Forum menu
My commute from home to work, when I do bike it, has a large chunk going through the ancient heart of old Theocsbury, which isn't bad, because a number of side roads don't go anywhere much, so little to no traffic, then along some old railway line, which doesn't have trains any more, which is nice, then down a country lane (no through access, almost no traffic) and then through a new (ish, ~10yrs) estate, along a cycle path which astonishingly connects one end to other with only one quiet road to cross. That part is great.
T then have to go along a country road precisely wide enough for two cars, used as a ratrun, which is woeful and many times unpleasant, although it is out in the countryside so gets no chance of ever being changed.
In some places there are rays of hope. In others, not so much.
Those saying it will be a decent 'joined up' planning policy that drives any change are right. Maybe we'll get one.
The thing is we, and this city, have low carbon plans, sustainable development plan, sustainable transport plan, officers in post to deliver this.
Yet.
Nothing.
Happens.
This is a huge new development and school, a real opportunity.
As someone said earlier, there's no vision, there's no demand or appetite.
Why would a Dutch city where people are cycling instead of driving be worse for people with mobility issues than a UK city full of cars
Because people with mobility issues can't ride bikes!
? Are you really trying to suggest the Dutch can’t do accessible travel?
Oh they can do it. Just not well. Nobody does.
There are lots of areas in the UK where geography is not an issue at all, and Dutch style solutions could easily be applied, if
Not a lot of UK cities ringfenced by a canal, creating easy opportunities for entry control. not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Not poking holes in the Dutch efforts, they've done well. They have a situation that doesn't translate well to other places though. Part of their success is that they recognised they have to come up with solutions that suit them, not copy from others. These things tend not to generalise well.
There’s always someone who will try and pick holes in the Dutch transport infrastructure
I don't pick holes in it, but I question to what extent it's possible in the UK. We need our own transport revolution not a Dutch one.
Why would a Dutch city where people are cycling instead of driving be worse for people with mobility issues than a UK city full of cars
Because people with mobility issues can’t ride bikes!
Dutch cycle lanes are also used by all manner of small vehicles including electric scooters, one-person mini buggies, single wheel things with balance boards attached, large bathtubs with electric motors (for cargo purposes) and normal petrol mopeds, which I think it lunacy tbh as it's dangerous as hell. But it doesn't invalidate the idea and it's fully accessible.
not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Which would be the really bad design for cars too, think we are now back in the last thread...
Wide streets make a cycleway, make a bus lane. Narrow streets close them to cars.
Increase park and ride at the perimeter, reduce inner city parking, heavily restrict on street parking. Before this invest in the light rail, tram and bus infrastructure so that when you hit drivers it makes more sense to not use a car.
But as usual we will just carry on doing what we are doing....
On a plus side saw loads of people on busses, trams and bikes in Edinburgh today.
Because people with mobility issues can’t ride bikes!
Of course not*, but why is that a problem? I saw people in The Netherlands with mobility problems using mobility scooters and powered front ends that plugged on to their wheelchairs. I assume they also do really crazy stuff like just driving their cars down the street to the shops. Dutch cities are not compulsory cycling-only zones. They merge all sorts of different transport solutions, and give people choices, whereas we structure everything else around one dominant form of transport.
Not a lot of UK cities ringfenced by a canal, creating easy opportunities for entry control. not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Most of the Dutch towns I cycled through were not ring fenced by canals and didn't have any form of "entry control" because you never leave the network.
Sure, if you have a mediaeval city, it's harder to come up with solutions, but as the OP pointed out at the start, we can't even do it for a greenfield new build development.
They have a situation that doesn’t translate well to other places though.
There's a load of stuff we could directly copy in a lot of UK locations, if we wanted to. None of it is rocket science, we just don't want to spend our money that way.
* Of course, some people with mobility problems can cycle, and bikes actually offer them more freedom.
Cars are cheap and convenient, therefore people use them.
Houses with no garage or parking facility are worth less.
I disagree, cars are actually really bloody expensive.
Even owning, fueling and maintaining a used one digs into people's income more than most realise. Tott it up and then imagine what else you could do with all the money you spend each year on car ownership and use...
Yet it's seen as one of lifes "fixed costs" like paying water rates or council tax...
That unthinking car culture is really a big part of the problem IMO. In order to get people out of the mindset of cars being the default transport choice there need to be viable, convenient alternatives, and as the OP is highlighting, as a society we seem to be actively excluding those alternatives in our town planning and infrastructure...
Which would be the really bad design for cars too, think we are now back in the last thread…
I think you both misunderstand. European cities have feature which make living around bikes and walking more practical. They have created lifestyles which translates quite well.
It's a bit of a !oving target - we started out with how well it works in groginen and now we are into all the places you've cycled.
There’s a load of stuff we could directly copy in a lot of UK locations,
Like?
Like?
At a very basic level, building comprehensive local networks of properly engineered cycle routes that are joined up, easy to navigate, and go directly to where people want to get to. There are lots of places in the UK where that could easily be done if we had the will and were prepared to spend the money. To return to the OP's example yet again, the Dutch just wouldn't build a new housing development 1.5km from a school without full cycle access. It would be designed in from the start.
European cities have feature which make living around bikes and walking more practical. They have created lifestyles which translates quite well.
You just made the key point yourself. "They have created".
It didn't magically happen because of "European city features". The people in the places with sensible transport infrastructure chose to make it that way. We make excuses about weather, terrain, etc, but as a society we just don't want to do it. If that is the "will of the people", fair enough, but we can't kid ourselves about why we're in this situation. The Dutch were heading in exactly the same way as us in the 1970s, but they collectively chose to do something different.
not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling infrastructure due to the 1000 year old design of the cities and the lifestyles they have created.
Have you been to the netherlands / amsterdamn? Plenty of 1000 yr old cities adap-ted to cycle use.
Narrow streets - 20 mph limit and "shared spaces" ie no traffic lights or road markings and bikes and pedestrians have priority.
Unfortunately, the school is not going to be situated conveniently within the curtlidge of the new development, it’s to be built a mile or two outside, on the site of the current park and ride
West Dunbartonshire?
Nope, Norwich.
Would people use cycle paths/lanes? Clearly not here in sunny Broadland where a few years ago a cool several million £’s was spent developing the Three Rivers cycle path, which is used by some cyclists but not all. The ones who use it are the holiday/recreational users, those that don’t are the solo and group club riders who still insist on their peloton using the narrowish road adjacent to it. Apparently, the purpose built path is ‘dangerous’ and messes up their Strava... 🙄
Dutch cycle lanes are also used by all manner of small vehicles including electric scooters, one-person mini buggies, single wheel things with balance boards attached, large bathtubs with electric motors (for cargo purposes) and normal petrol mopeds, which I think it lunacy tbh as it’s dangerous as hell
Man who rides bicycle in lane with 2-24 ton motorised vehicles between 30-60mph claims sharing with <25 kph limited personal transport solutions to be "dangerous as hell" am I the only one that sees the irony there ?
...dangerous as hell
I've cycled in NL with young kids and to be blunt, the idea that it is dangerous is nonsense. It's some of the most relaxing and enjoyable cycling I've ever done.
I wasn't keen about mopeds using the cycle lanes, but in practice it wasn't a problem at all.
New developments really need to be designed and built a lot better
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45956792
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45970349
While i agree with the sentiment , if you read those articles - people need to realign expectations.
a mile to get a pint of milk is not exactly a hardship. - most folk could use the exercise tbh.
Cookeaa
‘I disagree, cars are actually really bloody expensive.
Even owning, fueling and maintaining a used one digs into people’s income more than most realise. Tott it up and then imagine what else you could do with all the money you spend each year on car ownership and use…’
Yet, people on pretty low incomes can still afford to run a car.
How many private cars do you think you would see on the road if fuel was (say) £20 a litre?
a mile to get a pint of milk is not exactly a hardship. – most folk could use the exercise tbh.
Very much this.
martymac - problem is a lot of them don't really. No insurance mot etc and cars in dangerous condition. I see this amongst my colleagues. Cars with bald tyres, cars with obvious faults etc etc.
I agree that’s an issue tj, but i know plenty of people who are on (dual income, and they do plenty hours) minimum wage who can manage to run a safe legal car. Not exactly a rolls royce, but safe and legal.
My point is that cars are still relatively cheap.
If fuel cost £20 a litre I reckon we would see a vast reduction in car use (or a vast increase in car theft)
Most people could reduce their car use quite easily, it’s just they don’t want to because cars are convenient.
I would bet if you actually checked those cars you would find serious faults.
Its a mindset thing. I have on many occasions surprised my colleagues by cycling to places. When they find out its actually quicker than driving and no parking issues they are amazed.
My point is that cars are still relatively cheap.
Yep, cheaper than buses and trains and the time saving to me is worth a lot more than any saves I would make by cycling or walking. I simply do not have the time to cycle everywhere.
I would bet if you checked plenty of quite modern and decent looking cars you would find faults too tbh.
We (as a society) need to get away from the idea that ‘travel’ generally means ‘car’
I agree re journey times, if I’m up the town on my ebike, i can easily match my wife on the journey home (Renault clio) mainly due to it being a fair bit straighter on the bike.
Man who rides bicycle in lane with 2-24 ton motorised vehicles between 30-60mph claims sharing with <25 kph limited personal transport solutions to be “dangerous as hell” am I the only one that sees the irony there ?
Cycle lanes are quite narrow, and the scooters are driven by teenagers on phones (I'm not kidding) rather erratically, usually veering across both sides with impunity. I'm not anti-cycle lane or anti cycling, I'm just telling you how it was. I liked the Dutch cycle infrastructure, I just don't think mopeds should be allowed on it!
I’ve cycled in NL with young kids and to be blunt, the idea that it is dangerous is nonsense. It’s some of the most relaxing and enjoyable cycling I’ve ever done.
I wasn’t keen about mopeds using the cycle lanes, but in practice it wasn’t a problem at all.
It was for me. Nearly got taken out numerous times by bone-headed teenagers on phones. Like I said, my problem was with mopeds using them. As for it being relaxed - guess you weren't heading in our out of city centre at rush hour. It was pretty mental, and I've cycled extensively in London. The experience is basically the same as it is on the cycle paths in London. Cyclists don't pay attention (most are staring at a phone), and many don't seem bothered about road rules just like here. And there are thousands of them. I'd see many many near-miss collisions between people who are used to taking right of way for granted - people fading in and out of lane position or trying to turn right or left across others' paths. One difference was that in London there are lycra clad roadies zipping through the shopping bikes at double the speed; in Amsterdam it was mopeds or e-bikes. Although few mopeds close to city centre.
Have you been to the netherlands / amsterdamn? Plenty of 1000 yr old cities adap-ted to cycle use.
I put some thought into this. Amsterdam has some advantages for cycle infrastructure. It's by the water, so you cannot go 'through' it, which means there are no through roads. When it was growing up people moved goods around via canal, so there was no need for big through roads either. So the major routes don't go through town they go around it. So there are loads of small routes in the city centre that were easy to re-purpose for bikes.
I think it's significantly less easy in say London, because of the way that the city has evolved. Other cities in the UK though have a similar advantage of being by the water, but not the canal transport bit. The Dutch have excelled in showing political will to make changes, which is the best part - but don't assume it would be as easy to change UK cities (because of how they've evolved) as it seems to have been for them.
We'd have to spend a vast amount of money to dig-up and change loads of roads. Personally, I think we should, but you can see why it's a hard sell in the UK and would be very difficult politically. I think the Dutch have a different relationship with government than we do.
Funnily enough I was in Groningen last night.
Walking from the station to my hotel at around 6, it was pretty crazy with the huge number of bikes. More than other Dutch city I have visited. As a pedestrian you really have to look out for them.
However, my guess is most of these journeys by bike are to avoid walking not driving. Also, the number of young joint smokers who were cycling was quite a surprise, I have never noticed it in other parts of NL before. Even smelt it at 7.30 this morning, waiting outside my hotel.
I would love to have even half of their infrastructure in the UK, cycling in Holland and Belgium is excellent.
However, there is one key difference, the lack of hills. Can you imagine trying to ride one of the traditional Dutch bikes around Durham or Edinburgh? But you see late middle aged people quite happily trundling along over there. That simply wouldn't be possible in some of our Cities.
I disagree, cars are actually really bloody expensive ... Yet it’s seen as one of lifes “fixed costs” like paying water rates or council tax
It is seen that way because that's the way it is. For those of us born into 'commuter' towns, where the local career opportunities go no higher than 'production operative', and where all the nearby services have been taken away one by one, and the only entertainment available is driving straight out of that place, owning a car is by far your best option to achieve a basic standard of living.
That is the whole point which the OP is making. Our infrastructure makes it inherently difficult to carry out day to day activities without the use of the car. And while this topic swings from one extreme to the other, it's really about having some basic fundamentals in place, like the ability for kids to walk or cycle safely to school.
If we focus predominantly on motor vehicles as a means of travel then that is what we will use. And once you have your own, you're very unlikely to choose any other option when it is so inconvenient or unpleasant to do so.
However, there is one key difference, the lack of hills. Can you imagine trying to ride one of the traditional Dutch bikes around Durham or Edinburgh?
What we need is some kind of technology which makes it easier to pedal...
Can you imagine trying to ride one of the traditional Dutch bikes around Durham or Edinburgh?
Yes. I cycle 4 miles into Edinburgh every day. Apart from ascending several metres to cross one railway bridge, my route is pan flat.
Of course there are hills in Edinburgh, but lots of the principal routes are not hilly at all, and the hills that do exist don't stop people cycling (however, the cycling infrastructure is piecemeal, doesn't join up properly and is downright dangerous in places).
The "special issues" that exist in some UK locations don't stop us from improving the situation in places that are amenable to cycling (even within a city) if we wanted to.
I simply do not have the time to cycle everywhere.
Why do you think you have to cycle everywhere?
People keep talking about this in absolutes. If we made it convenient and enjoyable for more people to cycle some of the time, that would be a huge win. I reckon it would take me up to twice as long to drive to work, and I can't be the only person in that situation.
properly engineered cycle routes that are joined up, easy to navigate, and go directly to where people want to get to.
So unlike any transportation link built so far? Are you willing to forcibly take property from people to do it because to fit all that criteria you are almost certainly going to need to. You didn't mention distance though. Where does that factor in?
You just made the key point yourself. “They have created”.
Failure of communication there - either I wasn't clear or you don't fully understand. The cities, as they have evolved over the centuries, have created circumstances which modern planners have taking advantage of. Unless you are willing to raze and rebuild entire cities elsewhere you cannot copy or translplant their ideas.
@tjagain see above re: communication faliure.
not lot of cities outside Europe are as well designed for cycling
Perhaps I should have said are as easily adaptable to cycling.
@molgrips you put what I was trying to say like I was trying and failing to.
Yes. I cycle 4 miles into Edinburgh every day. Apart
You are very fortunate to be able to live that close. That is a nice short commute. The problem with the "infrastructure" question is that it is often viewed in isolation. If there were better infrastructure, would nmore people cycle? Strange to say on a bike forum but some people don't like cycling so you're probably not going to get them out. Some like it but don't want to show up at work with their hair a mess and feeling all ick when it's warm. Then there are people who might be willing to bike 20 mins to work but can only afford to live 45 mins by motorized vehicle away. And so on. If you want to build cycling infrastructure so people who already cycle can cycle more to more places and enjoy it more, fine. Let's not pretend we are going to create a nation of cyclists by building a bike path though. We need far more thought, imagination, and innovation than that to achieve fewer cars.
Vancouver and Calgary struck me as two city's that took cycling as a mode of transport seriously. in a retrospective way. They worked around existing infrastructure.
Vancouver has the advantage of weather and it's abikitie to spread is limited by geography, so cycing across town is viable.
I cannot imagine trying to cycle in Calgary in January. Don't they have a system of tunnels so people don't have to go outside?
Let’s not pretend we are going to create a nation of cyclists by building a bike path though. We need far more thought, imagination, and innovation than that to achieve fewer cars.
That pretty much how the dutch did it. in 1970s cycling rates were similar in the netherlands and the UK. In the UK cycle use has decreased, in the netherlands it increased massivly. The main focus was on making citys people fri9endly not car friendly but infrastructure was a huge part of it with lagre amounts of road space taken off cars and given to pedestrians and cyclists and giving bikes right of way " shared spaces"
All it would take is political will and time.
Yes. I cycle 4 miles into Edinburgh every day. Apart from ascending several metres to cross one railway bridge, my route is pan flat.
Of course there are hills in Edinburgh, but lots of the principal routes are not hilly at all, and the hills that do exist don’t stop people cycling (however, the cycling infrastructure is piecemeal, doesn’t join up properly and is downright dangerous in places).
I cycle 9 miles into Edinburgh twice a week and there's a nice big hill in the way. My wife cycled once or twice when we had flat-ish 4-5 mile commutes but won't do it now and the bus journey is painfully slow so she drives. Council aspirations are mince - the development plan includes acceptance that public transport is mince and has the lofty goal of possibly getting a link into town that can do it in less than an hour door to door.
But the journeys we most need to target aren't the 9 mile commutes or arguably even the 4 mile flat ones. If you could get all of the 1 mile car journeys on foot or two wheels then that would take 6% of traffic off the roads. Probably a meaningful difference. If you can get 5 mile journeys done by foot/bike/whatever then that's potentially 50% of journeys in cars got rid of. Put in decent infrastructure and it takes care of itself, because it becomes a pleasant way to move around.
We holiday in the Netherlands reasonably often and I have absolutely no problem doing rides of several miles with the kids to go places. Couple of miles along Lanark Road? No thanks.
Why do you think you have to cycle everywhere?
Because I would have to cycle if I didn't drive. The first bus within 2 miles of my house is 11:00 which is great of you start work at 12:00. And no buses at weekends so I either cycle or just don't go anywhere. And because the places I go are all at least 10 miles away I wouldn't get much done by cycling everywhere, therefore I happily use my car - everyday.
And because the places I go are all at least 10 miles away I wouldn’t get much done by cycling everywhere, therefore I happily use my car – everyday.
Yes, so cycling's clearly not appropriate for you, but no one was suggesting you should be cycling everywhere!
You are very fortunate to be able to live that close
I'm incredibly lucky, because I've been cycling to work for 25 years, living in two different countries, three different towns, five different houses and working for a dozen different employers in around 20 different locations ranging between 4 and 12 miles from home...
This is nothing to do with my current personal circumstances. I'm just pointing out that pedalling a traditional bike around Edinburgh does not require a huge leap of imagination, as was suggested.
I think we all know that some people have commuting journeys that you can't do on a bicycle. We all understand that you won't get more UK residents cycling just by building cycle paths, and it needs a lot of spending and joined up planning and policies. However, going back to the OP's original point, the reason that we don't have modern, sustainable transport infrastructure that facilitates active travel is simply because we have no ambition to even start doing something about it. I'm not having a go personally at anyone about that, even though I think it is a disappointing state of affairs. If the majority of voters just aren't interested in changing things, that's the way it is going to be.
You could hardly come up with a better example of the situation than a cycling forum where people are coming up with lots of reasons why cycling isn't possible!
its not lucky to live within muscle power of work. Its about choices. 45 years I have been working for only a few months of that time have I not commuted by bike. Because its important to me to be able to do so so that is the choices I have made.
No one is forced into a car commute. Its always a choice
. Its always a choice
Right, so people choose to have jobs that don't pay for a place to live which is close to where the jobs are. They choose to spend hours of their lives commuting because they really want to. They choose to have accommodation in the cities driven up in coat by people they have no control over. That really isn't joined up thinking.
Neither is the idea we can copy what the Dutch did even though nothing about the two places is similar.
It isn't about will, or money. At the end it's about figuring out what to do and how to make it work.
even though I think it is a disappointing state of affairs. I
Me too. We just disagree on the why. I don't think it has anything to do with "will" it's about knowledge and ideas.
You could hardly come up with a better example of the situation than a cycling forum where people are coming up with lots of reasons why cycling isn’t possible!
That's just common sense. If you want to reduce cars (which was the OPs original point) cycling obviously isn't the answer if cyclists are telling you it isn't!
Yes cromolly - its allways a choice. Its all about your priorities. ~To me its very important to live close to work. So thats what I do. It means I live in a flat and it means I have turned down jobs.
Go on - please tell me how people are forced into commutes rather than choosing to commute .
Yes cromolly – its allways a choice. Its all about your priorities
It is, and for many people stuff like you and your partner both having a fulfilling job that doesn't leave you miserable depressed is quite important, or not forcing your kids to leave school they love when they have a precarious mental state, all that kind of thing. No-one WANTS to commute miles by car, almost everyone hates it. They do it because they feel they don't have other options. You over-simplify far too much.
All it would take is political will and time.
Another over-simplification. It would take a HUGE political and social change, not to mention a shitload of money. Starting in the 1970s would have been far easier than now with car ownership so low and traffic volume a fraction of what it is now. We've had 40 more years of ploughing tarmac everywhere and making business parks miles from anywhere. It could happen but it really won't be simple.
Go on – please tell me how people are forced into commutes rather than choosing to commute .
I would but you're in your cocky 'I'm always right' mode so I'll only get angry when you flatly deny all the points I'll make even though you've never been in the situation yourself.
Molgrips - I simply cannot see anyone ever being force to commute. Its always a choice. Who is shoving a gun in your back and telling you you have to spend ages in a car getting to work? Certainly you may not want to take the other choices but there is always another choice other than spending ridiculous sums of money and time commuting to work.
so go on - I am listening. Explain why and where comuting by car is essential. Its not. Its always a choice. You even say this yourself
They do it because they feel they don’t have other options.