Cugel wrote:As I keep trying to say - the causes and effects are complex. It's not really possible to disentangle them all.
That's great, but later you fall back to
The roads are already there and just need the loonies removing.
which contradicts it, doesn't it?
No, the roads are demonstrably fit for cycling as we do 99% of cycling, nationally, on those roads. We merely dislike the danger of car-loons being allowed the same facility despite their criminal behaviour.
mjr wrote:I also think the later statement is not true. If we keep the current dangerously-bad-for-cycling road layouts, then no amount of policing will solve all the problems.
There are few of those compared to the vast amount of road space that's very suitable for cycling. The cost of fixing a few bad-for-cyclists road bits would be teeny-weeny compared to a whole new cycling infrastructure replicating the extant roads.
My overarching point is that improving the behaviour of motorised traffic by a significant degree of policing will, by it's very nature, make more drivers conform more often to the rules.
mjr wrote:I ask again, is there any evidence for that?
Are you seriously suggesting that better policing will fail to have an effect on conformity to law? Perhaps we should scrap policemen altogether, eh?
mjr wrote:Also, many current UK infrastructure inadequacies have little to do with money. In some cases, better infrastructure like reallocating one of three carriageway lanes to a two-way cycleway and erecting kerb islands with posts would be cheaper than the substandard stuff that was actually built. In others, things like approach angles at crossings don't cost any different.
At bottom I feel those pushing for cycling infrastructure are being a bit selfish - as well as consumerist in assuming an "at last, a new product" will solve everything. What about the remaining problems of all those car loons charging about?
mjr wrote:I feel you are arguing against people that do not exist, some sort of infrastructure absolutists who say it will cure everything and we do not need any other measures, when most of us involved in the Space For Cycling campaigns have also been involved in other campaigns getting more policing, such as Road Justice, 20's Plenty, RDRF and Stop The Killing. This has been pointed out often enough that your continued use of Aunt Sally arguments and refusal to answer questions for evidence on the so-called "tried and tested" policing is pretty disingenuous.
Is it an Aunt Sally to question the cost and practicality of cycling infrastructure as an effective solution? Let's face it - the provisions so far have been a waste of money .... according to Chris Boarman and several others of the pro-cyclist interest groups, not just the likes of me. Nor do I completely dismiss cycling infrastructure as useful in limited circumstances - but not as a replacement for our right to ride the roads in safety; and not at any cost.
The problem is that the more you advocate cycling infrastructure as the main solution to the problem, the more you encourage those who want to avoid fixing the car problem. Indeed you tacitly encourage them to get cyclists off the roads altogether. Many are the tales of cyclists riding roads next to a wholly inadequate cycle path being screamed at, or even driven at, by car loons telling them to "get on the cyclepath".
And your complaint that I don't provide evidence that improved traffic policing reduces car-harm on the road sounds like a bit of desperation, frankly. In addition, I've already told you that there is little evidence available as traffic policing is not being increased anywhere that I know off. I can't give you evidence if none is generated either way.
But, as mentioned above, the logical implication that increased policing of existing law does not reduce crime is that we don't get any benefit from any policing and that we should therefore scrap the lot. Is that a reasonable position, do you think?
Would increased policing result in more cycling though? I don't know, as there are many other factors (as I keep trying to explain) that effect the attractiveness or otherwise of cycling to the great British public mind. The same applies to the provision of cycling infrastructure. But cycling infrastructure is very very expensive; and it doesn't do anything of itself to reduce the other widespread harms of carmageddon. Efforts to fix carmageddon offer a far greater payback, if they succeed, than does cyclepath provision.