If there is any good to come out of this crisis, let it be a cyclingrevolution - LONG

QUOTE:
We still have no idea how the pandemic will play out, how long Britain (and the rest of the world) will have to in the shadow of Covid-19, and what will emerge in a post-Covid future.

But I can’t help feeling that a change in the way many people work will be central to that – allied to a change in how we get around our urban areas. And if anything good at all is to come out of this dreadful crisis we have been through, it might be a change to relieve the pressures of commuting and the scourge of congestion.

And I really hope Suffolk County Council has the courage of its convictions and makes meaningful changes to road networks in the county’s towns to encourage more people to take up cycling as a normal mode of transport..

This will be controversial. I’m sure there will be far, far more people saying “don’t block off roads� than will initially welcome plans to create new cycle routes.

But I do hope the county sticks to its guns and goes ahead with the most radical schemes it can to encourage as many people as possible to get cycling..

No one wanted this opportunity – but the fact is that the reduction in the amount of traffic, especially at rush hours, has made cycling a far less daunting prospect for many people. Road planners must not miss this chance to make life easier for people on cycles because of timidity.

I know cycles are only a minority of vehicles across the country – I’ve seen figures saying that between 3-5% of traffic is pedal-powered – but there is evidence that the numbers have risen over lockdown and that has to be encouraged both to reduce congestion levels and improve general fitness.

To do that, more traffic-free routes have to be created. The county council has made a good start but I really hope that the new money it is applying for from the government encourages it to get on with more changes.

Personally I would like to see the Bramford Lane bridge closed to general traffic – it would be a clear signal that Bramford Lane is designated as a cycle priority route from the north west of Ipswich to the town centre.

Many people would not like this – but we do have to get away from the temptation to pigeonhole people as “motorists� or “cyclists.� I’m always going to drive more miles than I cycle, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the issues facing cyclists. And over the last few years I’ve come to realise that the quickest and most convenient way of getting from my home into the town centre is on two wheels.

But it’s also clear that there is a real hatred (not a word I use without thinking about it) felt by some drivers towards cyclists.

I’m not sure about the reason for this and it does strike me as being totally irrational. This manifests itself especially on social media – and the other day I was being copied in on a thread which included someone who was clearly very upset by the fact that cyclists don’t need insurance to take to the road.

In my experience, those who complain about cyclists not having to have insurance really are looking for a reason to justify their dislike of pedal cycles. In nearly 40 years in journalism I don’t recall covering or even hearing about a court case in which a cyclist was held to be at fault for damage to a motor vehicle.

I do recall a tragic incident in another part of the country involving a pedestrian who was killed in a collision with a cyclist – but in that case the cycle was not road legal anyway (it had no brakes) so any insurance the rider had taken out would have been invalid!

And if you start asking for insurance for a human-powered cycle, what’s next? Insurance for parents pushing children in buggies? Should pedestrians need insurance if they want to cross the road?

What we need is understanding that the roads are there for all users. They aren’t just there for cars and lorries (car tax and fuel duty are not hypothecated taxes set up just to maintain the road network) they are there for all road users – whether you’re polluting the atmosphere with exhaust gases or not.

We are now seeing a reduction in traffic and a lowering of pollution levels in some of the worst areas of the county. Surely it is the responsibility of all road users to maintain this trend and at least consider other methods of travel.

And while measures to encourage that might not be popular in the short term, in future years I suspect many people will be asking themselves what all the fuss was about!

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/i...utes-1-6777728

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:39:42 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

Talking about the 10th cycling revolution this week.


QUOTE:
We still have no idea how the pandemic will play out, how long Britain (and the rest of the world) will have to in the shadow of Covid-19, and what will emerge in a post-Covid future.

We have some idea already, Car use is already back to pre-Covid
levels, public transport is showing no real recovery and cycling is
now falling. Cycling remains largely irrelevant as it accounts for
only about 2% of journeys, a figure which has remained the same for
the last dozen cycling revolutions.

And if anything good at all is to come out of this dreadful crisis we have been through, it might be a change to relieve the pressures of commuting and the scourge of congestion.

And I really hope Suffolk County Council has the courage of its convictions and makes meaningful changes to road networks in the county’s towns to encourage more people to take up cycling
as a normal mode of transport.

Cycling's already limited relevance is probably going to take a large
hit if the legalisation and growth of electrically powered personal
scooters and the like takes place. Cycle lanes with numbers of these
will act as a significant restraint on speeds and get in the way of
the Lycra Lice.

This will be controversial. I’m sure there will be far, far more people saying “don’t block off roads” than will initially welcome plans to create new cycle routes.

Probably, but why should 2% of road users dictate to over 90%?

No one wanted this opportunity – but the fact is that the reduction in the amount of traffic, especially at rush hours, has made cycling a far less daunting prospect for many people.

Road planners must not miss this chance to make life easier for people on cycles because of timidity.

That bus has already gone. Vehicle traffic is already back to
pre=Covid levels and in some cases, notably white vans, have exceeded
them.

I know cycles are only a minority of vehicles across the country – I’ve seen figures saying that between 3-5% of traffic is pedal-powered,

Actually its more like 2%, a figure which has remained the same for
several "cycling revolutions".

If electric personal transport devices (scooters and the like) become
legal following their trial and require insurance the case for not
requiring cyclists, capable of traveling faster and having similar
mass, to have insurance will become difficult to sustain.

I do recall a tragic incident in another part of the country involving a pedestrian who was killed in a collision with a cyclist – but in that case the cycle was not road legal anyway (it had no brakes) so any insurance the rider had taken out would have been invalid!

Liability insurance can be invalidated for the insurance holder by
their actions but not for a third party they kill, injure or whose
property they damage. The insurance company may try to recover their
cost from the cyclist but must fulfil their responsibility to the
victim first. The bike having no brakes is irrelevant.

On 09/08/2020 14:51, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:39:42 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

Talking about the 10th cycling revolution this week.


QUOTE:
We still have no idea how the pandemic will play out, how long Britain (and the rest of the world) will have to in the shadow of Covid-19, and what will emerge in a post-Covid future.

We have some idea already, Car use is already back to pre-Covid
levels, public transport is showing no real recovery and cycling is
now falling. Cycling remains largely irrelevant as it accounts for
only about 2% of journeys, a figure which has remained the same for
the last dozen cycling revolutions.

And if anything good at all is to come out of this dreadful crisis we have been through, it might be a change to relieve the pressures of commuting and the scourge of congestion.

And I really hope Suffolk County Council has the courage of its convictions and makes meaningful changes to road networks in the county’s towns to encourage more people to take up cycling
as a normal mode of transport.

Cycling's already limited relevance is probably going to take a large
hit if the legalisation and growth of electrically powered personal
scooters and the like takes place. Cycle lanes with numbers of these
will act as a significant restraint on speeds and get in the way of
the Lycra Lice.

This will be controversial. I’m sure there will be far, far more people saying “don’t block off roads� than will initially welcome plans to create new cycle routes.

Probably, but why should 2% of road users dictate to over 90%?

No one wanted this opportunity – but the fact is that the reduction in the amount of traffic, especially at rush hours, has made cycling a far less daunting prospect for many people.

Road planners must not miss this chance to make life easier for people on cycles because of timidity.

That bus has already gone. Vehicle traffic is already back to
pre=Covid levels and in some cases, notably white vans, have exceeded
them.

I know cycles are only a minority of vehicles across the country – I’ve seen figures saying that between 3-5% of traffic is pedal-powered,

Actually its more like 2%, a figure which has remained the same for
several "cycling revolutions".

If electric personal transport devices (scooters and the like) become
legal following their trial and require insurance the case for not
requiring cyclists, capable of traveling faster and having similar
mass, to have insurance will become difficult to sustain.

I do recall a tragic incident in another part of the country involving a pedestrian who was killed in a collision with a cyclist – but in that case the cycle was not road legal anyway (it had no brakes) so any insurance the rider had taken out would have been invalid!

Liability insurance can be invalidated for the insurance holder by
their actions but not for a third party they kill, injure or whose
property they damage. The insurance company may try to recover their
cost from the cyclist but must fulfil their responsibility to the
victim first. The bike having no brakes is irrelevant.

Thank you for pointing out that last bit.

There would be no point at all in the system of compulsory insurance for
motor vehicles if lack of maintenance invalidated the policy (let alone
anything approaching the irresponsibility of that killer cyclist, who
had actually either removed the brakes from his bike or built one
without brakes).

So Mason's "point" is not valid. Compulsory insurance for bicycles could
not be invalidated even by the stupidity or arrogance of the cyclist.

On 09/08/2020 18:04, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:50:06 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 14:51, Peter Parry wrote:

Cycling's already limited relevance is probably going to take a
large hit if the legalisation and growth of electrically powered
personal scooters and the like takes place. Cycle lanes with
numbers of these will act as a significant restraint on speeds
and get in the way of the Lycra Lice.

Depending on what mode they replace, it doesn't necessarily matter
if people adopt e-scooters for short town/city journeys.

The two most likely would seem to be buses and bikes. For
commuting/shopping both of these tend to be used for journeys of
less 3 miles. Cars will still rule for journeys where things must
be carried such as a weekly shopping trip.

Most short journeys don't involve weekly shopping.

I was in Asda a couple of days ago and passed a person that was
trundling his e-scooter through the shop. I thought using the platform
to carry one of their green baskets was an excellent idea.

If they only replace bicycles, those continuing to use bicycles
won't see much change.

The main impact I suspect will be in slowing down bicycle traffic as
they will use cycle lanes and tracks. This should be a good thing
as many under confident cyclists find the speed of cycling traffic
in places like the cycling superhighways to be intimidating and the
fraternal greetings called at slower4 cyclists by their Lycra clad
brethren to be as intimidating as any van.

You are over-obsessed by lycra.

One area where they could have significant impact is where the
larger part of a journey is done by car and the last miles or two
by scooter. Scooters are easy to carry in a car or on a train and
you don't arrive at work a smelly soggy sponge. "Specialist" dress
is no more than similar to walking rainware.

It only has to reduce car use on the busiest roads and cut through
traffic from residential roads for it to be a positive move.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 21:49:29 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/08/2020 18:04, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:50:06 +0100, TMS320 wrote:


You are over-obsessed by lycra.

Well it is a pretty good indicator, even from a distance, that the
wearer is 30 to 50 years old, arrogant, white male and considers the
world was invented just for him. Rules are for others, not him. If
it is also wearing those funny mirrored sunglasses and gloves with no
fingers then it is a fair guess they will be of the sub group which
bang on windows of cars to express their opinion of your driving
whenever they can. The bike will be festooned with fore and aft compo
cams, satnav (essential for going to the pub) air horn to clear
pedestrians from pedestrian crossings and smartphone. Parking at the
end of a journey takes about 20 minutes as the various devices are
dismounted and packed and the carbon fibre frame (essential to offset
the weight of the devices) is chained to any nearby fire escape.

On 11:20 10 Aug 2020, Peter Parry said:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 21:49:29 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 18:04, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:50:06 +0100, TMS320 wrote:


You are over-obsessed by lycra.

Well it is a pretty good indicator, even from a distance, that the
wearer is 30 to 50 years old, arrogant, white male and considers the
world was invented just for him. Rules are for others, not him. If it
is also wearing those funny mirrored sunglasses and gloves with no
fingers then it is a fair guess they will be of the sub group which bang
on windows of cars to express their opinion of your driving whenever
they can. The bike will be festooned with fore and aft compo cams,
satnav (essential for going to the pub) air horn to clear pedestrians
from pedestrian crossings and smartphone. Parking at the end of a
journey takes about 20 minutes as the various devices are dismounted and
packed and the carbon fibre frame (essential to offset the weight of the
devices) is chained to any nearby fire escape.

Also known as lycra louts.

Fortunately, the proposed changes to the Highway Code impose greater
responsibility on lycra louts and also advises them of their place in the
hierarchy of road users. See:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...hway-code-to-i
mprove-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the
-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code#rules-for-cyclists

http://bit.ly/3ktyGJ1 -or- http://b.link/3cm4w

On 10/08/2020 11:20, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 21:49:29 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

You are over-obsessed by lycra.

Well it is a pretty good indicator, even from a distance, that the
wearer is 30 to 50 years old, arrogant, white male and considers the
world was invented just for him. Rules are for others, not him. If
it is also wearing those funny mirrored sunglasses and gloves with no
fingers then it is a fair guess they will be of the sub group which
bang on windows of cars to express their opinion of your driving
whenever they can. The bike will be festooned with fore and aft compo
cams, satnav (essential for going to the pub) air horn to clear
pedestrians from pedestrian crossings and smartphone. Parking at the
end of a journey takes about 20 minutes as the various devices are
dismounted and packed and the carbon fibre frame (essential to offset
the weight of the devices) is chained to any nearby fire escape.

Well, I suppose that if such a thing exists and disappears, it will
leave a hole in your life.

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 12:58:18 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Also known as lycra louts.

Fortunately, the proposed changes to the Highway Code impose greater
responsibility on lycra louts and also advises them of their place in the
hierarchy of road users. See:

Thugs in souped up cars, AKA boy racers, are right at the bottom of the heap.

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 11:20:22 AM UTC+1, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 21:49:29 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/08/2020 18:04, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:50:06 +0100, TMS320 wrote:


You are over-obsessed by lycra.

Well it is a pretty good indicator, even from a distance, that the
wearer is 30 to 50 years old, arrogant, white male and considers the
world was invented just for him.

You have just described the typical AUDI driver perfectly. You missed out this bit though.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incomin...-Lowestoft.jpg

On 10/08/2020 14:31, Simon Mason wrote:

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incomin...-Lowestoft.jpg

A shame the insurance company will have to pay for the car. Pity we
don't know the road so that we could look at what the driver thought
he/she was seeing.