt at some kind of put-down?

Maybe because we all know you're just trolling and don't actually want a reasoned debate...?

modsandmockers

Esuhl - please can you point us all towards any contribution which you have ever made towards a reasoned debate.

Johnmcl7

modsandmockers wrote: »

The famously flat Dutch terrain, combined with densely-populated areas, mean that most journeys are of short duration and not too difficult to complete.

Few Dutch people don lycra to get out on their bike, preferring to ride to work, the shops or the pub in whatever clothes they think appropriate for their final destination.

Of course, the cycle paths lend themselves to sauntering along in summer dresses in a way a death-defying, white-knuckle ride in rush-hour traffic does not. It is also partly because of this that people don't need showers at work to be able to commute by bike - it's a no-sweat experience.

Dutch people also tend to go helmet-free because they are protected by the cycle-centric rules of the roads and the way infrastructure is designed. If you see someone wearing a cycling helmet in The Netherlands, the chances are they're a tourist or a professional.

Most of these apply to the UK as well, it's a common misconception that to cycle to work you should be young, fit and lycra-clad. Few UK people don lycra to go out on their bikes either, there are some in road bike groups and races for the roadies but the commuters, tourers, social riders and off roaders are very rarely wearing lycra. The road bike groups tend to stand out much more than all the other groups so this is clearly what sticks in people's heads.

As for not needing showers at work because it's a no sweat experience in Holland - complete rubbish, people sweat due to the physical activity and in the warmer months there's only so far you can strip down to at which point you're going to end up sweaty with a certain amount of effort.

I'm not in any way claiming the UK cycling infrastructure is as good as in Holland as it isn't, much of the attitude towards cycling is quite wrong here but your strange view of cycling in the UK that it's some brutal battleground that only the lycra clad roadies can dare to face is wrong no matter how many topics you make to try and justify that view.

And no, I don't wear lycra either aside from cycling shorts under my normal shorts or trousers as they make a huge different to comfort and they can't be seen. I cycle everywhere pretty much and despite being in the north of scotland around the city it's all mostly flat, the only hills I do are the ones I've actively sought out when on the MTB.

John

Johnmcl7

modsandmockers wrote: »

I am proud to be a Dutch-style ‘wheelbarrow’ cyclist, but there is no longer room for me on the UK highway. More importantly, there is no room for my grandchildren.

Really? Even my fat bike fits on the roads, what sort of bikes are you and your grand children riding?!

John

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Esuhl - please can you point us all towards any contribution which you have ever made towards a reasoned debate.

I've pointed out plenty of problems with your bizarre trolling. Stop diverting the issue away from yourself again.

Have YOU ever contributed towards any reasoned debate? Thought not.

frisbeej

So Mods wants the UK to adopt part of the Dutch approach, where cyclists stick to cycle paths.


Therefore I can only presume that he also supports the other aspects: presumed liability for car-bike accidents, priority to bikes at junctions and roundabouts and limiting vehicle access and parking in towns and cities.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Unlike many ‘newly-born’ cyclists, with no childhood training, I understand it [positioning for safety] very well indeed, and it doesn’t include lane-hogging.

"New born cyclists!?" What a weird description.
No childhood training I've had or given involves primary positioning. It's a position that requires confidence and awareness that is beyond the basic training imparted in childhood cycling proficiency or bike ability.
So, once again your argument fails because you don't understand those you are taking issue with.

Taking the lane is one of the main features of the primary position. Is that what you see as lane hogging?

So I’m still wrong, even when I agree with you? I have cycled in traffic, I have cycled abroad, and I have read CycleCraft. I have quoted several different sources in support of my statements, but, as you say, nobody has engaged with me in a reasoned debate.

I am proud to be a Dutch-style ‘wheelbarrow’ cyclist, but there is no longer room for me on the UK highway. More importantly, there is no room for my grandchildren.

To be safe on busy roads, you must be confident. I don't frequent them at all, because I have better alternatives. I wouldn't take my kids on such roads, the experience is not pleasurable. But on many quiet country roads, an afternoon out on the bikes with a cafe stop or picnic is about the best family experience that I could recommend.
Infrastructure designed to remove the less confident or novice cyclist, especially the commuter cyclist, from conflict with heavy traffic is the single most important pro cycling directive facing this country.
I think we might even be able to agree on this!

Tobster86

brat wrote: »

Infrastructure designed to remove the less confident or novice cyclist, especially the commuter cyclist, from conflict with heavy traffic is the single most important pro cycling directive facing this country.
I think we might even be able to agree on this!

I still don't fully agree with this, but only on the overly-optimistic basis that all the necessary infrastructure exists, requiring only changes in attitudes for it to work effectively. And maybe some population control.

brat

Tobster86 wrote: »

I still don't fully agree with this, but only on the overly-optimistic basis that all the necessary infrastructure exists, requiring only changes in attitudes for it to work effectively. And maybe some population control.

I think that the lack of quality infrastructure is the bottleneck to cycling usage that differentiates us from other countries.

I see two distinct groups of road cyclist, one being the 'assertive' cyclist, the other being the 'guarded' cyclist. Guarded cyclists are those who would defer to the larger motor vehicle through fear or lack of confidence. They tend to ride very close to the kerb edge to allow, almost encourage close overtakes. Consequently they unwittingly become the most at risk road cyclists.

This group of people obviously want to cycle, but don't enjoy using busy commuter roads. They therefore cycle timidly, even apologetically in traffic. There will be a high percentage of like minded people who opt not to ride because of the risk and 'battleground' nature of busy roads.

This group would be hugely encouraged by a much better urban cycling infrastructure. I'd happily send my kids to school on their bikes if the roads felt much safer for them or if there was a safe alternate path. Likewise my wife would cycle to school.

This is the demographic that other countries have catered for much better than us. These would be utility cyclists would, I believe, come out in their droves if cycling was as easy and as safe as jumping in your car.