Cycling perspectives 1 of 9

Kaya Burgess of the Times wrote in May 2013

"If you are not a regular cyclist, you may ask why you should support
proposals to boost investment in safe cycle routes.
More than three quarters of a million people commute to work by bicycle
in Britain every day, but you may not be one of them. So why should you
care?
Building safer cycle routes would not only benefit those who cycle. It
would also encourage hundreds of thousands more people to use their
bikes to make short journeys instead of going by car or by train or bus.
This would have benefits for motorists, pedestrians, parents, businesses
and taxpayers.
It would lead to less congested streets, less overcrowding on public
transport, fewer deaths on the road, less NHS money wasted on obesity, a
boost for the high street, less pollution, and a more affordable form of
transport for those priced out by rising petrol prices and rail fares.
This will only happen if a greater proportion of the existing transport
budget is spent on cycling, however.
Around 2 per cent of journeys in Britain are currently made by bike,
leaping to more than 50 per cent in parts of Central London at rush hour
and more than 10 per cent in towns like Bristol, York, Oxford and
Cambridge. Yet less than 1 per cent of the transport budget is spent on
cycle provision. A recent pledge from David Cameron to spend £94 million
on cycling over the next three years amounts to just 0.2 per cent of the
Department for Transport’s budget over the same period.
The 18 recommendations made in the Get Britain Cycling report - outlined
here - can transform Britain’s streets and towns for everyone,
regardless of whether or not they ride a bike.
Here are some arguments for why non-cyclists would benefit from these
recommendations:

I am…
A motorist
The main roads running through our villages, towns and cities are
becoming a traffic-choked nightmare. Roads designed centuries ago for a
gentle stream of vehicles are now clogged with millions of cars. For
decades, government policy has simply tried to build more roads and
force more capacity out of our creaking transport system. But as you
will know if you have ever sat in an endless traffic jam or crawled
slower than walking pace through a town centre, this approach is not
working.
Petrol prices are rocketing, parking spaces are scarce and tailbacks are
growing. And yet more than half of all journeys under five miles are
made by car. In fact, more than two thirds of all car journeys are of
five miles or less.
If the roads were designed with safe cycle lanes, and more secure cycle
parking was built at key destinations, more people would be encouraged
to use their bicycles for a quick trip to the post office, for popping
to the shop for a pint of milk, for taking their kids to school and,
indeed, for commuting to work. This would take huge numbers of motor
vehicles off the roads, freeing them up for those who still need to use
their car.
Furthermore, if junctions were better designed, there would be less
conflict between cyclists and motorists when pulling away from traffic
lights and turning corners. If cyclists were given their own four-second
green-light phase – as currently happens at one roundabout in East
London - they would be able to get ahead and clear of other traffic and
there would be no risk of collision. If drivers took care not to stop in
the cycle boxes at traffic lights, another source of conflict would also
be removed. If segregated cycle lanes were installed to help cyclists
navigate through or round dangerous crossroads and roundabouts, it would
also increase safety and freedom for all road users.
Only a tiny proportion of cyclists misbehave on the roads, but it is
still a major source of irritation for motorists when this small
minority of cyclists jump red lights or cycle at night without lights.
The petition backs calls in the Get Britain Cycling report for there to
be better training available for cyclists to ensure they know how to
cycle responsibly on the roads.
Research by Westminster Council found that 68 per cent of crashes
between drivers and cyclists are the fault of the motorist, compared to
20 per cent which are the fault of the cyclist, so the report also calls
for cyclist awareness to be a part of the driving test, so that all new
and young drivers learn that giving cyclists extra space and time is
crucial in avoiding crashes.
It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road
because they pay council tax and income tax. The maintenance of the
roads is not funded out of the “road tax” paid by motorists, which is
actually called Vehicle Excise Duty and is linked to a vehicle’s emissions.
Even Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has praised cycling as a way of
getting around. He last year described Copenhagen’s cycling culture as
“fan-bleeding-tastic” and said: “Now I know that sounds like the ninth
circle of hell, but that’s because you live in Britain, where cars and
bikes share the road space. This cannot and does not work. It’s like
putting a dog and a cat in a cage and expecting them to get along. They
won’t, and as a result London is currently hosting an undeclared war. I
am constantly irritated by cyclists and I’m sure they’re constantly
irritated by me.
“City fathers have to choose. Cars or bicycles. And in Copenhagen
they’ve gone for the bike.”
For these reasons and more, the AA – the country’s biggest motoring
organisation – is backing the petition and asking its members to sign up."

Tomorrow: 2 of 9
A train, bus or Tube commuter

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:44:42 +0100, Sig
wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem. Copenhagen (and other countries) solved the
bicycle problem by giving them their own little roads and banning them
from other roads with motorised traffic. In the UK there are bicycle
riders, who don't wear this years Sky team colours and poddle along on
Halfords cheapest. These are hated by "real" cyclists who want them
pushed onto cycleways leaving room on the real roads for the real
cyclists with Lycra and fingerless gloves and at least 4 compocams as
they go out to battle the motorist.

You can't have it both ways. A dedicated and compulsory cycle
infrastructure which got cyclists off roads would find favour with
many. A plan to push slower riders off roads but leave the Lycralouts
and MAMIL's on the existing roads won't.

In article
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:44:42 +0100, Sig
wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

On 20/07/2014 11:32, John Kennerson wrote:
In article
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:44:42 +0100, Sig
wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.

In article
JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.

I cause a much bigger obstruction when I do silly things in my car
than when I do them on a bicycle or on foot.

On 20/07/2014 12:52, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the
road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

On 20/07/2014 13:45, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
In article
JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.

I cause a much bigger obstruction when I do silly things in my car
than when I do them on a bicycle or on foot.

That's very naughty of you.

On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:
John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the
road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.
But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

On 20/07/2014 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:
John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the
road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.
But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

some Synonyms: Mow Down

1 verb (Archaic or literary)
annihilate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, do away with, do in
(slang), eliminate, exterminate, kill, massacre, mow down, murder, rub
out (U.S. slang), slaughter