You need to visit Holland on a bike, Gobuchul.
After the destruction of WWII the Dutch set about rebuilding the infrastructure with two networks, one for bikes, one for cars. So the bike paths aren't in the main along main roads. They're along dykes, canals, through woodlands and completely independent of the road network. Riding through Holland from Belgium to Germany via Amsterdam we did perhaps 3km on a bike lane along a busy main road, a few kms on quiet rural roads and the rest on dedicated cycle paths.
We rode into Amsterdam at peak commute hour and the volume of cycle traffic was impressive. Very polite and civil too unlike the people in Copenhagen who suffered cycle-path rage. We only had to hesitate at a junction in Holland and someone would stop and offer to help with directions. Stopping on a Danish cycle path is a good way to learn local insults.
36% of the people listing the bicycle as their most frequent mode of transport on a typical day as opposed to the car by 45% and public transport by 11%- quality of transport report by the EC
Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide - The Netherlands: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Fietsberaad (Expertise Centre for Cycling Policy).
A few years old now but I'd be surprised if they'd changed massively. The 50% is certain areas (like Groningen outside the centre)
Perhaps the lower traffic on roads outside Amsterdam are simply down to density. More people live in urban areas by percentage there than the UK.
[quote=jambo]
using estate 1.5km from the school. What do you think are the effective solutions for moving children from the new houses to the school
Walking? Or is it a trick question?
Come on, you are showing a marked lack of forwards thinking, the answer is, quite clearly "Trebuchet".....
Come on, you are showing a marked lack of forwards thinking, the answer is, quite clearly “Trebuchet”…..
As I've said it's all about gentle persuasion, you can walk the 1,500m or join the line, realistically if you are building a school I'd put the buildings as far from the road as possible so there was a minimum amount of walking required each day for the kids.
But I have to stick with the Manchester principle that walking and cycling should be the default for short journeys.
Well, the launch is fairly "gentle" with a Trebuchet? The landing? depends on if you land in the net i guess.... 😉
So the bike paths aren’t in the main along main roads. They’re along dykes, canals, through woodlands and completely independent of the road network.
Some of them are. But I was thinking about this whilst I was there. Many of the rural cycle paths that aren't next to roads are on the top of dykes. But the dykes need maintenance for obvious and vital reasons, so the cyclepaths double up as access for the dykes. Whilst it's true the Dutch do support cycling very well, it isn't necessarily utopia.
cyclists are treated much better by car drivers.
I rode a fair bit on narrow roads with dotted lines down the edge for cycleways. Often they were quiet but when cars passed they often did at full chat without a lot of room. They're so used to cyclists that they don't deviate much or slow down, and you're expected to deal with it and not flinch.
Come on, you are showing a marked lack of forwards thinking, the answer is, quite clearly “Trebuchet”…..
Ok, one of those vacuum tube systems like they used to have at the supermarket tills for the cash.
but when cars passed they often did at full chat without a lot of room
Full chat being 10mph slower than the UK and Dutch cycle lane width is from 1.25 to 2m depending on the town/region. Compared with the UK it's great. Compared to France it's similar in that even without a cycle lane drivers generally respect the 1m town and 1.5m countryside overtaking space around here. Paris and other big towns less so.
I’d need a little more info.
Effective in what sense, pollution, cost, gerneral environmental concerns, time?
Do they have to exist or can we be a little pie in the sky ( but within the real of possibilities currently available?)
You've got the same information that the OP posted as the rest of us. For your other questions, just be decisive and state your assumptions.
Can it be the harder conversation, where neither the new development nor the school get built?
No, they are a given for this exercise.
Walking? Or is it a trick question?
There you go. An example of someone who can produce a concrete idea.
For myself, I'd say there should be a route constructed between the new housing and the school for safe, active travel; both walking and cycling, because 1.5km is far enough to make it worth getting on a bike. I'd also restrict car parking and access near the school so active travel is prioritised. You can drive to school, but you can't park outside the front door, and you're at the bottom of the transport hierarchy in this particular scenario.
I think that's what we should be doing, I think it's what we could do if we wanted to, but as a society we are not interested in that solution.
You’ve got the same information that the OP posted as the rest of us.
Fair enough, it's just that you asked a different question than that OP.
To reduce cars - "walking buses" for the younger kids, having them walk appropriate distance s for their age, which won't be 1.5km for younger kids. Older kids can walk, skateboard, bike, scooter, whatever. Little kids who need a ride get a ride in a car.
I don't think the OP mention whether there were pavements but we'll assume so. No infrastructure needed.
To be more ambitious:
Same as above except that parents who do the walking bus return home to work from there. We rip out the pavements and put in permeable paths, since overland flooding is going to get worse with climate change. We make as much of them roads one way as possible, ripping out the other half and putting in permeable surface and green planting. Kids that get a ride go 5 to a car, carpool style. They get dropped off at school and are replaced in the car by adults who carpool to wherever they work, because they can in no way work from home. Bus stop near school area/road.
Where we need to go to have any hope of stopping the damage we are doing:
Same as above except all buildings equiped with solar roofs, green roofs on the shady side. Built to category 6. Footprint is reduced, square footage is increased my going up. Electrified mono rail/tram tracks which run individual "cars" so you can have your own and not have to share. These join up into trains on main routes for extra efficiency. Roads are ripped up and replaced with permeable surfaces and trees and the like. Pavements can be as wide as you like, divided however you like, for whatever users, because they are permeable. Concrete and tarmac and the like are banned. Your taxes will increase about 5 fold.
To reduce cars – “walking buses” for the younger kids, having them walk appropriate distance s for their age, which won’t be 1.5km for younger kids. Older kids can walk, skateboard, bike, scooter, whatever. Little kids who need a ride get a ride in a car.
I don’t think the OP mention whether there were pavements but we’ll assume so. No infrastructure needed.
How young is a child that cannot walk 1 mile? Surely the vast majority of infant school children can walk that far. Mine did. Also, they could cycle from 3 years old. It was a long time ago now though. We used a buggy, or child seat, or tag-along, or trailer if necessary to go longer distances.
How young is a child that cannot walk 1 mile?
Its not that they can't it's how long they take to do it. You were lucky, some kids could easily take an hour to go that far, and drive the parent completely nuts in that time. 3 years old to cycle is pretty unusual too.
Buggy parking at the school for parents who get on the bus.
Your taxes will increase about 5 fold.
You were lucky, some kids could easily take an hour to go that far,
Think and perhaps do some research before you type.
Increase VAT five fold and it becomes 100%
Increase basic rate income tax five fold and it goes from 20% to 100% which is everything you earn above the threshold.
I walked to school as an infant, alone. Junior was accompanied, when it was 2km it took about 25 minutes. We shared with another family.
The OP is right, no ambition. Just stupid excuses that don't hold up to examination.
Increase basic rate income tax five fold and it goes from 20% to 100% which is everything you earn above the threshold.
He didn't state that he wanted to increase the tax "rate" five fold though did he?
Junior was accompanied, when it was 2km it took about 25 minutes.
Are you saying that you made your 5 year old child walk over a mile at 3 mph! Twice a day!
Although if he has legs as good as yours they could carry him anywhere i suppose.
cromolly - that post is pure hyperbole. Have you every cycled in the low countries? I have a fair amount. You seem so desparate to show that cycle provision can never work in the face of all the evidence
Firstly reducing congestion which getting more folks on bikes does increases productivity and reduces sickness rates as well as reducing congestion - well proven many times over all over europe.
Secondly the nonsense you state under " more ambitious" is just that - nonsense. How about taking best practice from other countries? Cost virtually nothing, improve cycling, improve public health from reduced pollution.
Even putting 5% of the roads budget into proper cycle provision ( 5% is the rough amount of cycle journeys) would make a huge differnce
The basic dutch system is very simple.
Narrow urban streets. NO cycle lanes, 20 mph limits, no traffic lights etc. "shared spaces" concept with pedestrians and bikes having priority over cars.
Wide urban roads - segregated cycle lanes and 30 mph limits. A roads - properly segregated cycle lanes. Trunk roads - no bikes. Narrow country roads are marked up as single track for cars with a wide bike lane each side
And of course assumed liability for accidents with the most vulnerable getting the most protection. Two countries in western europe don't have this - the UK and Malta IIRC
MOlgrips - bar trunk roads I never saw a road without a cycle path in over 20 days cycling around the netherlands all over the country. I wonder if you didn't see them as they are often separated from the roads by a wide grass verge or hedge. There are three different systems of cyleroutes - the ones on the dykes is the local network of scenic routes. They also have a system of direct routes along main roads between towns marked with red signposts. Also the netherlands polulation density is higher than the UK bar a few bits of the south east.
I find it utterly astonishing that on a cycle forum people are so pro car and anti bike that they make up nonsense to show that improving cycle provision does not work - when all over europe the actual evidence shows it does and has virtually no downsides
show that improving cycle provision does not work
I don't think anyone on here is or would argue that improving cycle provision is not a good thing. Of course it is.
It's part of a solution. It's not The Solution.
cromolly appeared to be and many times this debate has been had on here and everytime people keep coming up with bogus reasons why it will not work - despite the evidence that actually it does
Improving public health, reducing congestion - whats not to like?
Are you saying that you made your 5 year old child walk over a mile at 3 mph! Twice a day!
He quite happily walked up the Carlit (2921m) aged 5. I'm not sure he was even aware of the effort he was so engrossed in talking about the Superman film he'd just seen. I'm not saying all kids are the same but a mile at 3mph is really was no effort at all for him. I used do it myself and mainly remember chatting to my mates as we walked, skipped and jogged along. It's far from extreme, this is extreme but does demonstrate how little stress walking does put on kids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budhia_Singh
We live where pretty much everywhere we need to go in town can be got to in under an hour on foot so we walk. If we go by bike there's a chance it will be stolen, taking the (electric) car means finding somewhere to park. It's just so easy to walk. I like walking, our next holiday is another Compostelle walk, junior joined us on one of our trips when he was old enough to go on his own holiday so walking as a kid certainly hasn't put him off walking. He lives in Berlin now and either walks or uses public transport.
EDit: and it was four times a day from the age of ten, he hated the canteen so chose to walk home for lunch.
find it utterly astonishing that on a cycle forum people are so pro car and anti bike...
MTB forum. Where car and van carries meets bike.
Hippie forums are available elsewhere.
I jest. Not really. Yes really. No.
Think and perhaps do some research before you type.
Increase VAT five fold and it becomes 100%
If you pay 20 pence for a clue and then you are told the price has increase five fold do you
A) give me a pound
B) give me everything you own?
Since your answer appears to be B) allow me to send you my banking details.
You are so bent in scoring points on irrelevant things and ad hominem attacks you don't even consider the contents of the argument. The point of reductio ad absurdum is to make opposing arguments look absurd, not yourself.
I walked to school as an infant, alone.
That explains so, so much. And would attract attention from the police and social services these days, thankfully
Since I have driven you away from these dark corners of the internet how about to stop responding to my posts until you are ready to have an actual debate.
cromolly appeared to be and many times this debate has been had on here and everytime people keep coming up with bogus reasons why it will not work – despite the evidence that actually it does
You don't have to put words in my mouth, you can just quote me back at myself, like where I said, several pages ago "if you want cycling infrastructure, fine but let's not pretend it is the solution"
Which it isnt. The Dutch example of which you are rightfully proud, still did 45% of journeys by car and have a miserable 11% public transport. And that is with double the popluation density and more urban population by percentage.
Carpooling would cut the number of cars on the road by 3/4, if you did it well. Making employers allow people to work from home at least some of the week would add to that. None needs any money or infrastructure, can start tomorrow.
Cycling is great but is also expected to contribute to a coming explosion in health problems due to air pollution, of which transportation accounts for a minority, cars even less. It also currently use hardscape, like tarmac and concrete, which are absolute terrible for the environment, and produce massive amounts of pollution to make and install.
We aslo need less infrastructure, not more. We need to increase density, have more green, reduce polluting industries and so many other things. We need to direct every pound at the biggest benefits first, because time has become critical, as those investments begin to pay off we can move the money to the next most efficient solution and so on and so on.
You can rubbish other people's arguments but you haven't come up with any actual data, merely anecdote. Or alternative suggestions.
What surprises me is how many people on a cycling forum, particularly a cycling forum which includes a lot of people who enjoy being out in the woods bimbling about, is how few seem to grasp anything to do with environmental concerns beyond riding a bike.
OH I agree with you that a lot more needs to be done but adopting the low countries style cycle provision would make a significant difference, would cost very little and has NO downsides
I find it thoroughly depressing that amongst a population who cycle such as on here so many folk are so dead set against taking such a small step that would make such a big difference. so anti bike and pro car.
Wow cromolyolly I cannot tell if you are deliberately trying to obfuscate in your posts or not. How did the idea put forward by Tj and Edukator that in a lot of cases people could make choices that would reduce their dependency on cars, lead to bicycles being the problem because they use tarmac? [surely a cycle path needs far less tarmac than a road for motorised vehicles and lasts far longer without the need for resurfacing).
Carpooling would cut the number of cars on the road by 3/4, if you did it well
If you did it impossibly well - there is no way you could get carpooling to cut car numbers by 3/4. Further up page you suggested trams with individual cars so people didn’t need to share!
Cycling is great but is also expected to contribute to a coming explosion in health problems due to air pollution, of which transportation accounts for a minority, cars even less.
Could you explain this further, who is expecting this?
What surprises me is how many people on a cycling forum, particularly a cycling forum which includes a lot of people who enjoy being out in the woods bimbling about, is how few seem to grasp anything to do with environmental concerns beyond riding a bike.
This is too vague for me, can you explain what you mean?
so many folk are so dead set against taking such a small step
Who is against it?
I can't think of 1 post.
There are quite a few realistic ones about how difficult it would be and also how it isn't for everyone.
I believe it could of and should of happened in the 50's and 60's. More people rode bikes then and the attitude to them was completely different, they were seen as a from of transport.
When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, my bike wasn't a "toy" it was my form of transport. Nobody went out with their parents, along a sustrans in helmets and high vis, like they do now.
I wonder how many can even fix a puncture?
As I have said on more than one occasion, you can expect people who haven't rode a bike for 20 years to suddenly think they are going to start riding 15 miles a day to and from their work. It isn't going to happen. the whole cycling culture is completely different in the Low Countries. There is no hi vis and helmets, (I'm sure you will love that TJ) but the vast majority don't even have any lights. Can you ever imagine that in the UK?
The other thing is, I have been working in Groningen, the region not the city, during this winter and last. I have not seen 1 cyclist travel to Eemshaven from Groningen city and it's surrounding towns but I see a steady stream of cars doing the same route, because it's ****ing freezing, wet and windy.
would cost very little and has NO downsides
That just isn't true. When you look at what various places have spent, and the knock on effects the changes have had the evidence is ample. It would be nice if it were true because then it would make it a no brainer
In other related news, heve we seen this?
Coventry paying people to ditch cars (trial)
It's an interesting idea, but I can't say I'm a fan. Surely the cost savings of not having to buy, insure, fuel and maintain a car are enough of an inducement, this idea feels like a bit too much carrot and not enough stick IMO... Discuss.
I find it thoroughly depressing that amongst a population who cycle such as on here so many folk are so dead set against taking such a small step that would make such a big difference. so anti bike and pro car.
I'm not against it. I'm pro cycle infrastructure, of course I am. What I'm trying to say is that in practice it would be far from simple in the UK. On paper, yes, find lots of money, build lots of cycle lanes. But as you say, there isn't the political will BECAUSE there isn't the will in society, because people are to wedded to their cars. Changing this will be incredibly difficult.
I'm also not in favour of full cyclist segregation, because I think cyclists would end up being ghettoised. I want a UK solution for UK cities, not a Dutch solution (where cycle paths are compulsory, incidentally).
Something that cost £1.20 with VAT at 20% would cost £2 with VAT at 100%, Cromolyolly, that would be a five fold increase in VAT.
Cycling is great but is also expected to contribute to a coming explosion in health problems due to air pollution, of which transportation accounts for a minority, cars even less.
Where do you get this nonsense from? the same place as you get the idea Honda engines clean the air?
Cars account for pretty much all of the benzine and ozone in the air in Paris. If you consider particulates at PM10 then cars are not the major source in Winter because they have filters. Consider the much more dangerous PM2.5 and cars are the main source anywhere near a busy road:
Pour les particules fines (PM2.5), 85% des Franciliens, soit 10 millions d’habitants, sont potentiellement concernés par le dépassement de l’objectif de qualité français (10 µg/m³ en moyenne annuelle), qui correspond également à la recommandation de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. Les concentrations peuvent être près de 2 fois supérieures à cet objectif à proximité du trafic routier.
(use Google translate or something)
in a lot of cases people could make choices that would reduce their dependency on cars, lead to bicycles being the problem because they use tarmac?
It didn't. Sorry if that want clear. Bikes aren't the problem, tarmac is. Therefore bike infrastructure using tarmac and concrete are a problem. As I said earlier permeable surfaces for bikes are great, although they wouldn't win approval of the road racers. We tend to get stuck in thinking that paths must be concrete or tarmac because that's how we build them.
there is no way you could get carpooling to cut car numbers by 3/4. Further up page you suggested trams with individual cars so people didn’t need to share!
To paraphrase the critics of people who suggest cycling isnt THE solution, wow, how negative, I can't believe you are rubbishing a solution which is so obvious. Are you saying if you don't achieve 3/4 why even bother etc. Etc.
You could get there eventually if you did it right. If people can't get there cooperatively - rewards, legislation etc. We know a lot about how to get people to change their behaviour. Even if you only did 10% to start it is an improvement, it is free and it is immediate. It is something that a lot of people did 20 or more years ago, it's not a new concept.
Various helath organisations are studying it and have expressed concerns. It's often the same people who suggested areas post advisory notices suggesting people refrain from exercising or being outside too much when conditions are bad.
Not being funny but what is it that needs further explanation?
Something that cost £1.20 with VAT at 20% would cost £2 with VAT at 100%, Cromolyolly, that would be a five fold increase in VAT.
No, it really wouldn't be. I don't have it in me to get you to understand the difference.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
Please just stop.
(use Google translate or something)
Ne pas necessaire, je comprends.
MOlgrips - cyclepaths are not compulsory in the netherlands! Its just the provision is so good that there is no need to ride on the roads
Low countries style cycle provision is not expensive nor does it require a lot of infrastucture. the costs of implementing it are outweighed by the savings in reduced congestion and increased p[ublic health -
You guys are inventing totally bogus reasons why it would not work
It didn’t. Sorry if that want clear. Bikes aren’t the problem, tarmac is. Therefore bike infrastructure using tarmac and concrete are a problem. As I said earlier permeable surfaces for bikes are great, although they wouldn’t win approval of the road racers. We tend to get stuck in thinking that paths must be concrete or tarmac because that’s how we build them.
It's easy we have some strips of tarmac already we can use as cyclepaths once we ban the cars from them, available in every city too, they won't actually need their cars as we will have removed so much of the inner city parking they won't have anywhere to leave them either. That should take care of a lot of the air pollution too, We all know it's not the biggest source but it's the source that is directly impacting people as they travel about. It's the stuff in your face when you try and do anything.
Walk or Cycle should be the default for short journeys, that should be complimented by public transport, cars should always be the least appealing option. We need urgent action to tackle urban congestion, transport and pollution.
there is no way you could get carpooling to cut car numbers by 3/4. Further up page you suggested trams with individual cars so people didn’t need to share!
To paraphrase the critics of people who suggest cycling isnt THE solution, wow, how negative, I can’t believe you are rubbishing a solution which is so obvious. Are you saying if you don’t achieve 3/4 why even bother etc. Etc.
How can what I said be possibly interpreted as not bothering to try with ideas such as carpooling? What I am saying is there is virtually no chance of reducing car numbers by 3/4 through doing so. ~75% of car owners would need to give up their cars to share a car with others, say to go to work. Then at the weekend share with someone else who happens to be one of the 25% who happens to be going to do their weekly shop at the supermarket of their mutual choice, then someone else who happens to be going to the same church as them etc - you get the idea.
Cars are hugely convenient to use (at least it seems to me, I’ve never owned one), most people I know who have one would not contemplate sharing with strangers. One of the many reasons I have never owned a car is that they are too convenient, if I had one I fear that like quite a few people I know, I would use it for ridiculously short/all journeys. Once you get in that mindset, it appears that you can make choices that otherwise might seem counterintuitive.
...how few seem to grasp anything to do with environmental concerns beyond riding a bike.
This is too vague for me, can you explain what you mean?
Well what I do not understand is which of the many environmental concerns you think people here do not understand and how any of these other environmental concerns mitigate against the need to reduce car use. (not forgetting that environmental concerns are just one of the reasons to be dismayed at the lack of provision for active travel indicated by the OP).
Maybe this will help you Cromolyolly:
Try with 20% and 100% VAT, a five fold increase.
@guass on care share and ownership the real model to aspire to is actually sharing the cars, be that through hiring or community shared car schemes, the major issue with the car is that it generally needs 2 spaces reserved for it, one at home and one at it's main destination. Remove that and we get a lot more flexibility in the way we can use space. It's more resource friendly and efficient but retains flexibility. Of course these options are mostly aimed at the majority who live in urban areas but it's where the biggest differences can be made.
Strangely though in urban areas I see far more people already divorcing themselves from the car, prohibitive costs to enter the market and needing somewhere to keep it make a big difference. Make public transport and alternatives attractive and you have a winner.
Tell me more Dickyboy. I’m working with some projects trying to encourage this. I’m regularly walking with school groups (across Glasgow this morning).
Might be useful contacting the folk in Edinburgh working on this. Here's a video from earlier this week:
Presumably these shameless, tarmac loving cycling enthusiasts will simply become part of the "coming explosion in health problems due to air pollution".
Thanks Dickyboy. That's great.
I don’t think the OP mention whether there were pavements but we’ll assume so. No infrastructure needed
There are pavements. The narrowest they can build, so maybe 1.3m wide. On narrow roads, with drives so small that cars stick into pavement. Only where cars go is there pavement.
With a new start
Who are you, Cromolyolly? You've only been posting with your current login for five months but have referenced how the site used to be before the "upgrade" a couple of years back and seem to know some of the people here a little too well.
Who are you, Cromolyolly? You’ve only been posting with your current login for five months but have referenced how the site used to be before the “upgrade” a couple of years back and seem to know some of the people here a little too well.
Now you are just being creepy. Really really creepy.
Vote chapaeu á papier aluminium come askew?
Who are you?
cromolyolly
Member
would cost very little and has NO downsides
That just isn’t true. When you look at what various places have spent, and the knock on effects the changes have had the evidence is ample. It would be nice if it were true because then it would make it a no brainer
Unfortunatly for your arguement it is true. The cost savings from the reduced pollution, reduced congestion and improved public health mean that overall there is very little cost. Its very cheap to add a proper cycle lane to most roads compared to the cost of building those roads.
Certainly in the low countries it is not a net cost. Its a net benefit
I've been Edukator on here since the great hack, Cromolyolly, check my posting history and see how many anomolies and inconsitencies you can find in 5 minutes. I don't own a tin-foil hat.
guys - its been a bit heated but don't make it personal please
MOlgrips – cyclepaths are not compulsory in the netherlands!
I asked several people at work and they told me they were. The wiki article says that there are two kinds of cycle path but in most cases the segregated ones are obligatory.
I'm not saying that cycle infrastructure is impossible here. I'm saying that we should not simply copy their layout. We need to find out own solution. But we do need one.
I'll say it again. I am pro bike and anti car. I hate having to use mine.
where I end up posting a link to an online VAT calculator on a thread about cycle infrastructure
Ed, you should have let that one go. Don't go down the rabbit hole. Not everything has to be a confrontation. I presume you don't talk like this when you're at the cafe drinking wine or whatever it is you do 🙂 If you did you wouldn't have any mates left.
Back on topic: What I'd like to see is a quiet road network for cyclists in cities and towns. They'd be designed to take cars for access but primarily signposted and signalled for bikes. And they'd be direct, not meandering. We already route cars down major roads and block off side roads to manage traffic and preserve environments. It would be easy and crucially not controversial to incorporate bikes into the side street network. I'd only add dedicated bike specific lanes where they are needed. For example, in Cardiff we need superhighway type lanes in some places and priority signalling and road layout in others where there are already quiet streets. This kind of thing has been done in London for ages and I've also seen it attempted half-heartedly elsewhere.
In the countryside I think I would put in dedicated lanes linking towns. Because there it would mostly be easy and relatively cheap.
https://goo.gl/maps/nNKRRph12zA2
A great example molgrips
Canning St runs parallel but it's been split so you can't drive all the way down it, it's still straight and fast on a bike but cars can't get through so it's just residential to them, another one linking up with other proper strategic cycle routes
Couple that with strategic public transport and it starts to work better. Stuff like this needs to be put in place right now.
Not everything has to be a confrontation.
That's a bit rich from you after the gratuitous shouty character assassination on page four, Molgrips, were you drunk? Skim reading and not following the "tread" of the thread? Or still sore about iDave?
That’s an incredibly shitty thing to say. Basically, you’re saying life is easy, just make the right choices, and anyone who isn’t enjoying it only has themselves to blame so stop whining. * me that is awful, truly awful. I’ve often stuck up for you Ed but that is deeply offensive. You have absolutely NO IDEA how people end up in poor situations. You think you do, but you don’t. So you REALLY should stop talking about it when you are so ignorant. My god.
Also good job you and TJ totally * up the thread. Take a forum break, please.
That was a fantastic exercise of putting words in someone's mouth. You read what others had said and followed blindly rather than reading and adressing the quote for youself and reading back to see what it responded to for context.
Anything to say about "Fewer cars"? (Edit: I see you have 🙂 )
Progress on cycle paths around here is painfully slow but there has finally been a change in favour of "site propre" which I guess translates as dedicated infrastruture away form the traffic. We're geting a new bridge every few years and a long distance route from coast to coast is slowly being pieced together
Some are great
Some have obvious flaws
Jesus wept, TJ posts asking folk to stop getting personal and your reply to that is shit stirring? Really? Grow the **** up you massive man child.
Jesus wept, TJ posts asking folk to stop getting personal and your reply to that is shit stirring? Really? Grow the **** up you massive man child.
Just in case you stealth edit, Squirrelking. That is sooo funny.
Anytime you talk about infrastructure projects the costs shift the scale on little an a lot, so that affects the definition
The cost savings from the reduced pollution, reduced congestion and improved public health mean that overall there is very little cost.
All true and valid. But those offset the cost, which I would view as different than the thing costing very little to begin with. Also they are compensatory upsides but that doesn't mean there aren't any downsides. There are, of course.
A lot of this reminds me of the climate change cartoon
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/What-If-Its-A-Hoax-56a74f4c5f9b58b7d0e8f300.jpg)
What if we make the world a nicer place to walk, ride and travel, move people more efficiently, reduce pollution and stress along with cutting road deaths and it turns out it's cost neutral or even cost us something. Wouldn't it be worth it.
Anyway.
I think the problem is people are looking at everything on entirely different scales. Matt is looking at local level. TJ is looking at micro societal and those he disagrees with seem to be looking at macro societal. The thing is none of these are really at odds with each other and nobody seems to be saying anything massively at odds with the bigger picture question. The change isn't a single answer. Local authorities need to stop passing crap planning that doesn't consider the local environment or quality of life. Urban areas need to get their shit together and sort out decent mass transit that negates the overwhelming amount of car journeys, once that's sorted you can start removing cars from the equation by other means, less parking means less street clutter means more attractive for cycling. Decent planning can also pull offices, retail and the like back into town and city centres and away from out of town mall sprawl. Likewise repopulating cities and getting rid of rabbit hutch suburban sprawl (with your 0.9 car driveway and postage stamp "garden"). More mass means mass transit is more effective.
The thing is, that takes a long time, more than an election cycle or even a generation. I'd be happy to start paving the way but nobody seemingly wants to spend money on something that probably won't be realised until their children have reached adulthood. Me, me, me.
Finally, there is a school of thought that says pavements are bad in that they segregate and drivers have one less thing to think about. Remove them and they need to slow down. Ideal for housing estates and such as children can play in the street and drivers have to come second. I'd be well up for that. You can even make it semi permeable!
Mike - exactly.
Finally, there is a school of thought that says pavements are bad in that they segregate and drivers have one less thing to think about.
Can you link something on that, please. I'd like to know who belongs to that school of thought and what it's based on. The only places I know where pavements have been removed they have alos banned cars.
Finally, there is a school of thought that says pavements are bad in that they segregate and drivers have one less thing to think about. Remove them and they need to slow down. Ideal for housing estates and such as children can play in the street and drivers have to come second. I’d be well up for that. You can even make it semi permeable!
Have you been following my brothers designs for new estate builds in NZ?
Go do some reading on Skyscrapercity.
Matt, nope. It seems quite popular amongst the Scottish armchair (and qualified) architects on the aforementioned site. I'm not sure myself but I thought it worth mentioning as the subject was brought up. It could either go as I describe which would probably have additional traffic calming in place or else you end up in a US type scenario with a massive tarmac strip in the middle and the only other paths being driveways.
I couldn't trust the UK goverment to do anything about. Tragically. So reducing number of vehicles is not realistic in the medium term. But we can reduce the size of the vehicles. Micro cars, electric push scooters and mopeds, ebikes all seem to be helping on some parts of the world. And don't rely on government proactively, crucially.
Finally, there is a school of thought that says pavements are bad in that they segregate and drivers have one less thing to think about. Remove them and they need to slow down. I
That originated somewhere in scandanavua didn't it? Or they named it. I can't recall the name, probably couldn't spell it anyway. It's been done in Holland, Austria, bunch of places. No markings, no signs, nothing. Users just figure it out. Works it seems for everyone. Somewhere in England wanted to try a light version, Sussex, maybe? Remove centre line and sideline markings. It was thought this would make drivers go slower and be more disciplined about positioning relative to other traffic.
I was in one place in North American that tried it and it was an absolute mess. Takes a certain mindset or culture, I guess. They ended up painting lines and markings and so on everywhere.
Remove centre line and sideline markings. It was thought this would make drivers go slower and be more disciplined about positioning relative to other traffic.
It did by confusing drivers into slowing down, not sure of the long term effects.
I was in one place in North American that tried it and it was an absolute mess. Takes a certain mindset or culture, I guess. They ended up painting lines and markings and so on everywhere.
Huge amounts of the US has very little. Road markings as there are no people, their road systems seem so badly designed that with no clear indictation it would fall apart really quickly anywhere busy. More to do with the overall system than a du gle implementation.
Also interested if you had a username before this one though.
Huge amounts of the US has very little. Road markings as there are no people,
Yes, the rural areas are like like but there aren't many users so it isn't a problem. The busier areas are fine.
That wouldn't appiy to the place I'm thinking of, it was a mixed use development that was (I think) meant to mimic an old town in europe, central square, tables outside cafes etc. I think they bungled the built design by not building the shared space into it from the beginning and tacking it on at the end. The were lots of cues as to where the road, pavement etc would/should be even though there were no kerbs, lanes markings etc. Shows that it takes more thought to work.
As to you other question, while it wasn't you the insinuation has been made repeatedly with either a parenthetical or outright accusation of doing so with underhanded behaviour as the motivation and violation of the t&C's. It is mildly offensive and I'm not going to respond. You can make of that what you will, that is beyond my control.
The pavements are bad etc concept is IIRC the dutch "shared spaces" concept. Something we should adopt on all narrow urban roads. Havinfgg seen how well in works I am hugely in favour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Cromollyolly - I'd love to know what all these huge costs you keep mentioning for providing cycle provision are and what you think the downsides are? That is for the dutch style cycle provision not the useless UK style ones.
Sure it would take a generation but I can see zero downsides and minimal costs with plenty of financialo benefits.
Squirrelking good post.
I've seen residential developments in Germany that, despite being through roads, are just long open areas with kids play areas and lots of space. Being Germany it had marked parking bays but they were spread about.
Our street (12 years old) by contrast, every house has pointless tiny front gardens and inadequate drives. They should have just paved the lot and made it look like a car park as per the German example. It would have created far more space and a much better living experience. And ours isn't even a through road. I'll find pics later if I can be bothered.
The pavements are bad etc concept is IIRC the dutch “shared spaces”
I was thinking of woonerf, which is related but no quite the same.
these huge costs you keep mentioning for providing cycle provision are and what you think the downsides are? That is for the dutch style cycle provision not the useless UK style ones.
Sure it would take a generation but I can see zero downsides and minimal costs with plenty of financialo benefits.
So I don't think I ever used the word "huge". So that kind of makes it sounds like an invitation to have a willy-waving discussion rather than an actual one. Rather like if I said tell me more about this no downsides and 'massive' financial 'windfall' you keep 'banging on'about.
Although the people that do infrastructure stuff talk about billions like it's nothing, so while they don't think costs are huge,others who deal with samller amounts might
There is a lot of info on the costs and downsides on the 'net, particularly in light of the "copenhaganise" thing. Just keep in mind that the guy that kicked that off wants other places to pay for his consulting, so tends to talk up the positive. Others, like economists, environmentalists planners etc have suggested alternative interpretations.
As far as I am aware the costs of doing this are minimal and the benefits huge. You certainly suggested in one of your posts tht the costs would be prohibitive. Maybe if you want to do it overnight but I keep stating its the dutch option - takes a generation.
I really just cannot fathom your opposition.
As far as I am aware the costs of doing this are minimal and the benefits huge. You certainly suggested in one of your posts tht the costs would be prohibitive.
Do you have some numbers of what the costs and benefits are?
I *think* you might be conflating two different but related things I said. Addressing the broader environmental challenges we have will be very expensive and very painful, partly because we have dithered so long that we have to do it in a short time if we are to have any hope.
Its sad that new development isn't trying to accommodate for cycling as well. Whilst I am not sure of the suitability of redesigning our network, new planning should always consider cycling.
cromolyolly
Member
Huge amounts of the US has very little. Road markings as there are no people,
Yes, the rural areas are like like but there aren’t many users so it isn’t a problem. The busier areas are fine.
It's almost as if I went on to make the point right after you cropped my post....
It’s almost as if I went on to make the point right after you cropped my post….
I didn't think it was worth cluttering the thread by copying a lot of the post which was immediately above mine, when all that was required was enough to indicate which part I was referring to. I probably should have put "....." to make that clear but it's the internet and I'm not writing a formal document. I thought in fact I was responding to your point.
It's almost as if I went on to make a point right after youcropped mypost but since its right up there ∆ I can scroll up to it if needed.
