[Closed] Almost everything that can be said about cars in one easy GIF

I cycled to work this morning and got a soaking for it, I could have got in the car and driven, I didn't, but I'm odd like that.

Had it been half term the road outside the office would have been gridlocked, as it's half term there were about 3 people on it. Cars aren't the problem, people taking their kids places are.

the problem with those images is that it mixes typical fill capacities for the cars and bikes with maximum fill capacities for the public transport which isn't a fair comparison. each of the buses would normally have the same number of people in as a car and the train would have twice as many in if it was like the ones I have to use. I'm extremely lucky in that for the last 8 years I've worked either within walking distance from or now at home so don't really need to drive except for attending meetings or going out to play.

I'm fairly conveniently placed for the station too although it's still a 30 minute walk/10 minute ride. But dear God, every time I take the train it's an absolute trial, my run to Birmingham is always overcrowded with people frequently having to stand from the start to the finish of the journey. It's no cheaper than driving, takes the same time, is less comfortable and less convenient for timings. I still do because the office is in the middle of Brum and the parking is a pain and I'm a hippy environmentalist but apart from going to major cities I really can't justify it. And on longer journeys it becomes even less practical as even leaving long connection gaps isn't guaranteed to work. It cost more and took longer to get to Glasgow than if I'd driven. I was able to work on the way up but that's only because it was late and I had space, normally even that's not a given.

Public transport is shit in this country and we end up in a Mexican standoff where people don't use it because it's shit and no-one invests in making it better because no-one uses it. personally I think it's the responsibility of the government to blink 1st as a well being measure (and it'd lead to infrastructure investment and jobs done well) but that ain't happening any time soon.

Cars aren't the problem, people taking their kids places are.

Childrens commutes tend to be quite short. Suspect that your normal gridlock is the parents just going to work rather than "taking their kids places"
Quieter this week coz' some parents take holidays from work to coincide with the half term? It's just a crazy theory mind you.

perchypanther

Childrens commutes tend to be quite short. Suspect that your normal gridlock is the parents just going to work rather than "taking their kids places"
Quieter this week coz' some parents take holidays from work to coincide with the half term? It's just a crazy theory mind you.

Unless everyone always takes time off work every time their kids are off school then no. Commute times during school term time is effectively doubled here.

<not criticising you>[quote=gobuchul ]Changed jobs, 35 miles the other direction, public transport would of been of 2.5 hours at least. More like 3 hours with the waiting and walking added in. It was still slow by car and took an hour because of traffic.

Would you have taken the new job if you didn't have the option of the car?

</not criticising you>

The big issue is that our society has been planned around the motor car hegemony - the problem is that all the cult followers are up in arms whenever their cult is challenged.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the autonomous driving thing really gets going.

I mean proper autonomous driving, not the beta test Tesla seem to be running in the US.......

Unless everyone always takes time off work every time their kids are off school then no.

"some parents" does not equal "everyone always" 🙂

Commute times during school term time is effectively doubled here.

....or the "normal" commute time is reduced because "some" of the people are missing taking the volume of traffic below the critical mass which causes the gridlock?

perchypanther

"some parents" does not equal "everyone always"

Exactly. That's the flaw in your crazy theory.

Jimjam, in trying to make the point that we have a car culture in the UK that Clarkson exemplifies, nicely, he's an incredibly popular, pot bellied, ,im alright jack, **** the envirinment, chainsmoking, hippy cyclist hating, bigot who's employment situation gets more headlines than your average war.

Being passionate about cars is arse backwards; they are slowly killing us, they ruin towns and cities as much as small villages with streams of traffic, 20000 car air pollution related deaths a year.
>60% of adults are obese, and messing with the atmosphere in ways we don't b understand.

If travel by car wasn't fetishised in all forms of media, maybe people might think that public transport or cycling was a viable alternative and make some changes in their own lives and in those they vote for

It would probably be a good start if the ASA started banning adverts which gave an inaccurate portrayal of car use - I'm fairly sure it is within their powers to ban pretty much every car advert. Next step government health warnings on cars.

kimbers - Member

Jimjam, in trying to make the point that we have a car culture in the UK that Clarkson exemplifies, nicely, he's an incredibly popular, pot bellied, ,im alright kack, * the envirinment, chainsmoking, hippy cyclist hating, bigot who's employment situation gets more headlines than your average war.

If travel by car wasn't fetishised in all forms of media, maybe people might think that public transport or cycling was a viable alternative and make some changes in their own lives and in those they vote for

I hate him, but when you spout crap like "every tubby * drives around because Clarkson says there t'awesomz" you sound just as bad as him, albeit from the opposite side.

Furthermore a huge number of lets call them "serious" car people can't stand him because he's become a parody and offers little in the way of any value when it comes to actual cars. No doubt you'll have read on many of the lengthy threads on here that most people who watch TG don't watch it for the cars, they watch it for the comedy. So no, Clarkson is not emboldening fat people to drive cars and hate cyclists, he's just a comedy troll. I was always surprised at the percentage of women in cars when I used to cycle to work, and how the vast majority of bicycle commuters were men.

Do these women aspire to be like Clarkson? Sitting in their 1.5 diesel Clio's doing their make up and listening to Beyonce on full volume? Do all the people sitting in their dull euro-box commuter cars aspire to be like him? If Clarkson (or Vind Diesel or Paul Walker) is a totem for these car obsessed, obese retards you'd think the first thing they might do is buy a half way interesting or exciting car?

Most people sit in cars because the alternative is harder. It's got nothing to do with fetishization or legitimization in the media, it's convenience. The same way they all tootle around the front of the supermarket so they don't have to walk an extra 100 yards or get rained on for 20 seconds.

ahwiles - Member

Don't be so rational.

Whoooah there, voice of reason. It is my car we are speaking about. I have a right, dammit, that has been enshrined for three quarters of a centuary, that I can (And will) use my bling motor to go where I want, when I want, as my life is so damn busy I cannot afford the 30 seconds longer or wish to associate with anything other than an Executive Home in the catchment of The Best school I can find, but miles from my work down the lovely motorway we have.

Even comedy trolls encourage bigotry. I'm sure jezza has far more influence on people than all the "serious" car people put together.

Just have to look how profitable Top Gear was for the BBC, and how much they let him get away with.

aracer - Member

Even comedy trolls encourage bigotry. I'm sure jezza has far more influence on people than all the "serious" car people put together.

Just have to look how profitable Top Gear was for the BBC, and how much they let him get away with.

Well here we go. Off on a Clarkson tangent.

Here? I think we started going with this:

[quote=jimjam ]I hate him, but when you spout crap like "every tubby **** drives around because Clarkson says there t'awesomz"

[img] [/img]

kimbers
Every tubby **** drives around coz Clarkson told em to and cars are awesomez !

We chose Milton Keynes

Interestingly, I was reading something the other day (possibly from Cartlon Reid?) citing MK as an example of where even the best in the UK is still getting it wrong. Although MK has good cycling infrastructure, the town was still laid out on the assumption of car use, resulting in distances that make cycling difficult. Good to hear it's working for you, though.

pdw pretty sure Carlton did a write up of Stevenage, the town planner made it perfect for bikes...unfortunately he also made it pretty good for cars too so everyone drove/drives.

Cars are already incredibly convenient and the de facto choice, to induce change you have to make the other options better [i]while making the car less convenient[/i] (for certain uses ie when 1 person is driving between 2 places that have good rail/bus networks, I'm not suggesting sticking stingers around rural areas)

I love these threads. Here's a set of circumstances specific to me, therefore public transport is the only available option for everyone.

FTFY

It's too dark and wet to cycle to work is a weak excuse, more than 10 miles each way is probably too far but anything less is easily doable, with some army surplus goretex and a big bowl of porridge b4 you leave whatever the weather is

What part of what I said was unclear? I work, hard. I don't necessarily have time to have a nice big bowl of porridge at the end of a shift before I face whatever the weather is throwing at me. Yes, I do cycle but its not fun and to be honest it's the last thing I want to do at the end of a shift. And yay DPM goretex, because thats safe in the dark on the road.

Just to reiterate: we live 7.5 miles from my work. There is NO viable public transport solution available.

How many of those people have chairs and phones and computers and broadband in their own homes?
Why do they need to go to an office?
How much easier would the commute be for people who physically need to travel to their workplace of all the desk jockeys were taken out of the equation?

Finally someone with something useful to say. Absolutely agree, the company costs would probably be fairly insignificant next to the savings they would make (running a cube farm is expensive).

The amount of blinkered ignorance on this thread is ridiculous, as I said people need to get off their high horses and start offering workable solutions rather than moaning about the symptoms.

from under my little troll bridge it seems that an Audi is the nations ultimate status symbol as they rumble over my home

and its absolutely because cars are idolised by many, the entire concept of 'a halfway interesting or exciting car' seems stupid unless you are doing the Paris Dakar or a trackday every other weekend

find a decent alternative to commuting by car and youll feel liberated, not inconvenienced

in that london i did 10 miles each way 5 days a week, it was hard, but just as quick as tube and quicker than the car, also kept me fit and I only had porridge for breakfast, used to scoff a kiwi and a banana b4 I left in the evenings

Audis are a status symbol because they're expensive items, that's all. Idolising them doens't create the car culture. If everyone cycled people would be idolising Pinarello or similar instead.

kimbers

from under my little troll bridge it seems that an Audi is the nations ultimate status symbol as they rumble over my home

and its absolutely because cars are idolised by many,

Oh so I was daft to say that a lot of my cycling friends love cars, but you assert that cars are idolised by many? I disagree. I think the majority of people are addicted to the convenience, comfort and freedom of cars as opposed to any of the fun things about driving them (power/performance/handling etc).

the entire concept of 'a halfway interesting or exciting car' seems stupid unless you are doing the Paris Dakar or a trackday every other weekend

No it's not, but that's besides the point. I was making that comment to illustrate that people don't slavishly follow what Clarkson says. He's predominantly a motoring journalist (troll) and his "thing" is power and performance which really only a tiny few people bother with, and of that tiny few, a lot find him an irritating clown.

therefore public transport is the only available option for everyone.

Except that no one, literally no one, on this thread has argued that - no one wants to take your car away. It's a ridiculous proposition and everyone knows it.

People are just arguing that a great many - possibly even the majority but I don't know - journeys, principally in the urban/suburban areas in which most of us live and work, could be practically made using pedal power, public transport or on foot and that this would improve the urban environment significantly.

I was reading something the other day (possibly from Cartlon Reid?) citing MK as an example of where even the best in the UK is still getting it wrong. Although MK has good cycling infrastructure, the town was still laid out on the assumption of car use, resulting in distances that make cycling difficult.

thats definitely true, its ben odd moving from cycling mad london, where tiny overcrowded roads and excellent but very busy public transport means that lots of people choose to cycle inspite of awful cycling infrastructure

MK rarely has any sort of traffic jams so everyone drives, there's loads of parking at all the retail outlets, they are reasonably spread out though, but the cycle network is so easy to use its a huge missed opportunity,

^Anecdote =/= fact.

Wildly different set of circumstances, what makes it so difficult for you people to get your heads around this?

and its absolutely because bike are idolised by many, the entire concept of 'a halfway interesting or exciting bike' seems stupid unless you are doing the Iditarod or a beach ride every other weekend

Back at you, how I laugh at people on their doubleweight fatbikes. See how silly it is, people are different, get your head around this and you might just start making inroads towards a solution for everyone rather than a set segment.

I love these threads. Here's a set of circumstances specific to me, therefore public transport is the only available option for everyone.

one wants to ban cars (well no one on here afaik)

Just to reiterate: we live 7.5 miles from my work. There is NO viable public transport solution available.

7.5 miles is 30 minutes cycling if you are reasonable fit. If you are quite fit it would be 20 minutes or less in a rural area. If there was a town to cross you might add 5 to 10 minutes to that if you choose to obey all the red lights.

fatbikes, while obviously stupid 😉 are fine in my book, I regularly see a guy commuting on one in clerkenwell- hes got calves like a bull! personally i wouldnt use one for that but hey ho

cars on the other hand are slowly killing you, the people around you and the entire planet*, they also seem to be making you everso uptight and defensive, your bloodpressures gonna suffer!

*well maybe

kimbers

cars on the other hand are slowly killing you, the people around you and the entire planet*,

How many people use fatbikes to commute to work or to make any meaningful contribution to society? Very few I'd imagine. And yet they are manufactured in the far east, doubtless using methods which are highly polluting, and then they are shipped all around the world to be ridden once or twice then languish in someones garage and eventually end up in a land fill. Deplorable.

I say ban all frivolous and non essential forms of transport. Let's ban bacon too, it's slowly killing us. While we're at it lets ban cows on account of all the methane they produce which contributes to greenhouse gas, which is slowly killing us. We can all go vegan. While we're at it, let's stop reproducing. Since having children is the most polluting thing we can do. Lets all live as childless vegan hermits.

While we're at it, let's all kill ourselves. Since humans are clearly bad for the environment, lets just be sure to kill ourselves in a thoughtful and environmentally sound place, like a meadow or forest where our bodies can rot and fertilise the ground. If you're going to hang yourself be sure to use a bio degradable rope, so as not harm the tree. I recommend manilla rope, sometimes referred to as hemp rope which is grown from the abaca plant, a relation of the banana plant.

Just when you thought the thread couldn't come up with a worse argument.

Chamomile tea?

People are just arguing that a great many - possibly even the majority but I don't know - journeys, principally in the urban/suburban areas in which most of us live and work, could be practically made using pedal power, public transport or on foot and that this would improve the urban environment significantly.

The data shows that something like 90% of journeys are of a length that could easily be done on foot, bike or local public transport.

Obviously this is massively variable depending on what the infrastructure looks like.
I've visited a supplier site that *only* has access via a motorway junction. Even if you lived a mile away, you'd need to drive. This sort of thing isn't unusual in many areas. I doubt there are many that are actually that extreme though!)

Too many years of being car dependent means that the infrastructure to switch to alternatives is broken, and while the service industry is being driven by profits, rather than providing a service with profits being secondary, it won't get fixed.

How many people use fatbikes to commute to work or to make any meaningful contribution to society?

D0NK

super cars, xbox, etc, pick any of our "toys" and you could say broadly the same.

I knew I should have added a smiley face but none of them are sarcastic enough for my liking.

The data shows that something like 90% of journeys are of a length that could easily be done on foot, bike or local public transport.

Sifting through this thread, it seems to me that this is the core issue. Whether the actual proportion is as high as that I don't know.

The challenge is to make unnecessary car journeys less attractive while making the alternative means of transport for those journeys more attractive by roughly the same degree.

What can a government do to encourage a behavioural shift?

Hard to see how economic stimulus - perhaps the most reliable method - could do this. Driving up the cost of short, unnecessary journeys would be hard to do without a similar effect on longer, more necessary ones and the negative outcome this would have on the economy would almost certainly weigh heavier than any positive one. Attempting to tackle it from other side - improving infrastructure and the public transport system - is a non-starter in the face of budget constraints and the weight of perceived public opinion.

The other approach the government could take is to attempt to induce change by legislation.

Here's an idea - in built-up areas (say, where a 30mph or lower speed limit exists), vehicular traffic no longer has priority over human powered traffic and pedestrians at all. Driving a car in such an area is now more of a pain in the ass, as every time a pedestrian goes to step off the kerb, you have to stop. A pedestrian reaches a pelican crossing, presses the button and the traffic light immediately changes. Again you have to stop. How annoying. Still, you're dry and warm and sitting down.

The speed limit (not advisory) is no longer 30mph in such areas, its now 20mph. You have to slow down, but then again so does everyone else. Again, you're still dry and warm and sitting down.

The introduction of presumed liability legislation means that should you knock over a pedestrian or a cyclist, the presumption of blame rests with you. Something to think about as you weigh up whether to step on the accelerator a bit to get past that cyclist before the oncoming traffic reaches you.

Taking the car to the supermarket which is around 10 minutes' walk away for a single (reuseable) bag's worth of shopping is a bit more of a hassle now. Maybe you'll walk instead. Or maybe you'll plan your shopping a bit more and not have to go at all.

Walking around is a bit nicer. There are fewer cars about, and those that do drive past you on a dark, wet night are doing so slightly slower than before, so your legs get splashed less often. Crossing at a busy junction is much better, you hardly have to wait at all. And they're all like that.

Reading some of the posts on here, and comments on some of the news sites about cycling and how to get more of it and I despair at the inability of humankind to adapt and change as circumstances change...

"I drive now because I always have done and it's all I've ever known therefore I refuse point blank to even consider any other possible alternative, whatever the benefits, whatever the data, let alone actually change my behaviour. I will use anger and even violence to try and make these changes go away..."

I suppose Darwin was spot on - those who refuse to adapt to changing circumstances lose their fitness to survive in the new environment and die out. The high rate of obesity in the UK is one obvious source of this loss of fitness. Problem I guess is he's talking generations and we're trying to get people to change their driving habits right now...

tbh I feel really sorry for people who can't adapt to change these days - there's an awful lot of change about so it must be a hell of a struggle to cope...

People are just arguing that a great many - possibly even the majority but I don't know - journeys, principally in the urban/suburban areas in which most of us live and work, could be practically made using pedal power, public transport or on foot and that this would improve the urban environment significantly.

I absolutely agree.

You posted a list of generic reasons why you didn't ride in, others who have similar generic circumstances said it wasn't a problem for them, you then had a hissy fit and supplied specifics (some quite reasonable) but you still seem to be upset.

I provided a set of specific but certainly not unique circumstances where quite a few posters arguments fell down. Rather than address the problem people then chose to jump on my back for it by using their own anecdotal evidence that was in no way comparable to my own. I'd hardly say it was a hissy fit either.

7.5 miles is 30 minutes cycling if you are reasonable fit. If you are quite fit it would be 20 minutes or less in a rural area. If there was a town to cross you might add 5 to 10 minutes to that if you choose to obey all the red lights.

And once again, I'm well aware of that but it doesn't change the fact that at worst it ranges from completely miserable to a death sentence.

cars on the other hand are slowly killing you, the people around you and the entire planet*, they also seem to be making you everso uptight and defensive, your bloodpressures gonna suffer!

Or, in many cases, quickly killing you. I'm also not defending them, I agree that change should happen but in our present circumstances you can't just expect it to happen overnight.

Reading some of the posts on here, and comments on some of the news sites about cycling and how to get more of it and I despair at the inability of humankind to adapt and change as circumstances change...

I despair at the inability of people to even try to acknowledge that tehre are people in different circumstances which make broad sweeping statements and wishful thinking completely irrelevant.

So what should we do instead?

Telecommute? Why not? It would be as expensive for a company to provide your personal workstation at your home address as it would be in your place of work. Set it up so all you need to do is enter your login details and away you go.
You then negate the need for offices, the land they sit on and the costs of running them. (£profit)
Employees need less time off to deal with doctors appointments, childcare emergencies, minor illness etc.
Less man hours are wasted travelling between sites or commuting.

Don't care about out of town barns to a certain extent, as long as they are accessible by public transport then fair enough. That said I hate them for other reasons.

Car club schemes need to be more widespread and more convenient. And vans.

Public transport has to work outside of cities. Double track every line so you can run more trains. Run more direct services (we have a spur south that is solely used for shunting, to do the same journey you have to go north and change). Make it cheaper than car travel especially long distance. Get more freight on the lines.

Make sustainable traffic management schemes a mandatory element of planning permission. The solution to more cars isn't more car parks, it's better management and provision of public transport. If you can charge for carrier bags you can charge for car parks to subsidise the public transport.

People need to stop whinging about the problems and start thinking of the solutions.

People need to stop whinging about the problems and start thinking of the solutions.

'swhat I said earlier.

solutions to the problem are relatively easy and well known, the political will to take space away from cars is a whole other problem.

[quote=2tyred ]Crossing at a busy junction is much better, you hardly have to wait at all. And they're all like that.

This would be a damn good place to start. When you complain to the council about how much of a pain it is to use a ped crossing, they shouldn't be allowed to tell you that they can't do anything to improve it because it would hold the cars up. Which is what I'm up against here - chap says there's a meeting tomorrow where they'll be talking about options for our local one, but I'm sure none of them will involve prioritising peds over cars.

Meanwhile back in the real world, complaints in the local paper complaining about pedestrians having the audacity to use a zebra crossing and hold the cars up (IME the only thing you're ever delayed from there is from joining the queue at the traffic lights on either side - and I tend to only drive there at relatively quiet times).

As for what we can do, I'm sure it doesn't do any harm politely badgering the council to do things, even if the response is fairly predictable. If the weight of requests comes more from pedestrians than drivers then things might change...

solutions to the problem are relatively easy and well known, the political will to take space away from cars is a whole other problem.

We're asking the wrong people to do the right thing. Stand for election the next time there are local council elections.

solutions to the problem are relatively easy and well known, the political will to take space away from cars is a whole other problem.

Are they? Because beyond over simplified generic ideas I tend not to hear much in great detail.

Are they? Because beyond over simplified generic ideas I tend not to hear much in great detail.

They are. Continuous, high quality, segregated cycling infrastructure, combined with reduced permeability for private motor vehicles. Look to places where it's been done, like Copenhagen and the Netherlands, and copy like our lives depend upon it.

[url= http://www.bikebeauty.org/New_2011_Edition_BATB/Home.html ]It's the infrastructure, stupid.[/url]

Umm, cycling is neither mass transit nor the most convenient form of transport.

What you describe is certainly part of the solution but it is neither the whole solution nor practicable for everyone.

the most convenient form of transport is walking - the requisite aparatus is built-in.

nor the most convenient form of transport

It depends where you are going. I can think of plenty of journeys where a bike is the most convenient, most of them are in France, Holland and Germany though. Getting to the centre of town here I have the choice of car, bus, bike and walk (it's about 2km).

The fastest door to door is without a doubt the bike.

Given the time it takes to get the bike out and lock it up on arrival running is pretty close.

The bus goes via the station so takes longer. It only runs every hour so if you nip in to the bank etc., it's quicker to walk back.

The car has to be parked somewhere, can't enter the pedestrian zone and has to follow the one-way system. People park near my home and walk in.

@Squirrelking. Your long response reads more, "everyone else should change but not me". If that isn't the case then I apologise.

Umm, cycling is neither mass transit nor the most convenient form of transport.

Nobody thought to tell the Dutch or the Danes.

Amsterdam: 32% of traffic movement in the city is by bike compared to 22% by car and 16% by public transport. In the city centre, 48% of traffic movement is by bike.

Because beyond over simplified generic ideas I tend not to hear much in great detail.

Over simple? The solution isn't complicated, because we don't need EVERYONE to stop driving completely. We just need more people to do what a lot of people already do, and governments to put money in.

Serious question for the group - do people cycle, specifically commuting in this case because

A) They are cyclists and it's a fairly logical conclusion for "us".
B) Driving in slow moving traffic is a frustrating hassle.
C) It's faster.
D) Trying to lose weight or similar.
E) Something else.

The vast majority of commuters I know (socially and years in Bikeshops) were cyclists. IE they own a roadbike and/or a mountain bike and generally another bike to commute on. They'd identify as cyclists first and foremost so commuting by bike was logical and much easier for them than non cyclists. I can't help but think that all the infrastucture in the world won't shift people's mindsets nor will it turn lazy people into active people. It'll take a change in mindset and culture that'll take generations.

Molgrips, it's not simple here's one reason why:

I can't help but think that all the infrastucture in the world won't shift people's mindsets nor will it turn lazy people into active people. It'll take a change in mindset and culture that'll take generations.

By over simplified I mean people have all these great end plans but rarely have any idea how to get there. It's not as simple as just saying throw down a cycle motorway and hope people use it.

Edukator - sorry, that should actually have read 'isn't always', my apologies.

Miketually - Last I checked Amsterdam is a city which is low hanging fruit. The real challenge is to engineer the suburbs and commuter belt in such a way that mass transit is a viable option. Stuff like hospitals that have desent public transport links throughout their catchment area rather than a few token towns who's services run seemingly at random (Hi Monklands, Crosshouse looking at you!).

This is what I'm talking about, shouting about turning every city into an Amsterdam clone is all well and good but nobody ever seems willing to actually go into HOW we do this on a societal level, never mind taking into account climatic differences that really do put a dampener on things.

Sandwich - you may be half right, I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could cycle more but it would end up costing me financially (extra nursery costs), in time, in sleep (try telling a two year old you need more sleep when you're supposed to be looking after her) and overall I don't see myself being any better for it at this specific moment in time. That doesn't mean I can't see the bigger picture and would willingly use public transport if it was as affordable and convenient as driving.

Well for one thing it might help if people didn't feel happy to find any excuse not to ride a bike. It is partly about an attitude of mind.

Very few of the cyclists in Amsterdam probably call themselves a cyclist, its just how they get around. I was there last month, its kinda surreal to experience it!

How Amsterdam became the bicycle capital of the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord?CMP=share_btn_tw

Miketually - Last I checked Amsterdam is a city which is low hanging fruit. The real challenge is to engineer the suburbs and commuter belt in such a way that mass transit is a viable option.

You can build bike paths out into the suburbs, that happens around Amsterdam too, engineering the suburbs for mass transit is never going to work well, they developed because of the car in a manner that works for the car, they would work fine if most residents in the suburbs didn't all drive into the same nearest city along the same few roads. The problem is there homes are not on that corridor nor walking distance from it.

If you live in the suburbs you have to accept you will never have great mass transit, growth and new homes should be focussed on densifying existing cities or existing transit corridors so that new population is added in a way that adds the least number of vehicles.

A) They are cyclists and it's a fairly logical conclusion for "us".
B) Driving in slow moving traffic is a frustrating hassle.
C) It's faster.
D) Trying to lose weight or similar.
E) Something else.

A devel­oped coun­try is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use pub­lic trans­port
– para­phrased from Enrique Penalosa, for­mer Mayor of Bogotá, Colombia

I'm sure you're right, there's some fundamental difference in the climate, and the people and the terrain and the mindset and the layout of the facilities in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bremen, Stockholm, Groningen, and all the other places where public transport, walking and cycling are widespread.

Sigh.

Well for one thing it might help if people didn't feel happy to find any excuse not to ride a bike. It is partly about an attitude of mind.

Might also help if the folk advocating it the loudest weren't quit so sanctimonious about it. Assuming that was a dig at myself.

I'm sure you're right, there's some fundamental difference in the climate, and the people and the terrain and the mindset and the layout of the facilities in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bremen, Stockholm, Groningen, and all the other places where public transport, walking and cycling are widespread.

Sigh.

Yup keep it up, you're really out there winning hearts and minds aren't you?

How about the differences between Glasgow and Edinburgh? Generally wet vs generally cold, which do you think makes for the better experience?

How about instead of snide remarks and smart arsed comments you actually answer my questions?

If you live in the suburbs you have to accept you will never have great mass transit

Sorry but that's nonsense (but in a constructive way). Rail services spreading out of Glasgow, tram in Manchester, tube and rail in London. It's all there ready to be used plus god knows how many other disused lines. It's possible, you just need to make it convenient enough and cheap enough that folk actually WANT to use it.

How about instead of snide remarks and smart arsed comments you actually answer my questions?

Life's too short.

My boy (6) told me off the other day, for driving to the shops.
"We should ride our bikes" he said.
"Way more fun than sitting in the car"

He's right of course.

(to be honest, we almost always ride our bikes to the shops)

The solution to our problems, is with our children.

Umm, cycling is neither mass transit nor the most convenient form of transport.

How about the differences between Glasgow and Edinburgh? Generally wet vs generally cold, which do you think makes for the better experience?

By over simplified I mean people have all these great end plans but rarely have any idea how to get there. It's not as simple as just saying throw down a cycle motorway and hope people use it.

When I said it was simple, I was talking about public transport rather than cycling. The proportion of able bodied adults who can be persuaded to commit to making a physical effort is probably no more than a third at best, I'd guess.

In the long term maybe we can persuade people that cycling doesn't constitude a physical effort, but whilst there are hills in our cities this won't be easy.

Bike sheds round here are full all year round, so are the buses/trams. And it makes both Edinburgh and Glasgow look relatively toasty warm and dry for a good chunk of the year (how does 3-5 months of snow and ice sound?) it's just a matter of mindset. And warm clothes.

FWIW I'd take cold any day of the week. I can stick wind, I can stick rain but both together is bloody miserable. We rarely get snow these days so I'd take that as well, at least it doesn't soak you through (unless blizzard conditions). It's a different kind of cold if you know what I mean?

The Glasgow vs Edinburgh thing was what I was alluding to there, Edinburgh might be cold but it's also relatively dry when compared to Glasgow.

When I said it was simple, I was talking about public transport rather than cycling.

So was I, I just used the cycle paths as an example. It all has to be integrated or it will never work and it has to be done so in a way that it's seen as the carrot rather than the stick. Yes, it's simple on paper but in the real world you need to get a complete shift in attitudes and behaviours before it really works. Not to mention a complete change in the way public transport is run and funded. Those are the complexities that need to be discussed as well as how we achieve the change (legislation, taxation etc.).

As someone said though it's only something that came about a couple of generations ago, it's probably folk of my parents generation who were the ones it started with (boomers).

Oh and it was a way back but re: the fatbike commuter - I can better that with the guy who used to commute from Paisley into Glasgow on a Brooklyn Race Link!

Serious question for the group - do people cycle, specifically commuting in this case because

A) They are cyclists and it's a fairly logical conclusion for "us".
B) Driving in slow moving traffic is a frustrating hassle.
C) It's faster.
D) Trying to lose weight or similar.
E) Something else.

Living and working within walking distance of busy train stations helps, not sure what will happen when we move, but I'm sure riding to the station will be an option....or of course a new job 😕

In the long term maybe we can persuade people that cycling doesn't constitude a physical effort, but whilst there are hills in our cities this won't be easy.

If you asked parents why they don't let their kids ride to school how many of them would respond "because it's a bit hilly and little Jonny might get a sweat on"? How many would respond "it's too dangerous"?

I know this was sarcastic, but it's got one bit right:

I'm sure you're right, there's [b]some fundamental difference in the[/b] [s]climate, and the people and the terrain and the mindset and the[/s] [b]layout of the facilities in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bremen, Stockholm, Groningen, and all the other places where public transport, walking and cycling are widespread.[/b]

It's the infrastructure. Do you think people would drive their cars so much if there were no roads wide enough for two lanes of traffic? Or if all roads went from one empty field to another? Build high quality, safe, direct infrastructure for cycling and walking that has priority over/equal to the infrastructure for motor vehicles and people will walk and cycle more.

Actually, that should be "[i]more people[/i] will walk and cycle", it's the non-cyclists that we need to get on their bikes, just normal people using a bike because it's easy, not 'cyclists' (and I'm one of them) using a bike because it's extra training or they like the adrenaline rush of mixing it with traffic.

Telling drivers to play nice doesn't work. Telling people to ride their bikes doesn't work. Telling people who are already riding bikes to wear hi viz and wear helmets and 'share the road' doesn't work. We've been doing all these for decades and cycling's modal share is at a mighty 1.96% ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts03-modal-comparisons).

You can't measure the need for a railway line by counting the number of trains ploughing, without a track, across the countryside. You can't measure demand for a bridge by counting people swimming across the river, or hang-gliding across a ravine. You can't measure demand for cycle infrastructure by looking at the (low) number of people riding on the (perceived as) hostile, dangerous roads.

I bet most of the people who go on holiday to Center Parks wouldn't call themselves 'cyclists'. But when they get there and the cars are parked for the week and there are safe routes and riding a bike is easy and convenient oddly enough, they ride bikes. Then they put them back on the bike carrier, drive back home and don't touch them until they go back next year. The British aren't genetically hardwired to not cycle, we've just built an environment that discourages it.

No public transport through the village where i live....that said the nearest town is only 2 mins in the car up the road (so perfectly cyclable) and it has an Ambulance Station, if only their HR dept wesnt so crap and would process my transfer faster!....soooo, currently travelling 4 hours each to my old NHS trust in the South East!....obviously i dont do that everyday, i travel down and do a run of shifts and then go home for about a week.

Travis - Member

The solution to our problems, is with our children.

We could get them to pull rickshaws?
You're a genius.

Interesting thread

I agree on the point of build the infrastructure and they will use it. But there is much more to it than that as pleaderwilliams said on page 3

When I think about the type of people I work with or have worked with over the years I can't help thinking it would make very little difference to things. Lots of people seem to change job and location but do not move house

The people in cars have generally been middle ranking upwards and fall into the categories

- Those who choose to live in a location for lifestyle reasons and commute by car
- Those working for a national business and need to travel around the country
-Those who moved jobs but not house

The people on public transport or walking

- Those travelling to a central location to undertake a clerical or low skilled task
-Those who live near work (Mainly above)
-Those who live near a convenient transport link (mainly London)

The people cycling

- Cyclists
- A few of the people who are on low paid jobs on BSOs

Over the last 18 years with the same company I have fallen into almost all of those categories at some point.

I can't help thinking that better cycling infrastructure would cannibalise public transport and not really address the issues of cars on the road, I think to do that you need to convince the middle aged middle class middle management to continue to live in the city.

I've never worked at a location where great cycling infrastructure up to the front gate would have helped that much I don’t think.

In countries where cycling is widely used as transport, it is kids, older people, and women who tend to cycle. Middle-aged self-important blokes still drive. Basically, the opposite of this country.

Hence, even on a cycling forum (full of middle-aged self-important blokes), many people don't get it.

I think to do that you need to convince the middle aged middle class middle management to continue to live in the city.

Good luck.

I'm only 38 but couldnt wait to leave the South East, it was OK when i was single and going out lots with my single mates and the odd couple....but once everyone hit 30 and started buying houses, partnering up, having sprogs etc the aim has been to get the hell out of dodge....cities are crap for families, certainly down South anyway, they're expensive, crowded, dirty etc....no privacy or open space to call your own....you'd have to pay me to live in London.

For just 50k more than the 2-up/2-down terrace we had in the South East we've moved to a village location and live in an 1850's era 3-bed cottage in 4 acres of land with stables, double garage, off road parking etc....as a bonus we're also 20mins from the coast and have a few of the Welsh trail centres nearby....but yeah, go on then, tempt me back to the City?!

Car use is convenient....it just keeps coming back to that word i'm afraid, you can label it lazy if you want (i couldnt care less) but having a car and being able to live hours away from where i work has meant we've been able to move away from the hussle and bussle of the outer London area and have a quality of life that would be unaffordable to us if we stayed in the South....we priced up similar properties in the South East the other evening to see how much our place would cost if you lifted it up and plonked it down in the outskirts of London, Surrey etc....it would treble or even quadruple in price and working in the NHS on a very average salary that just isnt going to happen....trying to guilt trip people like me into giving up the car and living close to work would effectively limit the chance i'd ever have of living in the countryside or owning a nice house, you create even more haves and have-nots than there are already....same as when some plank suggests taxing the arse out of fuel to penalise people for driving, all it does is hit the poorest first as running a car is a big expenditure for them....the wealthy carry on regardless.

The only way i can see things working is if people who live in cities by choice have cycling infrastructure put in place for them and maybe some kind of tax break to give up the car....as i said in a previous post; congestion, traffic, whatever you want to call it stops being an issue once you're out of cities and decent sized towns so the rest of the country looks on bewildered at the funny attitudes of the city-types who seem to think everywhere in the UK has everything nearby and within cycling distance....its no wonder people like myself get defensive, if you choose to live in a city and want to vote for pro cycling Mayors, councillors, MPs etc to change things then bully for you, just dont expect the rest of the country to fall in line with your view of how we should all live, work, travel etc.

and maybe some kind of tax break to give up the car

I know there's a couple of companies about that pay for mileage but I'm sure they pale into insignificance compared to those paying for driving mileage.

Some reading for squirrel:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

and another one from there about shared space which I mentioned earlier:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/shared%20space

aracer:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

It's quite reasonable to assume that people will cycle less in truly mountainous places, but if your area is less hilly than Switzerland and you have less cycling than Switzerland, think about the reason for this. It's not the hills.

deviant, people living in the countryside generally isn't the problem, assuming you also work in the countryside somewhere. But if you live outside of the city and commute into it, then you're part of the problem, you're also wasting your time and money commuting, that could be spent more locally if you lived nearby and walked or cycled to work. Nobody is trying to convince everyone to move back, but we need to build the infrastructure to promote this type of lifestyle as the alternative (more people living in the countryside/suburbs and driving) is not sustainable.

"I cycle so you could cycle too". People often think that because the conditions are good enough for them to cycle that everyone else would too, perhaps after a bit of training. Actually, this is not remotely true, and training has been shown to have little effect on its own. The reason is simple: training does not change conditions on the streets, and therefore does not improve subjective safety to the point that people want to cycle.

Me too!

aracer I don't think you have either read or understood a word I have said so far if that's supposed to be some sort of admonishment.

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article4584384.ece ]Minister ‘hangs head in shame’ over British cycling provision[/url]

..... you're part of the problem...... wasting your time and money commuting......if you lived nearby and walked or cycled to work......not sustainable.

This kind of nagging really isn't helpful. People like deviant (presumably someone who likes riding a bike, so on 'the right side' to start with) are evidently, from his post above, put off. So the people who haven't sat astride an enduro gnarpoonsteed in decades aren't going to think "oo, sounds great, I'll support that bike lane petition".

It's not about telling individuals "tsk tsk, you're very selfish, stop driving your car". It's about local and national government doing something that actually makes a huge amount of economic sense when the cost:benefit ratios are looked at and providing decent infrastructure. Yes, it might take individuals to put pressure on MPs and councillors, but those individuals aren't going to be won over by telling them they're selfish, lazy polluters.

It's not about [b]making[/b] people ride bikes/walk/use public transport. It's about letting some people use bikes for some of their journeys, some of the time. The way to do that is to make it feel/look/be safe and direct and convenient. Nagging is not going to do anything, apart from p**s people off.

deviant, people living in the countryside generally isn't the problem, assuming you also work in the countryside somewhere. But if you live outside of the city and commute into it, then you're part of the problem, you're also wasting your time and money commuting, that could be spent more locally if you lived nearby and walked or cycled to work. Nobody is trying to convince everyone to move back, but we need to build the infrastructure to promote this type of lifestyle as the alternative (more people living in the countryside/suburbs and driving) is not sustainable.

I work in the "country", my wife works in the city. Should one of us give up our job or are we better off just getting a divorce? Or, should I continue driving as necessary and let her take the commuter train full of people?

Daft escalation, yes, but I'm proving a point

TBH if everyone moved to the city it'd be even less pleasant than it already is.

And a lot of countries already have a problem with depopulation of the countryside.