BBC New website media request - What do you think of the government's new proposals for cycling?

MikeF
Posts: 3590
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: BBC New website media request - What do you think of the government's new proposals for cycling?

Postby MikeF » 29 Nov 2018, 7:24pm

pjclinch wrote:
MikeF wrote:
basingstoke123 wrote:As others have said: shared use facilities are disliked by cyclists and disliked by pedestrians. But these are the only two groups that shared use is supposed to serve. Which probably suggests that the real reason for shared use is not to benefit pedestrians or cyclists, but to get cyclists off the roads so as to benefit drivers.
It also causes other problems, as there is usually very little physical difference between a shared 'facility' (or "Cycle Route Along Pavement"), and a non-shared use facility.

Some cyclists cannot see any difference between a typical shared use facility and a typical pedestrian only facility, so continue to cycle along the road instead using the shared facility.

Some cyclists cannot see any difference between a typical shared use facility and a typical pedestrian only facility, so continue to cycle along the pavement instead of the road.
The only commonality between pedestrians and cyclists is that both use human energy as a means of transport. Apart from that they are vastly different - but not according to the Government.


The political reality is that they are both "active travel" and AT is having (relatively) large amounts of money thrown at it, but that means you can't do one and ignore the other. This is potentially a Good Thing, though for it to be good it needs something like the level of Clue being shown in Manchester. That is a very long way off being a Given :(

Pete.
Yes. The political reality is that they are both active travel and therefore both, from a political view, can be very conveniently lumped together. (Non motorised user is another lumping term.) Provision of shared use paths politically meets the need of active travel. Problem solved! :roll:
That political reality is why we won't have Dutch style infrastructure.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

ian s
Posts: 112
Joined: 24 Jun 2008, 12:59pm

Re: BBC New website media request - What do you think of the government's new proposals for cycling?

Postby ian s » 29 Nov 2018, 10:07pm

This business of the "Dutch reach" is being rendered much more difficult than it once was because of the design of the cars themselves. In the past the internal door release lever was typically just in front of the driver's body, and it was actually difficult to reach it with the hand on the arm that side. These days the door release lever is typically near the leading edge of the door, so that one can reach it with the nearest arm, and in the driving seat using the other arm (the Dutch reach) is difficult because the steering wheel gets in the way. Therefore never mind Government initiatives, it isn't likely to happen.

basingstoke123
Posts: 123
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: BBC New website media request - What do you think of the government's new proposals for cycling?

Postby basingstoke123 » 30 Nov 2018, 8:37pm

MikeF wrote:
pjclinch wrote:
MikeF wrote:The only commonality between pedestrians and cyclists is that both use human energy as a means of transport. Apart from that they are vastly different - but not according to the Government.


The political reality is that they are both "active travel" and AT is having (relatively) large amounts of money thrown at it, but that means you can't do one and ignore the other. This is potentially a Good Thing, though for it to be good it needs something like the level of Clue being shown in Manchester. That is a very long way off being a Given :(

Pete.
Yes. The political reality is that they are both active travel and therefore both, from a political view, can be very conveniently lumped together. (Non motorised user is another lumping term.) Provision of shared use paths politically meets the need of active travel. Problem solved! :roll:
That political reality is why we won't have Dutch style infrastructure.

And we don't have Dutch levels of cycling.