Steady rider wrote:This is what I think should have been provided but they have both access roads and houses facing the rural road. In this way you end up with the up and down pavement and side roads to cross.
mjr wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:with supposedly 50% helmet wearing rate
Where's that from? I've only seen the Republic of Ireland manage that level without legal compulsion and then only briefly.
The utility cyclist wrote:It was a number I saw being bandied around, I don't have an official stat (I'm not botthered to find one) hence why I said supposedly, given the number of sporting/weekend warrior riders are helmet wearers that figure wouldn't surprise me in the least and I'd reckon the miles travelled in the UK is much more than half whilst under a plastic hat. Which in fact makes the figures/helmet wearing fallacy look even worse.
Steady rider wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.9362823,-0.786089,3a,75y,322.99h,106.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvhfBnrfhXUg1kqUEF3F2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The development is along a rural road with a 60 mph limit and some cyclists prefer to ride on a path alongside. It is actually on part of the coast to coast cycle route. I would most likely use the road but others would use a path.
The utility cyclist wrote:How do we convince government at all levels that helmets and hi-vis are not the solutions at all and is actually just wrong <snip>
Cycling, like walking, needs to be universally seen as easy, fun and safe. Safety, and the perception of safety, are vital if we are to create a rapid increase in the use of active travel.
The truth is that cycling is generally very safe, and serious accidents are rare. But we need to make it safer still, for all road users, so that it becomes a default mode of transport, whatever one’s age or background. But safety does not simply include road safety - it also includes physical health and well-being, in a clean and green environment. The evidence is clear: cycling and walking have the capacity to transform the health and well-being, not only of people who walk and cycle themselves, but of everyone in society.
The utility cyclist wrote:How do we convince government at all levels that helmets and hi-vis are not the solutions at all and is actually just wrong is what needs to be tackled first.
When you have cycle training in schools and elsewhere having compulsory helmet/hi-vis or you're not allowed to take part plus schools unlawfully forcing kids to wear or be banned from riding to school is a massive negative aspect and indoctrination programme. This is the starting point because by removing this we can then move onto the other things because otherwise the focus on those two things are seen as THE most important safety interventions above all else and restrict the thinking for safety interventions that are actually effective.
Do we need to take matters through to legally challenge how government at all levels are doing things, when we know that pollution, safety, health are all improved by cycling and yet they not only drag their heels but actively ignore these solutions which do cost lives and make lives less healthy, less safe and less happier.
I think that unless we tackle this with a bullish approach and literally force things through matters will not change in any significant way. I'd be prepared to put a significant amount to whichever group decides to make a legal challenge to force change because the softly, softly approach has proven not to work and indeed the attacks on cycling by general public is allowed to go on/get worse to the point it is openly hate crimes, as well as slanted reports/changes in law, and the approach by police/legal system are all bias/discriminatory.
We have recommended standards but when has any authority actually ever adhered to them, who sets these standards anyway and why aren't they set as minimum standards? Again forcing change by legal challenge seems to be the only way to force things through because there has been no change at all in reality in 30 years. You only need look at the utter rubbish that is continually knocked up or even new developments that have no infra or again panders to the motorist with no incentive to cycle. This is then topped off by cycling orgs setting a rod by signing off micturate poor infra that not only makes cycling less safe but is wasted money because it comes from an active travel funding but actually just helped motorists get from A-B quicker and hindered people on bikes. #turbogate
Just sick of the whole affair to be honest.
reohn2 wrote:...the UK is anti cycling and any concessions to cycling is grudgingly given by government at all levels,cycling is seen as just a nuisance outgroup activity that's sort of tolerated...
reohn2 wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:How do we convince government at all levels that helmets and hi-vis are not the solutions at all and is actually just wrong is what needs to be tackled first.
When you have cycle training in schools and elsewhere having compulsory helmet/hi-vis or you're not allowed to take part plus schools unlawfully forcing kids to wear or be banned from riding to school is a massive negative aspect and indoctrination programme. This is the starting point because by removing this we can then move onto the other things because otherwise the focus on those two things are seen as THE most important safety interventions above all else and restrict the thinking for safety interventions that are actually effective.
Do we need to take matters through to legally challenge how government at all levels are doing things, when we know that pollution, safety, health are all improved by cycling and yet they not only drag their heels but actively ignore these solutions which do cost lives and make lives less healthy, less safe and less happier.
I think that unless we tackle this with a bullish approach and literally force things through matters will not change in any significant way. I'd be prepared to put a significant amount to whichever group decides to make a legal challenge to force change because the softly, softly approach has proven not to work and indeed the attacks on cycling by general public is allowed to go on/get worse to the point it is openly hate crimes, as well as slanted reports/changes in law, and the approach by police/legal system are all bias/discriminatory.
We have recommended standards but when has any authority actually ever adhered to them, who sets these standards anyway and why aren't they set as minimum standards? Again forcing change by legal challenge seems to be the only way to force things through because there has been no change at all in reality in 30 years. You only need look at the utter rubbish that is continually knocked up or even new developments that have no infra or again panders to the motorist with no incentive to cycle. This is then topped off by cycling orgs setting a rod by signing off micturate poor infra that not only makes cycling less safe but is wasted money because it comes from an active travel funding but actually just helped motorists get from A-B quicker and hindered people on bikes. #turbogate
Just sick of the whole affair to be honest.
I agree,and particularly your last sentence.
IMO the UK is anti cycling and any concessions to cycling is grudgingly given by government at all levels,cycling is seen as just a nuisance outgroup activity that's sort of tolerated.Which apart from a few enlightened areas of the country is laughed at as legitimate from of transport,and where the the car is king much like a little USA.
Wanlock Dod wrote:reohn2 wrote:...the UK is anti cycling and any concessions to cycling is grudgingly given by government at all levels,cycling is seen as just a nuisance outgroup activity that's sort of tolerated...
As has been ably demonstrated by the Scottish government who committed themselves in 2010 to ensuring that by 2020 10% of all journeys are cycles, but have yet to actually make any real progress towards that aim. They have built lots of motorways though.
Cugel wrote:Personally I would like to see cycling in the UK less dominated by the faux-racer, the lookitme MAMIL, the young turk looking for trouble in between Stava-striving (often in a dangerous or inconsiderate manner). I don't say ban 'em but rather, let's have more media (magazine & website) that's like the CTC/CUK rather than those organs that serve as promoters and advertising agents to the sellers of the whole faux-racing cyclist fashion and its many gewgaws
Wanlock Dod wrote:reohn2 wrote:...the UK is anti cycling and any concessions to cycling is grudgingly given by government at all levels,cycling is seen as just a nuisance outgroup activity that's sort of tolerated...
As has been ably demonstrated by the Scottish government who committed themselves in 2010 to ensuring that by 2020 10% of all journeys are cycles, but have yet to actually make any real progress towards that aim. They have built lots of motorways though.
Steady rider wrote:About 5 years ago I rode about 500 miles in Germany, most of the main roads had cycle paths and on other roads drivers took more care when overtaking. Their cycling fatality rate is 15 per billion km, UK is 28.
The general fatality rate per million inhabitants is 28 for the UK and 39 for Germany, https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Car-Hire-B ... urope.aspx
The conclusion from the above would be to provide cycle paths on 'A' roads and any busy roads plus have a clear incentive for drivers to overtake with more care.
A response to government probably needs a list of points and each with a supporting research paper and detailed recommendations.
I feel as does the utility cyclist, although I don't allow myself to get depressed about it. (Stocism is a necessary skill in a modern society, or any other really, humans being humans).
Perhaps a fundamental question is, why are cyclists and cycling regarded in so many quarters as "just a nuisance outgroup"? Part of the reason is that cycling in Blighty (unlike some other European nations) has become some sort of faux-racer lookitme posturing thing, wherein many cyclists are as aggressive as the motorists they joust with. There has been a creation of "cycling" as .... an outgroup (special, superior, often very snobbish).
Indeed, one gets the impression that the adherents of this notion of cycling are red-faced gesticulating loons when on their bike and likely the same in their cars. Of course, a loon in a car is rather more dangerous than a loon on a bike.
But I digress.
Personally I would like to see cycling in the UK less dominated by the faux-racer, the lookitme MAMIL, the young turk looking for trouble in between Stava-striving (often in a dangerous or inconsiderate manner). I don't say ban 'em but rather, let's have more media (magazine & website) that's like the CTC/CUK rather than those organs that serve as promoters and advertising agents to the sellers of the whole faux-racing cyclist fashion and its many gewgaws.
