A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 28th 08, 08:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
al Mossah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

http://www.economist.com/world/brita...ry_id=11089996

WHEN John Major, Britain's most recent Conservative prime minister,
wanted to evoke the spirit of England in 1993, he bowdlerised George
Orwell, talking romantically of “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion
through the morning mist”. It was an anachronistic image: by the time
Mr Major delivered his speech cycling accounted for only 1% of
distance travelled on British roads, down from around a third of the
total just after the second world war.

Today the proportion is even lower, at around 0.9%. But if the
government has its way, the decline could soon be stopped. Whitehall
is pouring money and effort into two-wheeled transport. Cycling
England, a government-funded outfit that promotes pedal power, will
see its budget increased from £10m to £60m by 2009. The cash will be
spent on connecting schools to the national cycle-lane network,
training for children and propaganda aimed at motorists. Six towns
have already been singled out as test-beds; 11 more are planned.

Besides helping to reduce congestion (a growing problem on the roads
in most places) and air pollution, the ambitious argue that bicycles
can help to save both the nation and the world. Cycling is hard work
and therefore likely to cut obesity in the fattest country in the
European Union. And carbon-free bicycles could help ministers meet
their elusive climate-change targets.

Enthusiasts point to the two-wheeled renaissance in London as a source
of good ideas for aspiring local councils. Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.

Concerns about safety, which keep many would-be cyclists wedded to
their cars, seem overblown. Despite the surge of new cyclists, London
has seen the numbers killed or seriously injured fall by around a
third over the past decade, and national data show a similar trend.

TfL attributes this partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them.

Another shining example for cycling fans is Cambridge, where an echo
of Mr Major's Albion can just about be discerned in the dons and
students cycling between ancient colleges. Cambridge is widely
regarded as the most cycle-mad city in Britain, with around a quarter
of its residents biking to work, eight times the national average.
That reflects some natural advantages (the place is mostly flat) and
some deliberate decisions (such as plenty of cycle lanes and places to
lock up bikes). But historically, no conscious decision is responsible
for cycling's popularity. Other, less tangible cultural factors seem
to be at work, harder to export to the rest of the country. “Everyone
does it and always has,” explains one Cantabrigian. “It's just the way
Cambridge is.”

Peter.
Ads
  #2  
Old April 28th 08, 10:35 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
dkahn400
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,016
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On Apr 28, 8:36*am, al Mossah wrote:

Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.


Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
almost certainly have the opposite effect.

--
Dave...
  #3  
Old April 28th 08, 10:46 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
al Mossah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah wrote:

Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.


Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
almost certainly have the opposite effect.

--
Dave...


I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."

Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
cyclists.

Peter.
  #4  
Old April 28th 08, 04:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Phil Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

al Mossah wrote:

On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah wrote:

Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.


Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
almost certainly have the opposite effect.


I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."

Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
cyclists.


What about the "investment in cycle lanes" in that paragraph though?

The general consensus is that we don't want cycle lanes or at least we
don't want the bad ones. You know the ones, less than two metres
width, ones that stop just when you need them most and those that
try to force us off onto glass strewn shared use paths.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
  #5  
Old April 28th 08, 07:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:06:46 +0100, Phil Cook
wrote:

al Mossah wrote:

On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah wrote:

Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.

Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
almost certainly have the opposite effect.


I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."

Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
cyclists.


What about the "investment in cycle lanes" in that paragraph though?

The general consensus is that we don't want cycle lanes or at least we
don't want the bad ones. You know the ones, less than two metres
width, ones that stop just when you need them most and those that
try to force us off onto glass strewn shared use paths.


Cycle lanes do a lot to encourage new and returning cyclists.

Recently I posted this photo of the A2 across Blackheath:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

The general consensus seemed to be that the road was better for
cyclists with the lane than it would be without the lane.

Personally, I feel that the best cycle facilities in London are bus
lanes. I am often astonished at the seamless way I can ride into
central London using bus lanes.

But the growth in traffic free routes are also a frequent delight. I
can cycle from east London to west London, mostly traffic free, using
the Thames cycle route. I can cycle south to Croydon using the
Waterlink Way. I can cycle north well into Hertfordshire using the
Lee Valley Navigation Channel tow path, and I can get to Islington and
beyond using the Regent's Canal tow path - though a few tow path free
tunnels disturb the traffic free route. These traffic free cycle
route are noticably increasing in quality, though there is still much
work to be done. The crossing of the Greenway over the A13/A117 in
Beckton, for example, takes 6 separate toucan crossings.
  #6  
Old April 29th 08, 11:21 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
al Mossah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On 28 Apr, 15:06, Phil Cook wrote:
al Mossah wrote:
On 28 Apr, 10:35, dkahn400 wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:36 am, al Mossah wrote:


Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.


Personally I think that cycling in London has increased in spite of
the farcilities, not because of them. I am very concerned about the
push to "encourage" cycling by further marginalising cyclists. It will
almost certainly have the opposite effect.

I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."


Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
cyclists.


What about the "investment in cycle lanes" in that paragraph though?

The general consensus is that we don't want cycle lanes or at least we
don't want the bad ones. You know the ones, less than two metres
width, ones that stop just when you need them most and those that
try to force us off onto glass strewn shared use paths.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"


I agree; bad cycle lanes are very bad. But in the Netherlands, for
example, cycle lanes are very good. So I'm in favour of investment in
cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)

Peter.
  #7  
Old April 29th 08, 11:34 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

al Mossah wrote:

I agree; bad cycle lanes are very bad. But in the Netherlands, for
example, cycle lanes are very good. So I'm in favour of investment in
cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)


What, on the other side of the road? (IGMC...) ;-/

Sadly, a bike lane designed by the Dutch isn't enough, because that
leaves the roads to be planned by someone else, who'll give the roads
far more right of way than the bike lanes. The Dutch system works
because the two are (AIUI) considered together, rather than taking a
road and trying to retro-fit bike paths to/around it without disturbing
the road much.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
  #8  
Old April 29th 08, 04:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
dkahn400
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,016
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On Apr 28, 10:46*am, al Mossah wrote:

I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. *One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."

Which is what many in this group feel. *This is far from marginalising
cyclists.


No, that is not marginalising cyclists. It is the threatened increase
in cycle lanes that will marginalise cyclists.

--
Dave...
  #9  
Old April 29th 08, 05:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:34:49 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

al Mossah wrote:

I agree; bad cycle lanes are very bad. But in the Netherlands, for
example, cycle lanes are very good. So I'm in favour of investment in
cycle lanes provided that they are designed by Dutch planners :-)


What, on the other side of the road? (IGMC...) ;-/

Sadly, a bike lane designed by the Dutch isn't enough, because that
leaves the roads to be planned by someone else, who'll give the roads
far more right of way than the bike lanes. The Dutch system works
because the two are (AIUI) considered together, rather than taking a
road and trying to retro-fit bike paths to/around it without disturbing
the road much.


That's how Transport for London now redesign roads and junctions. They
consider the whole width, building to building, for all users:
pedestrians, wheelchair users, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers,
van drivers and lorry drivers.
  #10  
Old April 30th 08, 07:03 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
al Mossah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Pro-cycling article in this week's Economist

On 29 Apr, 15:41, dkahn400 wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:46 am, al Mossah wrote:

I don't see any threatened "marginalising of cyclists" in the
article. One of the key points is that
"TfL attributes this (reduction in numbers killed or seriously
injured) partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them."


Which is what many in this group feel. This is far from marginalising
cyclists.


No, that is not marginalising cyclists. It is the threatened increase
in cycle lanes that will marginalise cyclists.

--
Dave...


The Netherlands has cycle lanes everywhere, generally planned (as
Peter Clinch says) in conjunction with the needs of the pedestrian and
motorist. You can hardly call cyclists in the Netherlands
"marginalised".

Peter.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pro cycling article in SMH Jack Russell Australia 3 August 16th 06 03:38 AM
The Economist: Declining fortunes of Bicycle Messengers Luke General 15 July 27th 06 07:48 AM
Next Week's Weather Simonb UK 14 February 18th 05 12:17 AM
This week's BMJ Helen Deborah Vecht UK 2 April 10th 04 09:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.