Drivers "scared" by so many cyclists on a Sunday

On Monday, 19 October 2015 14:03:48 UTC+1, Tom Crispin wrote:

In less wealthy regions of the world, the bicycle is the poor man's mode of transport: they cannot afford a motorised alternative. In the rich world, it is the wealthier who can afford to care about their health who cycle.

Indeed - Sir Alan Sugar, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Roman Abramovich and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to name but a few.

On 19/10/2015 13:38, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:

On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull


Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could
afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or bicycles
for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was in
1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.

Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was 19,
I think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).

But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to
continue to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence as
the counter-indicator for cycling.


And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?

After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an
increase in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along
the route of some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of the
disruption it causes to local residents.


Quite possibly, but I can't speak for Surrey as I have no inside
knowledge and rarely visit there.
I'm only a recreational cyclist who mainly cycles in woodland or on the
dual cycle/pedestrian gravel tracks and sometimes on the country roads
around here. I can ride, say, 3 miles on a country road and rarely see
more than 3 or 4 cars during that ride. Sometimes I'll cycle up to the
local shops for a few items rather than take the car.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:26:49 +0100, Bod wrote:

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people could
afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or bicycles for
the common man.

Cycling in the UK actually peaked in 1934. So did the construction of
cycling infrastructure. In 1934 11 cyclists a week were being killed
on London's roads. Hore-Belisha (of beacon fame) introduced a number
of safety measures one of which was a number of dedicated cycling
tracks including one continuous for 2.5 miles alongside the A40
(Western Avenue). Even by modern standards it wasn't bad.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ne...e-track-opened

Unfortunately there was vehement opposition to these tracks and any
other form of cycling infrastructure. The opposition came from not
from motorists or pedestrians but from cyclists. The CTC in
particular opposed them as they feared they would lead to cyclists
being removed from roads where cycling infrastructure existed.

As Chris Peck from the CTC says

" in 1934 the CTC was dead against cycle tracks of all kinds, even
this one [Western Way]. We were still very much of the mind that we
should try and recapture the roads from the motorists, so the
construction of cycle tracks was seen as defeat. Indeed, the CTC
suggested an alternative, "motorways" – built only for cars – leaving
the rest of the road network for cyclists to continue to use. The CTC
eventually got its wish: the motorways were built and led to a flood
of more cars onto the old roads, making them even more hostile for
cyclists."

"One problem was that "the thin end of the wedge" argument against
cycle infrastructure just kept being used, and used, and used,
doggedly, by British cyclists, long after it had become irrelevant.
Long after thick or thin wedges or wedges of any description had been
rendered totally irrelevant by the fact that cycling had been
virtually eliminated from the roads anyway, British cyclists kept
talking like this – and some still do."

"The resistance to cycle-specific infrastructure displayed by British
cyclists, and particularly by the CTC, as the largest body
representing their interests, during the mid-20th century, proved a
spectacular own goal. As cycling numbers dwindled and pressure to
create more space for motor traffic grew, the fact that cyclists did
not seem to want their own space proved very convenient for
politicians. Cyclists did not want the tracks such as the ones on the
A40, or so the CTC told the government. So they were eliminated to
make more space for cars. "

On Monday, 19 October 2015 14:41:56 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

I'm only a recreational cyclist who mainly cycles in woodland or on the
dual cycle/pedestrian gravel tracks and sometimes on the country roads
around here. I can ride, say, 3 miles on a country road and rarely see
more than 3 or 4 cars during that ride. Sometimes I'll cycle up to the
local shops for a few items rather than take the car.

Being retired means that I can cycle anytime I want to now, so I choose remote areas off the beaten track, or the Humber Estuary where I can cycle past this lot.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...k_-_512405.jpg

On 19/10/2015 17:22, Alycidon wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2015 14:41:56 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

I'm only a recreational cyclist who mainly cycles in woodland or on the
dual cycle/pedestrian gravel tracks and sometimes on the country roads
around here. I can ride, say, 3 miles on a country road and rarely see
more than 3 or 4 cars during that ride. Sometimes I'll cycle up to the
local shops for a few items rather than take the car.

Being retired means that I can cycle anytime I want to now, so I choose remote areas off the beaten track, or the Humber Estuary where I can cycle past this lot.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...k_-_512405.jpg




Heaven to me is casual rides on warm summer mornings at 5.am.
I see fields of rabbits/ deer/ horses etc and no one else around save
for the odd cyclist or walker doing the same.
Ya canny whackit.

On Monday, 19 October 2015 17:43:50 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

Heaven to me is casual rides on warm summer mornings at 5.am.
I see fields of rabbits/ deer/ horses etc and no one else around save
for the odd cyclist or walker doing the same.
Ya canny whackit.

I used to cycle to work at 0500 in summer and it was great on the old rail lines, but at the same time in February into a force 9 gale/sleet off the North Sea it was fairly grim.

On 19/10/2015 17:54, Alycidon wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2015 17:43:50 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

Heaven to me is casual rides on warm summer mornings at 5.am.
I see fields of rabbits/ deer/ horses etc and no one else around save
for the odd cyclist or walker doing the same.
Ya canny whackit.

I used to cycle to work at 0500 in summer and it was great on the old rail lines, but at the same time in February into a force 9 gale/sleet off the North Sea it was fairly grim.

I can imagine. Rough with the smooth though eh!

"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could
afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or bicycles
for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was in
1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.

Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was 19, I
think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).

But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to continue
to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence as the
counter-indicator for cycling.

And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?

After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an increase
in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along the route of
some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of the disruption it
causes to local residents.

Well yes, it is a leisure activity but it is still a bicycle journey. Riding
round a loop can't be considered to be any different to a car journey to one
of south Surrey's popular leafy stops. The "disruption" that some
people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion. (It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and compared
to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads, the effect of
a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been inconsequential.

On 20/10/2015 07:32, Alycidon wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2015 23:23:07 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
The "disruption" that some
people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion. (It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and compared
to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads, the effect of
a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been inconsequential.

Odd that these moaners will tolerate any DAILY disruption to their journeys on the M25 et al JUST so long as it is caused by a multitude of single people in tin boxes pumping out deadly fumes.

They will happily sit in that lot all day long, just so long as they see no cyclists involved.

Who do not pump out any fumes.

On 19/10/2015 23:22, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could
afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or bicycles
for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was in
1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.

Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was 19, I
think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).

But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to continue
to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence as the
counter-indicator for cycling.

And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?

After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an increase
in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along the route of
some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of the disruption it
causes to local residents.

Well yes, it is a leisure activity but it is still a bicycle journey. Riding
round a loop can't be considered to be any different to a car journey to one
of south Surrey's popular leafy stops. The "disruption" that some
people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion.

Correct.

*Their* opinion.

Does anyone else's matter?

(It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and compared
to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads, the effect of
a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been inconsequential.

I can't accept that there would be this outcry if the "leisure cycling"
was not having a deleterious effect.