Vorpal wrote:I do think awavey has a point. I don't buy into the idea that one needs to sprint to compete with motor traffic, but lots of people do. John Franklin wrote something to that affect, though not using those words, in Cyclecraft (which I can't be bothered to look up at the moment).
Don't have a copy to hand, but I'm pretty certain it does suggest that a good turn of speed can be useful. Which is correct, but "useful" and "essential" aren't the same thing. I do have a good turn of speed most of the time if needed, but if I've got a heavy load in the back of the 8-freight I won't be picking up any sprint bonus seconds, yet I can still "do" vehicular cycling with it.
Vorpal wrote:The British government has encouraged this kind of thinking by focusing on vehicular cycling and training, instead of investing in cycle-friendly infrastructure.
The key point being, I think, is it's very easy to say "cycling, yes, we have Bikeability now so box ticked, aren't we marvellous, hurrah" and move on to something "important". Training, especially as implemented in the UK, costs the government roughly zip. They provide a scheme where it's easy to flag up successes because nobody is looking at the long term effects (or rather, the lack thereof). Bikeability has the problem that it's clearly a Good Thing
so people are positive about it, but in the bigger picture it's pretty much irrelevant as things stand. One, maybe two, cheers for Bikeability! It provides a useful leg-up for the sort of people who are going to be in the 2% of modal share anyway.