The utility cyclist wrote:Just keep ignoring the facts, you're wrong on so many of your responses,
And yet, you ignore most of my responses (do you think Abingdon is a suburb of Oxford then?) and the few you do pick like:
You continue to ignore that the motor traffic in NL is hugely lower than the UK - 81billion motoring miles in NL, 322Billion miles GB (excl NI), that's 4x more motoring miles (comparing motorvehicle ownership per capita is laughable!), then you have twice the number of cyclist deaths, that's 8x equivalent compared to 7x more cycling miles (per person) in NL compared to UK cyclists.
That proves without a doubt that it is more dangerous for people on cycles in NL regards deaths even before you get to the fact that the majority of the Dutch cycling has little exposure to those motoring miles compared to the UK equivalent cyclist.
is simply so wrong it's painful to read. As we've discussed before, you're ignoring that NL counts a shipload of mounting/dismounting crashes that would simply not appear in Reported Road Casualties GB, along with many smaller differences which make international comparisons difficult and more than negate the 14% increase you describe.
And then you come out with the 4x motoring miles without any comment as to why that may be! Have you not noticed that GB is an island with much less through freight traffic than NL, for example?
As I've said before, either the Dutch motorists are worse than those in the UK, the Dutch cyclists act more dangerously than their UK counterparts, or the infra isn't up to scratch, which is it?
No, it's really not limited to those three explanations.
Routes across Netherlands are often not joined up/direct, admit that this is tru, clearly some areas have joined up infra but many areas do not and what is joined up has to cross motor roads doesn't it? To deny this is simply ignoring the truth and frankly sticking your head in the sand!
They have to cross motor roads, sure, but often with priority or passing above or below. I've rarely encountered routes not being joined-up or direct except when roadworks have disrupted them. Even then, diversions are clearly signed, with massive black-on-yellow bike-symbol arrows, or lettered arrows when you need different diversions for different destinations.
I'm not going to comment on Houten too much because I don't know it. Out of interest, when did you cycle there last?
Try plotting some routes from those suburbs outside traditional centres and see how indirect these routes are, do you think that this is better than direct routes which motorists often get,
Of course not, but I don't find such routes often. If you're using a computerised route plotter, they're often a bit too keen to prioritise distance over simplicity or signposting and sadly the signage info usually isn't as good as for motorist route plotters yet, so they often make decisions that seem strange to me on the ground - but this may be because I grew up with such systems, so I find navigating them second nature and much easier than the disjointed crap we often suffer in England.
What did you think of my suggested Weesperzijde/Amstel route into Amsterdam from the SE? Which way had you tried to go?
this is in part why Stevenage's cycle lanes don't work to attract decent numbers, convluted, not properly joined up and easier to drive.
Yes, I agree but we must remember Stevenage and MK are experimental layouts from decades ago (and MK was designed with bikes as third-class from the outset: cars first, buses second, bikes third - and even the bus system didn't work!) and it doesn't have to be that way.
Taking whole lanes away from motoring is the only way to resolve this, not only does it resolve this conflict it also resolves the narrow lane issue, it solves the non joining up issue, the direct route issue, it resolves the cost issue and it also means time is reduced hugely as it an be done virtually overnight.
Not exactly. People don't want to ride alongside motoring if they don't need to. Taking away lanes is not "the only way" - as you mention later, you can also take whole roads away from cars and give them to buses, bikes and walking, which is what gov.uk have instructed councils to do
, but I bet few of them do it quickly, instead hoping that UK government policy changes before they are forced to.
it comes across that you aren't actually interested in reducing motoring and improving cycling numbers/safety at all because your and others head in the sand ignorance of the facts/reality of the failure of segregation over shutting down roads completely to motor traffic.
It comes across that you don't remember what I write, because you keep reposting your mistakes in analysing NL and comparing it with GB — and now you accuse me of being against removing motors from lanes or roads, which is flabbergastingly untrue.
It's a bit sad because I think our main difference is only that I'm much more relaxed than you about whether lanes are reallocated or built new - why should we be limited to drivers' hand-me-downs? Sometimes we can go where they can't: a cycling bridge is much cheaper than a motoring one. Why does it matter if a lane is reallocated or built new, as long as it's designed properly?