[Closed] Cars are anti-democratic...

Public transport would work brilliantly for me, being a self employed handyman with a car full of tools.

In America in 1900 nobody was killed by cars in the USA,

In 2011, New York had 234 people killed in road accidents, 134 were pedestrians

in 1900, New York had 200 people killed in accidents with Horses and Horse drawn carriages

Interestingly, Julius Caesar banned horse-drawn carts from ancient Rome between dawn and dusk in an effort to curb gridlock, noise, accidents, and pollution 😆

In 2011, New York had 234 people killed in road accidents, 134 were pedestrians

in 1900, New York had 200 people killed in accidents with Horses and Horse drawn carriages

and accounting for population increase that probably works out way more were killed in 1900 per person

Yup, roughly double 😀

[quote=oldnick said]Public transport would work brilliantly for me, being a self employed handyman with a car full of tools.

I'm sure one of these would work fine for you:

[img] [/img]

Love it!

Things were so much better in the olden days...

[img] [/img]

Oh, and being faced with maybe a five or six mile walk to get to the nearest railway station, because there were no rural buses, or taxis, or cars, only horseback, if you happened to own a horse, or horse and carriage if really posh.
Yes, the car was really undemocratic, allowing people to travel further than the next village, when they wanted.

[quote=CountZero said]Oh, and being faced with maybe a five or six mile walk to get to the nearest railway station, because there were no rural buses, or taxis, or cars, only horseback, if you happened to own a horse, or horse and carriage if really posh.
Yes, the car was really undemocratic, allowing people to travel further than the next village, when they wanted.

Because of course cars were available to all 🙄

Strangely enough it appears the bicycle actually fulfilled the function you're attributing to the car.

The bizarre thing is that on a cycling website, people are still struggling to see the utterly obvious answer.

No-one is suggesting for a minute that *everyone* suddenly ditches their car and starts making their way around on a bicycle. Even in places that embrace cycle commuting as a way of life don't do this.

The point is that the more people who cycle, the more good cycle infrastructure we build, the more we make bikes be the priority, the better things get *for everyone*.
You need to get around in your van with tools, it'll way better because there's less cars and the bikes are over there, out of the way.
You need to move house, no problem. You can use a lorry to do it (although plenty of people in cycle-orientated cities move house on their bikes).
Are you disabled? No problem, you can get around by car.
Lazy? Still no problem, you can get around by car and it will be much better because there's not so many cars.

It works. Those places that make these changes can show that very, very clearly it works, and really quickly too. It saves money, it makes things better for PEOPLE and it absolutely is the right thing to do. What's immensely frustrating is trying to get everyone to see this.

Public transport would work brilliantly for me, being a self employed handyman with a car full of tools.

[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKrV5sxKNtwhuge5LJOid-c7CPhxJ2nH_Sk2MXRj-1yOTs8giNjQ [/img]
😛

The point is that the more people who cycle, the more good cycle infrastructure we build, the more we make bikes be the priority, the better things get *for everyone*.

Wishful thinking.

The Netherlands are probably the most cycle friendly country in Europe, an excellent cycling infrastructure which I wish we had.

However, have you ever driven in Rotterdam? It's a nightmare and the congestion is really bad. Even with their cycling infrastructure the vast majority still use cars.

I was going to jump on the OP's extremely dodgy use of statistics, but that was already done by post 4, well done everyone 🙂

Anyway. Tax rebates for cyclists I reckon.

Strangely enough it appears the bicycle actually fulfilled the function you're attributing to the car.

Bicycles are about as relevant to travel as a horse.

However, have you ever driven in Rotterdam? It's a nightmare and the congestion is really bad. Even with their cycling infrastructure the [b]vast majority[/b] still use cars

And a big +1 to what Samuri said. So many of these debates become
A:"We should use single occupancy cars for fewer journeys, especially short ones"
B: "But my 140 year old Nan has got no legs and she needs to drive 400 miles to the nearest supermarket through a polar bear filled mountain range to buy a wardrobe and 500 housebricks every week. Do you want her to die and be eaten by bears?! DO YOU?! WHY DO YOU HATE MY NAN!!!??"

When in actual fact it's just that we're saying that [i]some[/i] of us could change [i]some[/i] of our journeys to something other than driving 2 tonnes of metal a mile and half to pick up 300g of newspaper. At the moment our roads are built in such a way that anything other than the motorcar (or motorbike) is excluded, which means that most people drive, and I don't blame them. Cycling in towns and cities is quite often dangerous and unpleasant and or inconvenient. If we make it easier and (subjectively) safer then more people will do it. If we do that then we end up with less pollution, less inactivity related death and disease, less congestion and quicker journeys for the people who *need* to be in a car.

Think about how much better traffic is during the school holidays. It only takes a few % drop in car numbers to have a massive effect on traffic flow and congestion.

When in actual fact it's just that we're saying that some of us could change some of our journeys to something other than driving 2 tonnes of metal a mile and half to pick up 300g of newspaper.

There's an even simpler solution. Get your newspaper delivered. Forget that, read it online.

You don't need to go to a shop for anything anymore. I doubt half the population needs to leave the house to work.

I was going to jump on the OP's extremely dodgy use of statistics

ahem, Mayor of Bogata's actually 😀 which he used to justify massive improvements in the quality of life in his city

Lazy? Still no problem, you can get around by car and it will be much better because there's not so many cars.

And there's the glaring hole in your otherwise sound argument, most people are lazy, the people who want to do these things already do, making the ones who don't want to do it do it is the challenge.

Replace car with 'teleportation device' and most people would choose that just because it's less effort, even if it cost a lot, was smelly, and bad for you, they'd still choose it...

The point is that the more people who cycle, the more good cycle infrastructure we build, the more we make bikes be the priority, the better things get *for everyone*.

Been to Cambridge recently? It's a bloody nightmare to got around despite being very much a cycling city. Yes, there are ways I could get into town without a car, but I would still need to use a car to get to the park & ride unless I felt like taking the twice a day bus, or risking my life cycling the 12 miles into town on my bike.

Gah! I should just stop complaining. I only have to go in to town once in a while when we need something other than food.

Cars have their place in transport infrastructure. Ideally though a lot smaller than their current place...

Excellent essay on this sort of thing by a bloke called John Adams - he calls it Hypermobility

One thing not covered in previous posts is that cars are only for certain members of society...some sections of society - notably children - are automatically disenfranchised in society that encourages car use.

According to this website : http://www.poverty.org.uk/75/index.shtml

Cars are very democratic, it's only at the margins where they cease to be so. Therefore if you're not in the bottom 30% of the population by income (give or take) you're fine. Lower than that you're screwed as far as society (public services, retail, leisure, work etc...) is concerned.

But the top 70% are fine thanks! Democracy = the tyranny of the majority.

Bicycles are about as relevant to travel as a horse.

There are around half a million journeys made by bicycle [i]every day[/i] in London. I'm still trying to find the data for commutes by horse...

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_London#Cycling ]London transport info[/url]

Public transport would work brilliantly for me, being a self employed handyman with a car full of tools.

Leaving aside the fact that I often see a handyman riding his bike pulling a trailer full of tools, surely anything that reduces the traffic on the road would benefit you getting about in your van?

A big study done where I live, prior to becoming a cycle demonstration town, found that 1 in 3 car journeys were short enough to do by bike, done by someone healthy enough to ride a bike, didn't require anything heavy or bulky to be carried, [i]and[/i] were carried out by someone who owned a bike.

The only barrier to getting 1 in 3 cars off the road are cultural and safety issues.

Add "environmental" into that mix and you have why I don't cycle commute more often.

When it's wet or cold or dark, suddenly it becomes a damn sight more dangerous for me to cycle into work, even with more lights on the bike than that house down the road has on it's front right now. I have life insurance, but don't fancy having my wife cash it in.

Cycling in towns and cities is quite often dangerous and unpleasant and or inconvenient.

Hmm. I'm not sure it is, actually. People THINK it is, but since I've always done it I'm good at it and completely used to it.

It's a question of perception. If it becomes normal to go places by bike and we can get people doing it from a young age (with good training and education for everyone) then we won't really have to do much to our infrastructure.

EDIT well.. generally not.. there are still some bad roads I suppose.

'Cycling in towns and cities is quite often dangerous and unpleasant and or inconvenient.'

Hmm. I'm not sure it is, actually. People THINK it is, but since I've always done it I'm good at it and completely used to it.

It's a question of perception. If it becomes normal to go places by bike and we can get people doing it from a young age (with good training and education for everyone) then we won't really have to do much to our infrastructure.

This ^^.

As for it being cold and wet - the more MTFU that can be distributed by the Ministry of Get a Grip, the better off society will be.

I never get why on a cycling website some people can't see that cycling has a place as a one of the solutions to easing congestion in towns and cities.

Currently, the average Briton makes more than 10 times as many journeys of less than a mile than he/she does by bike. Less than a mile for God's sake! I find that pretty worrying. Making it easier, safer and more pleasant to make those journeys on foot or by bike is a win for everyone

I never get why on a cycling website some people can't see that cycling has a place as a one of the solutions to easing congestion in towns and cities.

Who's saying that?

I never get why on a cycling website some people can't see that cycling has a place as a one of the solutions to easing congestion in towns and cities.
----
Who's saying that?

5thelefant:

Bicycles are about as relevant to travel as a horse

edit: And the 'I'm alright Jack so we don't need infrastructure' approach can't be the way forward. Roads, as they are curently, are subjectively unpleasant, dangerous places for cyclists. Danger from motor traffic is the major factor consistently cited as the reason not to cycle by non-cyclists. I'm fit, 'assertive', trained to bikability level 3 and a competent bike handler, so I'm mostly ok. But Mrs B isn't. We went to Lanzarote and rode along a segregated path on 'Dutch' bikes and she loved it. But she won't ride a bike on the roads here because it's a pretty horrible experience for a novice. She'll happily walk along the pavement though. The statistical risks might be similar but the subjective experience is loads better.

Huh.. better put my bike away then and start driving around for work.

Beat me to it ...

I dunno what all those hundreds of cyclists on Blackfriars Road are doing every morning either. Get them back in their cars, get some congestion going. No-one likes empty roads.

No-one likes empty roads.

We'd not want the roads to be empty after all those hard-working drivers have paid all that road tax, would we? 🙂

And the 'I'm alright Jack so we don't need infrastructure' approach can't be the way forward. Roads, as they are curently, are subjectively unpleasant, dangerous places for cyclists.

You're missing the point. I'm no different to any other able bodied healthy 30-something. I'm alright, so there's no reason millions of other people shouldn't also be alright.

The only difference between me and them is that I'm used to it, and I know how to deal with it. If you got someone from the 1900s and brought them to the present they'd think driving was dangerous and unpleasant too I'd imagine.

You acknowledged my point - roads are [b]subjectively[/b] unpleasant and dangerous. With education and a cultural shift (on both sides) this can be changed. I think this is more important than building cycleways, but I'm aware that building cycleways might also help the cultural shift.

Btw the empty roads comment - my hotel in London is on Blackfriars road and as I walk to the office there are hardly any cars even at 9am but dozens and dozens of cyclists at any moment. If they were all in cars the road would be heavily congested!

All the people who are taking part in this discussion are making one fundamental mistake:

You are all cyclists and are assuming that the general public are even capable of getting on a bike then riding it more than half a mile before collapsing exhausted, especially as most of them would go out and buy full-suspension BSOs with underinflated knobbly tyres and a vertical sitting position for extra wind resistance.

That's even before you get to the issue of seat comfort, luggage carrying, heaters, radios, weather protection and of course all that protective metal around them.

[quote=shermer75 said]There are around half a million journeys made by bicycle every day in London. I'm still trying to find the data for commutes by horse...

Well one mum at my kids school occasionally does the school run by horse. Mind you that still makes it less relevant to transport than a unicycle 😉

I'm assuming 5thElefant drives to trail centres with his bike on the roof of his Audi.

You are all cyclists and are assuming that the general public are even capable of getting on a bike then riding it more than half a mile before collapsing exhausted

Hmm. I know plenty of people who could easily pootle around a flat town, and I also know plenty of people who play football and run but don't cycle anywhere.

Then there's also the fact that if it were normal to cycle around they wouldn't be fat and unfit in the first place. Most of us aren't born fat and unfit after all.

Don't get me wrong - we can't get lazy pepole on their bikes overnight. The cultural shift will take a generation or two. Judging by the numbers of young people out on bikes in London it could already be happening. Many of them are even wearing helmets and high viz, which would've been too un-cool to contemplate when I was that age.

Seemed that last time I was in the Netherlands people of all shapes and sizes were riding bikes, no reason at all that wouldn't or couldn't be the case in the UK

[quote=molgrips said]You're missing the point. I'm no different to any other able bodied healthy 30-something. I'm alright, so there's no reason millions of other people shouldn't also be alright.

No, you're missing the point. You're a cyclist. Education and cultural shift (however you think that's going to happen) isn't going to solve this one alone. Not when most people aren't already cyclists. I'm certainly not keen on new infrastructure for my own ends (well not for riding a bike, but I might use it for other purposes and can certainly see the benefit for being able to get around with my kids), but if it is what it takes to get more people riding then I'm all for it. Done properly, obviously, not with just a tin of pink paint and a truckload of "[url= ]cyclists dismount[/url]" signs.

things change
canal
railways
bicycle
motorbike (*sidecar)
car
very reliable car
imho every step was an improvement (I'm of the generation whereby we had a family motorbike, then sidecar(as dad got a talking to for having me, mum and the dog on the bike), then unreliable car and now reliable car, the hideous factor that has to be dealt with now is that for a variety of reasons (cost, overcrowding, 'commuting lifestyle' etc etc) that the choice for people is going to get worse* rather then better

Cycling in the Netherlands as a keen cyclist can be a pain in the arse. Bike path's often take the long way round a junction, they are full of other cyclists going slower than you would like to, the odd pedsetrian, they have traffic lights and pedestrian crossings etc. It would be faster to use the road.

But to resist dutch style segregation is to miss the point. To claim it's not needed is wrong.

These paths aren't aimed at us, the keen cyclists who ride anyway or who ride quickly for sport. They are for the kids, and your mum, and the bloke ambling to work in his suit, and the woman who got squashed by a dumper truck. Step of your road bike or super quick hybrid and hop on a heavy dutch utility bike (or a hire scheme bike) and you will understand what using a bike as a tool is about. Normal clothes, no helmet, no hi viz; just the cheapest, easiest, safest way to get about.

Education and cultural shift (however you think that's going to happen) isn't going to solve this one alone.

On the one hand, I agree with this. On the other, it's already begun. Using London as an example of what can be achieved nationwide:

"Cycling in the capital is on the up; since 2001, cycling on London's major roads increased by 173 per cent. The Mayor wants to go further to really make a difference to how Londoners get about their city.

The Mayor is working with TfL to deliver a 400 per cent increase in cycling by 2026, compared to 2001 levels, while making two wheeled transport safer, more attractive, and more convenient. TfL is investing more than ever before in cycling and funding is increasing to the point where levels of investment are approaching those of other leading European cycling cities."

[url= http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport/cycling-revolution ]From London.gov.uk[/url]

The current fuss is mainly because the masses aren't very good at coping with change, they'll get used to it eventually...

I suspect that central and local government have looked at how much debt we already have, looked at the costs of the obesity and mental health crises, looked at the costs of congestion, looked at the costs of pollution, looked at the capacity of the current transport infrastructure and realised that getting more people on bikes will make inroads into all of these problems which are going to cost us an absolute fortune at a time when the developing world is very keen to eat our lunch...

Sadly if you're in good physical health and of healthy weight in the UK, you're in a minority, so they haven't half got a way to go 😯

if [more cycling infrastructure] is what it takes to get more people riding then I'm all for it.

Fair enough, but I don't think that is really what it'll take. London didn't have to do much, after all. If you've never been down there recently it really is incredible how many cyclists there now are.

Fair enough, but I don't think that is really what it'll take. London didn't have to do much

The explosion of cycling has many drivers but a lot of them are temporary (its very fashionable right now to cycle, people do not have much money, we had a dry summer etc) and therefore it is fragile. Also the low hanging fruit have already been "got", every additional cyclist will be harder to persuade than the last.

A few negative impacts and numbers could start to decline. The biggest negative impact will be people getting killed and the best way to stop that is infastructure and segregation. It is what takes cycling away from being a niche activity for people up for a battle with the cars and turns it into the best way to get about.

JFletch. I know it's anecdote but London was rammed with cyclists this morning - as many as I've seen.
Coldest day of the winter so far and only a couple of weeks after we lost 6 riders...

London has lots of people moving into it. I think some of them are including cycling in their plans when they choose a place to live.

However London's not that great of an example in many ways, thinking about it. Driving's so impractical for so many people, so it's bike vs tube vs bus which is a much more level playing field!

Brilliant, lets hope it lasts.

But lets hope that it speads to other cities. In Nottingham this morning I saw very few and was sat in traffic which is primarily caused by people doing short journeys.

was sat in traffic which is primarily caused by people doing short journeys.

How do you know, though?

How do you know, though?

I don't have any stats but it is a reasonable assumption since there are few viable alternatives, it's school run time and there is no eveidence of large numbers of people either walking or cycling, and they are local roads rather than trunk roads.

Fair to assume that most local trips are being made by car, but you don't know how many of the cars on the road are on local trips. They could be going further afield.

But anyway I agree with your sentiment.

The DfT do a National Traffic survey:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-travel-survey-statistics

Okay so it's not going to be specific to Nottingham's local road network, but it should give an idea as to likley proportions.

the majority of trips are short (over half of car trips are less than 5 miles, over three quarters are less than 10), so it's a fair assumption to make

You're missing the point. I'm no different to any other able bodied healthy 30-something. I'm alright, so there's no reason millions of other people shouldn't also be alright.

I rode my bike to work before my town had a bunch of money spent on cycle infrastructure and, at that point, I was a firm believer in vehicular cycling, helmet use, training, MingTFU, etc.

Post-cycle demonstration town funding, I still ride my bike to work, but almost entirely on off-road paths. It's a hell of a lot nicer and I see a lot more other cyclists now. I'm now a firm believer in infrastructure being the main thing we need, and this belief is backed up by a lot more knowledge and understanding of the issues than my old belief.

The main difference post-CDT funding: my mam rides her bike into town. Pre-infrastructure, almost every cyclist was a relatively young man, but now we get women in their 50s riding their bikes.

What they did here wasn't perfect, and they wasted a lot of cash on promotion and training before there was infrastructure in place, and the infrastructure's only there for some trips, but it's a huge improvement on what we had before.

I think it probably depends on the city to an extent.

Yep - Cycling (as a means of transport) is never going to catch on in Sheffield to a great extent due to all the hills.

[i]The only barrier to getting 1 in 3 cars off the road are cultural and safety issues.[/i]

There's masses of folk who live in this country who will only view bicycle riding through the prism of "that's what poor people have to do" . Straw poll of the people in my dental practice right now " no way. it's all up hill" and "I live 10 miles away" ( weirdly she will go to the gym though....)

These are young healthy folk how spend a good deal if their time telling patients about healthy lifestyles...go figure as they say across the pond.

It's mostly young people in London. The question that hasn't been answered is what will these young people do when they get older?

I think cars are a tyranny. To me they are certainly a luxury and not a right. I do own one but think very carefully before using it - always walk / use the bike locally. But in doing so it is clear that I am relegated to an absolutely subordinated position to those far less vulnerable than me.

To me they are certainly a luxury and not a right.

You don't live in the countryside then.

I've lived and worked and cycled in west London for just under 20 years.
I know a whole range of people who cycle, its not just young people - actually in my office, most of the people who cycle are in the 40s or above - our oldest cyclist is 66. Almost none of the young group currently working here cycle - they all come from cultures that revere motor cars and revile cycling and public transport.
When I first starting commuting and cycling in London in 95, if I saw another cyclist it was a major event - even in town it was pretty much only couriers tooling around, almost no one else cycled. Nowadays, on my 5 mile commute that in 2000 I'd see maybe 1 other cyclist a week, I see about 6-10 each way. That's a big difference, and its good.
I cycle 10 miles a day, I don't wear funny clothing (well except that my normal clothing might be considered funny), when I go to meetings at other people's offices they expect me to turn up by bike and usually say something if I don't and these are people responsible for spending £100m's every year.
There is a sea change in London where people just get on bikes and cycle - there's still a lot of people for whom cycling seems to involve dressing up for a 2 miles ride (but then Brits love pretending to be professional at their hobby activities). Personally I leave the funny clothing for my riding at the weekend when I'll go out for 4-5 or more hours and the proper clothing works best.

Oh, read [url= http://www.mayerhillman.com/Cycling-walking.aspx ]Mayer Hillman[/url] for a sensible viewpoint on this, and his thoughts on how the giving over of our towns and cities to motor vehicles has proven to be disastrous for communities and individuals.

I only dress up to avoid getting my work clothes sweaty, as I am basically unable to cycle without getting at least a bit sweaty!