Forum menu
You’re kidding me. Really?
I know, right? Proper fell off me bike when I heard that.
There are some really narrow minded folk on here. Do some of you really think people choose to have shit, low paying jobs that require excessive commutes? Take a long, hard look at yourselves and how patronising you are. If you also think luck and circumstances haven’t played a hand in getting you where you are then you’re a ****ing idiot.
All those successful people on the forum, the ones you rubbish all the time,
It was never my intention to rubbish anyone, and if that is the impression I gave, I apologise. I was trying to present an alternative case, that things might not be what people think they are. I was, I thought, engaging in debate.
I'll just leave these here
Some fascinating exptrapolations there. You should really concentrate on what people type not what you think they think, funkmaster and gobuchul.
I think you should think about what you type before typing it. No extrapolating on my behalf. It's clear as day what you've written only a couple of posts above this. There are many, many factors that govern ones opportunities in life. Hard work and personal choice p!ay a part in that, but there are always other factors. Perhaps you're just a bit shit at getting your point across in the written medium? Three posters in a row have called you out.
It’s not dumb luck or anyone else that brought me here. It was my own will and two legs to turn the pedals.
All those successful people on the forum, the ones you rubbish all the time, they did what the people in the Amazon warehouse perhaps regret not doing. Life is ful of chances and choices. Choose wisely.
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 ****ing up the thread. Take a forum break, please.
And no-one's rubbishing successful people. That's just stupid. But success nearly always has an element of luck. Even if it's just being born with a marketable aptitude. I'm incredibly lucky to have been born white middle class with a secure home, aptitude for marketable skills and parents who brought me up well so I could take advantage. You're suggesting that the other version of me who came from a broken home with abusive parents who gave no support, who grew up in a poor environment, was never given the chance to develop skills and ended up in a dead end is somehow to blame for any of that? Shame on you.
Pathetic, Molgrips.
Edit: and I note you've been editing without noting you've edited.
Only one person being rather pathetic here.
Edit - That'd be you
Edit edit - Reported Molgrips for not noting he'd edited a post. You monster Molgrips!
Only one person being rather pathetic here.
^ This.
I can't believe how wrong he is but he refuses to back down.
Edit: and I note you’ve been editing without noting you’ve edited.
Absolutely pathetic.
Some fascinating exptrapolations there. You should really concentrate on what people type not what you think they think, funkmaster and gobuchul.
This is exactly what you typed.
It’s not dumb luck or anyone else that brought me here. It was my own will and two legs to turn the pedals.
It's not dumb luck? No of course not. Just your own will. WTAF!
It's saddening that topics about enriching our environments can descend into such negativity.
The initial post was about creating space for people to safely move around, whether that be walking, cycling, or simply green spaces. I really don't get how that can be viewed as a bad thing.
Nobody has to cycle, and nobody has to walk. But it benefits us all if we have those options, none more so than our children who have no choice in the matter.
But it benefits us all if we have those options, none more so than our children who have no choice in the matter.
Hear, hear. Unfortunately, this thread is an example of how we are unable to get a consensus on basic stuff that seems to be a no brainer for other countries.
Nobody has to cycle, and nobody has to walk. But it benefits us all if we have those options, n
Well put.
unable to get a consensus on basic stuff that seems to be a no brainer for other countries.
Asking people to fundamentally change how they live is hardly basic. It wasn't a no brainier in other countries and judging from accounts they didn't get consensus. That they have done it doesn't demonstrate that it was any of those things. That is an attribution error.
Human nature being what it is, it is usually a no-brainer, basic thing when it speaks to something you believe, or derive benefit from. I'm sure if you told transit users they could have a commute half their current one if they banned bikes they'd be firing up the blast furnaces and proclaiming how basic and obvious the solution is and decrying the lack of consensus.
If we started from where we do have consensus, we'd be far more likely to find solutions.
Asking people to fundamentally change how they live is hardly basic.
I never suggested asking people to fundamentally change how they live.
No matter how often you try to conflate the two things, providing the opportunity to do something is not the same as compulsion to do that thing.
Do you think that making it easier for people to make journeys by cycling, instead of driving, is:
a) a good thing?
b) a bad thing?
I never suggested asking people to fundamentally change how they live.
Err, transplanting the Dutch method (no, it's not dirty) to England would be exactly that!
C) the wrong question.
I think making it easier for people to take a form of transport which is non-polluting, (hint, cycling infrastructure isn't, even though cycling is, more or less), moves a lot of people quickly, is cost effective and makes it easy for people to use it.
Since that doesn't exist, we have to look at other changes. Elimintaing journeys entirely, moving Amazon and the like off the roads and out of vehicles (especially diesel). Getting people living where jobs are, moving jobs where people are etc. As I said in the other thread we are talking about nibbling around the edges (keep the commute, change the vehicle) when we need to have much harder conversations.
Apologies for asking the wrong question. Bear with me if I'm a bit slow keeping up with you.
Taking a practical example, the OP's new build housing estate 1.5km from the school. What do you think are the effective solutions for moving children from the new houses to the school (and to be clear, I'm not suggesting there is one solution)?
I never suggested asking people to fundamentally change how they live.
Err, transplanting the Dutch method (no, it’s not dirty) to England would be exactly that!
Really? A slight change to road planning and road laws would be a fundamental change to how people live?
I do find it astonishing that this cyclist forum is so wedded to cars and anti pro bike policies. Policies that round the world have sown massive advantages to the entire population not just cyclist
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?)
Can it be the harder conversation, where neither the new development nor the school get built?
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?
transplanting the Dutch method
Does everyone think the Dutch have perfect car free roads?
They don't!
In the city centres they do have loads of bikes and it's great.
They have cycle paths alongside main roads, which is great and I would love to see them in the UK.
However, the vast majority of their main roads are clogged and awful. The same as most developed nations.
the vast majority of people still commute by car.
There is a lot more to it then just saying "be like the Dutch".
50% of all journeys in Holland are by bike IIRC. Where do you get your stats from that the majority of commutes are by car?
IME outside of amsterdamn roads are quieter than the UK by a lot and cyclists are treated much better by car drivers. I saw no congestion outside of amsterdamn and even in amsterdamn is much better than London or Edinburgh - IME
There is a lot more to it then just saying “be like the Dutch”.
Yep, but everytime you talk about taxation, public transport and other solutions they all line up to tell you how it will never work because the bus doesn't stop outside your house.
Think I'm coming up to 4 years of no car ownership at the moment, it's annoying at times but so is driving, it's refreshing too and better on my wallet.
I still drive when I have to but it's the exception not the rule.
A slight change to road planning and road laws would be a fundamental change to how people live?
It would hardly be slight if it were to be effective and yes, it would. That must be obvious.
I do find it astonishing that this cyclist forum is so wedded to cars and anti pro bike policies. Policies that round the world have sown massive advantages to the entire population not just cyclist
Don't think anyone has said they are wedded to cars and are anti pro bike policies, they just aren't the solution to the problem. As I said earlier if bikers on a bike forum are telling you bikes aren the solution, it's probably a sign that they aren't.
Does everyone think the Dutch have perfect car free roads
No, sorry, that wasn't what I meant. Just that the Dutch and Copenhagen are often raised as examples of how to convert to cycling, not that they don't use cars.
As I said earlier if bikers on a bike forum are telling you bikes aren the solution, it’s probably a sign that they aren’t.
What it tells you is things have gone too far the other way, people don't see other options as they are conditioned out of it.
There are literally no downsides to making the UK more cycle friendly, making the UK better for cycling and especially making it better in cities, the hundreds I see every day commuting by bike are just a start.
The rest will come only when the cult of the car is broken.
Also not sure if this is ambitious enough
https://www.tfgm.com/2040/delivery-plan-2020-2025
But it's a start, implementation is key though but this should be the minimum
To deliver our long-term 2040 Transport Strategy, we want 50% of all journeys in Greater Manchester to be made by walking, cycling and public transport by 2040. That’s a million more sustainable journeys every day.
To achieve this we want to:
Make walking and cycling the natural choice for short journeys.
Ensure that new developments support sustainable transport, and that our town centres are attractive and well connected.
Transform public transport capacity and active travel in the Regional Centre.
Offer good alternatives to the car for travel across the city-region.
Enable good orbital connections between town centres.
More on the site
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.