|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 17th 05 11:17 PM |
This week's BMJ | Helen Deborah Vecht | UK | 2 | April 10th 04 09:48 AM |