Unlit cyclists: maybe safer!

[reohn2]

I don't see the fuel hikes having had much effect. In my mind, it's much more about carrot than stick.

Only if you can afford the carrots.

The evidence is clear that people will make sacrifices in other areas in order to maintain car use. Petrol is almost a fiver a gallon now - unimaginable just a few years ago - and yet demand for car usage has not reduced in the slightest.

If we want to encourage greater use of other forms of transport, we need to make the alternatives more appealing. In particular, we need a *genuine* integrated transport policy.

For example, putting guards vans back onto trains so that people can easily make journeys by a combination of bike and train. Secure covered bicycle parking at train stations where the bike is only needed at one end of the journey. And yes, ample, secure, affordable car-parking at train stations so people can use the car to start their journey and do the long-distance bit by train.

Ben

You're talking my language when talking about an integrated public transport system.The down side is that it isn't happening.
There is a little ex mining village/smalltown(Golborne) close to where I live with a railway line running straight through it to Manchester and part of the west coast line ,it had a station until the early 70's, the platform's there and with minimum cost could be open as a station again but though all the people want a station the council don't.That small town would be reborn with a station for commuters etc it would also relieve local roads of a lot of traffic.
The frustration is unbelievable!
There is a lot of money being made from oil and motor industries,need I go on.
Just one more point,I believe public transport like the utilities should be publicly owned and run for the people.

Has anyone heard of Maglev monorail systems?
These could be run over the top of the central reservations of motorways and major trunk roads,with stations at every motorway service station!they cost the same to build per mile as motorways but the speed is incredible.Maybe one day.

[thirdcrank]

I've realised why cyclists who use lights are involved in more accidents - we're all daydreaming - or whatever you call it after lighting-up time.

[Mick F]

Does "Lighting-up Time" still exist?
It used to be 15 minutes after sunset, I think. Or was it 30 mins?

[Ben Lovejoy]

Just one more point,I believe public transport like the utilities should be publicly owned and run for the people.

I'm old enough to remember the British Rail days! I wouldn't go back to those for any money ...

[Mick F]

I don't agree, Ben.

Maybe BR wasn't efficient, but at least you could get a train from A to B by buying a ticket at A. The ticket cost what it cost, not a huge variety of costs depending who and where you buy it from.

[Ben Lovejoy]

But do you remember how much it cost compared to now??

Yes, the number of different fares we have now is crazy, but the old BR fare would - in real terms - be in the upper 10% of what we pay now. Train timetables were based on what suited BT, not on when people actually wanted to travel.

Again, it's very easy to wear nostalgia spectacles when looking back at the BR days, but as someone who travelled a lot by train in those days, I remember the reality all too well.

[reohn2]

Just one more point,I believe public transport like the utilities should be publicly owned and run for the people.

I'm old enough to remember the British Rail days! I wouldn't go back to those for any money ...

It doesn't have to be like that,private owners will only run it for profit and even then that profit must grow year on year.People need stablity,thats why they run there cars instead of using public transport.They know they can rely on them even if it costs more.

[reohn2]

Just one more point,I believe public transport like the utilities should be publicly owned and run for the people.

I'm old enough to remember the British Rail days! I wouldn't go back to those for any money ...

It doesn't have to be like that,private owners will only run it for profit and even then that profit must grow year on year.People need stablity,thats why they run there cars instead of using public transport.They know they can rely on them even if it costs more.

[meic]

Coming back to bike lights, I think it may well be that in the majority of situations the bike lights are not making any difference as to whether or not a cyclist is seen. It is quite probable that most of the crashes are in built up areas where it is quite illuminated and the bike lights are about as visible as they are in daylight.
I remember when I got my first 'real' motorcycle an ex-police BMW with big white fairing and proper headlight and I thought well the drivers will notice me now! No they didnt see me on that either.
So if there is a higher likely hood of having a crash with lights on it is probably because the rider without is taking better preventative measures because they KNOW they will not be noticed.
Obviously being a Xmas tree in the countryside is a good idea and on occasions lights will help a cyclist to be seen but I think it has a minor effect in comparison to the majority of accidents. Where just like in the day time the other party cant see because they are not looking.

[Kirst]

I don't agree, Ben.

Maybe BR wasn't efficient, but at least you could get a train from A to B by buying a ticket at A. The ticket cost what it cost, not a huge variety of costs depending who and where you buy it from.

And you knew vital maintenance hadn't been neglected on cost grounds.

[Mick F]

I think the sooner they re-nationalise the railways, the better. It is, of course, a national asset and should be treated as such. Not to allow shareholders to make a fast buck or two at the cost of safety and reliability.

Anyway, sorry for hijacking this thread!

[glueman]

But do you remember how much it cost compared to now??

Yes, the number of different fares we have now is crazy, but the old BR fare would - in real terms - be in the upper 10% of what we pay now. Train timetables were based on what suited BT, not on when people actually wanted to travel.

Again, it's very easy to wear nostalgia spectacles when looking back at the BR days, but as someone who travelled a lot by train in those days, I remember the reality all too well.

With a student railcard a ticket from the midlands to London in the late 70s cost £6, £12 return. Railwaymen kept mid 50s traction going into the 80s with almost no investment. Guards vans, a vestige of railway's common carrier status were on every train, from humble one car units to the fastest inter city stock. Bike carriage was free or a modest sum.
Given investment the rail system has had since privatisation a modern BR would be a marvel. I'd have it back tomorrow and yes, I travelled by train all the time from the mid seventies to about 1990. There were problems but it was mostly outdated infrastructure that was to blame.

[Ben Lovejoy]

Student railcard fares don't give much of a reflection of real fares.

I'd dearly love guards vans back, but that's the only thing I'd want from the BR era.

[glueman]

Student railcard fares don't give much of a reflection of real fares.

I'd dearly love guards vans back, but that's the only thing I'd want from the BR era.

I'd like to see evidence that walk on fares were more expensive then than now. There are cheap tickets but they are almost impossible to obtain and you have to book weeks in advance. A walk on return ticket London-Manchester is about the same price as a cheap car on ebay!

[glueman]

Student railcard fares don't give much of a reflection of real fares.

I'd dearly love guards vans back, but that's the only thing I'd want from the BR era.

I'd like to see evidence that walk on fares were more expensive then than now. There are cheap tickets but they are almost impossible to obtain and you have to book weeks in advance. A walk on return ticket London-Manchester is about the same price as a cheap car on ebay!