Richard Mann wrote:What creates everyday cyclists is congestion. Cycle lanes (and other forms of priority) shift the balance slightly. There's a lot of congestion in our cities, so there's a natural demand for cycling in a lot of places, if conditions aren't too hairy.
Some people take up cycling cos it's healthy (and some for cost reasons), but again, they won't generally keep cycling if the roads are hairy.
Nail on the head IMO.
The way the government bleat on about CO2 emissions and climate change you'd think they'd be doing everything to make roads less hairy for cyclists and be promoting public transport use by among other things,making it easier to carry bike on trains,and for tickets to be simple to buy,not to mention flat rate costs,etc,etc .
You'd also think they'd be discouraging the use of gas guzzling 2ton 4x4's,etc by loading taxes on the use of such vehicles unless their use is a necessity,limiting the kind of roads HGV's use or restricting their use to certain times of day and reducing the speed limits across the board by 10mph except M/ways where the current 70mph would be rigorously enforced.
And a thousand and one other transport issues that need tackling to get slobs out of huge cars that they transport their children less than a mile to school
You'd think penalties for breaking road laws would be increased in line with the 21 century and inline with other forward thinking northern European countries,who it so happens operate strict liability laws wherebye if a bigger category vehicle collides with a smaller vehicle or vulnerable road user they are held responsible unless they can prove otherwise.
The fact that they don't,tells me that the government don't give a monkeys about cycling the vulnerable road user of whatever category or CO2 emissions and are more concerned with getting in at the next election by leading people to think that the car is the answer to our transport needs,but then politrickians don't care much for the truth