Arts feature

The bicycle may have triumphed over the car but it’s far from perfect

There are some wonderful bikes on show in Cycle Revolution at the Design Museum but there’s too much slavish adoration too

28 November 2015

9:00 AM

28 November 2015

9:00 AM

It’s extraordinary that it took civilisation so very long to discover the benefits of putting little wheels on suitcases. We knew how to fly before we realised it was no longer necessary to huff-and-puff baggage by hand.

Even odder, steam and electricity were well understood before anyone got around to developing the ingeniously simple pedal-and-crank mechanism, an invention of decisive importance, which turned the ludicrous, wobbly old hobbyhorse into today’s smooth and sensible bicycle. Its eventual triumph over all our sensibilities can be seen today when, at some practical cost to the general mobility of the capital, London is being effortfully retrofitted with cycle lanes while oil-fired traffic is perpetually stalled in a noxious smog of its own making.

Cycle Revolution is the very last exhibition at the original Design Museum in Butler’s Wharf before it moves ambitiously, perhaps overambitiously, to new premises in a repurposed Commonwealth Institute in Kensington. So there is something both autumnal and prospectus-like about it as an event. In this way, it provides an interesting opportunity to wonder about both the nature of design exhibitions in general and the status of the bicycle in particular.

Designers and politicians are equally drawn — and with unusual passion —towards the bicycle. It is tempting to make a connection between pedal-power and democracy what with the bicycle’s historical associations with suffrage movements, women liberated into bloomers and social mobility of the real sort. After all, states with the most immaculate conception of social democracy — Holland and Denmark, for example — have specially vigorous bicycling cultures. But so too does the People’s Republic of China. When Dave wanted to appear as a man of the people, he got on his bike for a photo shoot. And so too did Corbyn, although they were dressed rather differently. With conflicting data like this, it’s tricky to posit a reliable theory.

The fascination of designers and architects is easier to explain. In a bicycle, materials are explicit and details unavoidable. What’s more, the frame and the wheels, viewed in profile, are like a diagram of static and dynamic forces: form was following function in a bicycle long before that misleading trope became a slogan. For example, in 1910 Joseph August Lux, a member of the Deutscher Werkbund, published a book called Ingenieur-Ästhetik, which contains an important essay called ‘A Bicycle is Beautiful’, one of the key texts inviting us to appreciate the aesthetic thrill of unadorned machines.


And, of course, the better sort of architect and designer has twinned senses of social purpose and environmental hygiene that use of a bike advertises most efficiently. Thomas Heatherwick likes to make an entrance on a silly recumbent bike. Step into the lobby of FCB, an award-winning and ecologically alert architectural practice, and you see a floor jammed wall-to-wall with folding Brompton Bikes. There must have been 50 there last time I visited.

Or take my friend Alex Lifschutz, designer of, among many other things, the Hungerford pedestrian bridge, who goes absolutely everywhere on his Brompton folding bike. But nowadays he can disdain the binman’s yellow hi-vis because Dashing Tweeds of Sackville Street has sold him a very smart, well-cut wool jacket with reflective yarns woven into the fabric. He sits in restaurants twinkling very brightly. The contrast to Corbyn, who, on his bike, dresses like a sewer-maintenance engineer in an oversized biohazard suit, could not be clearer.

Cycle Revolution contains the ur-bike, the Rover Safety Bicycle of 1888, a machine where all the elements of the modern machine first coalesced and became more than the sum of the parts: pneumatic tyres, comfy seat, triangulated frame, symmetrical general arrangement and brakes. That this spectacular synthesis led, eventually, to the ignominiously failed Rover car company is a melancholy gloss on British industry and its weak grasp of progress and feeble powers of application.

But the Design Museum does not speculate much on history or theory or go in for analysis of any sort. No mention is made, for example, of the fact that as early as 1891 Baudry de Saunier was able to publish a history of the bicycle and by 1907 Paris’s Grand Palais could put on a show called Retrospective du Cycle, suggesting, perhaps, that a century ago the bicycle was being eclipsed by the automobile. How exactly did we get to le monde à l’envers?

Instead, the Design Museum has attempted categorisation in the pop-anthropological fashion that Peter York begat and everyone else copied, but without his wit or originality. We have four ‘tribes’. Chris Hoy, the Olympian pedal pusher, is a representative of the ‘High Performers’ while Shanaze Reade, a BMX champ, examples the ‘Thrill Seekers’. A global search determined that one Lucy Granville should personify ‘Urban Riders’ while Lawrence Brand of Porterlight Bicycles did a demonstration run to Kyrgyzstan and won representation as titular head of the ‘Cargo Bikes’.

I am not sure I needed more of this.

There are some wonderful machines on show. Eddy Merckx’s 1972 ethereal all-metal record bike looks like an ancient relic and makes a fine contrast to Bradley Wiggins’s 2015 equivalent, a bravura exercise in swooping carbon fibre. You can see radical modern curiosities, including the Velocino, a recreation of an absurd Mussolini-era Italian design, and the Kolelinia Half bike, which threatens to be as annoying as kickboards if only they can crowdfund it.

There is the protoype of the world’s most successful folding bike, whose ingenious geometry was worried out on the kitchen table by Andrew Ritchie as he gazed, intermittently, at Brompton Cemetery. Then, with even more of an aroma of death, there is the 1969 Raleigh Chopper, a perfect example of the British disease: docile infatuation with Americana combined, lethally, with rubbish management and shoddy quality. Raleigh-branded bikes were, in the end, made in China. As if to demonstrate the relative decline of British bicycle expertise, you can also ponder, in the sepulchral calm of a museum, London’s Boris Bike …manufactured in Canada and designed by Canadians.

The installation of Cycle Revolution is the work of Urban Salon and does not altogether successfully answer the question I set myself when Terence Conran and I opened the Design Museum in 1989: ‘How do we make exhibits of everyday things look different from how they’d look in a shop?’ Certainly, there is lots to enjoy on display in the Design Museum, but so, too, is there in the spectacular Pinarello showroom on Lower Regent Street, a coruscating real-world shrine to the cult of the bike.

I felt there was too much slavish adoration of the bike here. Bicycles are not perfect. Nature was a tough negotiator and, in exchange for the magically efficient translation of pedal effort into forward motion, she insisted that bicycles should be difficult to clean and impossible to store. In every sense, they take up a lot of space. Besides, in this year of their symbolic triumph, with memorial roadworks and a major exhibition, we know that clean bikes excite just as much antisocial behaviour in their riders as dirty cars do in their drivers. Just saying…

Cycle Revolution: Extraordinary bicycles and the people who ride them is at the Design Museum until 30 June 2016.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • GC_31

    damn pics would’ve been nice

  • General Purpose

    “Nature… insisted that bicycles should be difficult to clean and impossible to store.” Have you never tried storing a motor-car? Most lifts are too small and I can’t haul them up the stairs like I used to.

    • HJ777

      Many people where I live store their cars on pavements.

      • Toku Floyd

        I have always wondered why motorists have to use the pavement/footway to store their vehicles.
        Doing so, means that pedestrians and others have to walk in the road to get past, thereby causing a safety problem, which was why the footways were made in the first place, to keep pedestrians and vehicles safely apart.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Yes, but then some genius decided to start widening the pavements, often so much they meet in the middle!
          And another decided to remove the distinction between the two.
          And I don’t think that was a motorist!

      • Mr B J Mann

        You obviously live in a cyclist/pedestrian friendly EU city (or perhaps Red Ken/Biking Boris’ London) where they mark out parking bays half on the pavement so as not to block the roads, as those that aren’t still the width of a packhorse have had their pavements widened so much they often meet in the middle!

        • HJ777

          On the contrary, I live in a nightmare area for cycling and pedestrians.

          Car use is prioritised, cars are parked all over the pavements and over the few cycle ‘lanes’. It now takes me several more minutes to cycle into the town centre since they redirected the roads to cope with the huge congestion caused by motorists.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “since they redirected the roads to cope with the huge congestion caused by motorists.”

            That’ll be because traffic “planning” is what causes congestion.

            See my original post!

          • HJ777

            No, the previous road layout had been there for over 100 years.

            The new layout slightly reduces congestion for cars (at huge public expense) but makes things much more difficult for cyclists.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You reckon?

            In my experience they tend to make everything worse for everyone.

            Except for the “planners”!

  • carl jacobs

    Bicycles have not triumphed over the car. A bicycle is to a car as a rock is to the shoe of a hiker. Rocks have their place. It just happens to be far far away from the inside of my shoe.

  • Mary Ann

    A bicycle is a brilliant machine, it’s a pity some bicycle riders think that because they are saving the world they can be as rude as they like.

    • Richard Baranov

      I ride a bike but I will not ride on the main roads. Why? Because car drivers and especially truck drivers seem to be intent on mowing cyclists down. I can assure you for every rude cyclist there are at least a few hundred motorists who are not only rude but deadly toward cyclists. I suppose there are fatal accidents caused by a cycalist hitting someone but they are as rare as hens teeth compared with motorists and their irresponsible behaviour toward cyclists. I quote:

      “In the space of 12 months, between September 2013 and September 2014, the figure of cyclists who were killed or seriously injured rose by 8 per cent with 3,500 reported cases”.

      To complain about the rudeness of cyclists in the face of such numbers, especially when you realize that almost all rudeness from cyclists comes from the fact that some @hole has tried to run you down or pretend that you don’t exist and therefore may be run over as if a leaf on the tarmac, is trivial in the extreme. Drivers need to learn that the streets are public thoroughfares and not made for their exclusive use.

      • Mr B J Mann

        Oh, Purleeeeze!

        Cyclists directly kill 2 to 3 pedestrians a year!!

        Per mile ridden that is in the same ball park as the number of pedestrians who die in collisions with motor vehicles per mile driven!!!

        And, guess what, if I die because I’m hit by a car or lorry that swerves to avoid one of the few less than perfect cyclists:

        I’m just as dead as if i’d been hit by a car or lorry that swerves because the driver is drunk or speeding!

        And it’s called “undertaking” for a reason!!

        And if cyclists can’t spot 40 foot, 40 ton lorries:

        Why do they expect drivers to spot them?!?!?!

        • HJ777

          A fatuous comparison because a high proportion of miles driven are on motorways, dual carriageways and truck roads where there are no pedestrians.

          Cyclists and motor drivers mix with pedestrians predominantly in towns and cities – where motor vehicles are far more lethal to pedestrians, even on pedestrian crossings and pavements. It is an extreme rarity for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian on a crossing, pavement or footpath (it’s at east 3 years since this has happened), whereas drivers kill pedestrians on pavements or pedestrians crossings literally (statistically speaking) every week.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I could have sworn I’d already replied to this with a nice long post, but it seems to have totally disappeared, not even in “Pending” Limbo on my profile!

            How does that happen?!

            Let’s try again!!!

            A fatu0us claim because not that high a proportion of miles are driven on motorways.

            And several pedestrian d3aths occur on them and on dual carriageways where there are pedestrians due to breakdowns, road maintenance, trespass, and the fact that pedestrians frequently walk along dual carriageways.

            Though I couldn’t comment on “truck roads” as we don’ have them here.

            As for cyclists and motor drivers mixing with pedestrians predominantly in towns and cities, true enough, but the fatality figures I quoted were purely for the “highway”, including pavements (sidewalks if you’re in the US) and shared, painted on cyclepaths on roads and pavements.

            They don’t include separate, segregated, cyclepaths adjacent to roads and pavements, paths in parks, bridle paths or country footpaths, or open country, forest or mountain where cyclists like to hare about.

            So feel free to dig out ALL the figures and give us the analysis of ALL the pedestrians killed anywhere by cyclists.

            Oh, and there are no records of people, pedestrians or drivers, killed as a result of dangerous cycling, where the unidentifiable cyclist has disappeared!

            But, as I’ve pointed out:

            Motor vehicles are NOT far more lethal to pedestrians, even on pedestrian crossings and pavements.

            My figures come, latterly, from the national road accident statistics where they are finally publicly recorded, though not publicised, for highway fatalities as described, previously trawled from Hansard answers as they were not even published!

            What are your figures, and where do they come from?

            And if it is true that:

            “It is an extreme rarity for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian on a crossing, pavement or footpath (it’s at least 3 years since this has happened):

            That only means that around eight have been killed on the roads between crossings by cyclists.

            Are you arguing that all pedestrian deaths involving motor vehicles should be ignored except for those on a crossing, pavement or footpath?!

            And as for “whereas drivers kill pedestrians on pavements or pedestrians crossings literally (statistically speaking) every week”:
            So what does that tell us (assuming it’s true)?!
            Bearing in mind that motor vehicles do well over a hundred times the mileage of cyclists!

      • colchar

        And how many of those cyclists were killed or injured because they failed to follow the rules of the road?

        • HJ777

          Very few.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well, the main cause of cyclist deaths involving motor vehicles (feel free to check out the figures for deaths involving two cycles, or just a single cycle hitting something hard but stationary yourself!) is “undertaking”.

            It’s called that for a reason, and not exactly recommended in the rules of the road.

            Oh, and as cyclists have so much difficulty spotting 40 foot long 40 ton vehicles with big noisy engines and loadsa lights:

            Why do they expect HGV drivers to be able to spot an ickle cyclist (without lights)?!

          • HJ777

            More of your invented ‘facts’, I see.

            Provide some evidence that is the main cause of cyclist deaths. Have fun, because there is no such evidence.

            If you want to know the truth, I suggest that you look at the TFL analysis.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So what is the main cause?

            Running off the road and hitting something solid but statioary?

            Being hit by another cyclist?

            I know they are major causes:

            But a specifically said involving motor vehicles.

            As for directing me to an “analysis” by a pro cycling body?!?!?!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Here’s the TRL, rather than the TFL, analysis:

            • A high proportion of collisions occurred at junctions; almost two-thirds of cyclists reported killed or seriously injured at or near junctions.

            • HGVs present particular challenges for cyclists and are over-represented in cyclist fatalities (18% of fatal cycle accidents involved an HGV, compared with 4% of serious accidents). These accidents were more common at junctions where the main collision configuration was the HGV driver making a left turn while the cyclist was going ahead.

            But nothing to do with “undertaking”, of course, the cyclist has spotted the indicator, or just realised “undertaking” was a bad thing, and passed on the outside, only for the driver to suddenly change direction and go right instead?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            But, of course, a proper analysis wouldn’t look at the TRL reports, never mind TFL.

            I read somewhere once that an analysis of hospital admissions showed that five times as many cyclists were admitted to hospital (ie hospitalised, as opposed to just treated in A&E) with serious injuries as were recorded by the police as having sustained a serious injury (and the police definition of “serious” injury in traffic accidents isn’t actually all that serious, and often doesn’t involve being hospitalised).

            Of the accidents that are recorded by the police something like 16% don’t involve other vehicles (eg the cyclist came off his bike speeding down a bend, or hit a tree) and a further 2% or so don’t involve motor vehicles such as cars, lorries, buses, motorbikes, etc, but “other” vehicles (other cyclists?!).

            And of the accidents involving motor vehicles the blame was pretty even shared (more cyclists to blame in fatal accidents involving younger cyclists, more drivers where the cyclist was much older….) with some being 50:50.

            So, if you really want facts, motorists are wholly to blame for the less than half of the 82% of the recorded accidents that involve motor vehicles, which themselves account for only a sixth of the total injuries to cyclists, the other five sixths being entirely the cyclists fault as well as 18% of the recorded accidents not involving motor vehicles and the half of those that do that are cyclists fault.

            Happy now?!

        • Richard Baranov

          Probably almost none. Try getting on a bike and facing cars , especially on country lanes. Many, many motorists behave like thugs and seem to assume that you can be safely ignored. Try being hit by a wing mirror because some moron thinks the last two feet road by the curb belongs to him. I gave up after to many close calls. Most cyclists are very careful, it comes from being aware that you are extremely vulnerable. A fact that many car drivers seem t be oblivious of, wrapped in their metal bubble.

          • Mr B J Mann

            AS I’ve just outlined above, almost all serious cycling injuries (most aren’t recorded) and by far the the majority of fatalities to under 25 year old cyclists (about half overall) are down to the cyclist.

            Are you saying the cyclists killed themselves obeying the Highway Code?!

            By the way, your “thugs” had probably been indoctrinated by cyclists into accepting that if the handlebars can fit in the gap:

            That’s all the room cyclists need!

            After all, whenever you see a cyclist passing a motor vehicle:

            That’s all they need!!!

            “Most” OLD “cyclists” might be “very careful, it comes from being aware that you are extremely vulnerable”.

            But that’s because they are the ones who survived their youthful Kam!kaze cycling!

          • Richard Baranov

            Sorry, but you are really talking rubbish!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you.

            Any proof?!

          • Richard Baranov

            Yes plenty. You can go on the internet and look up the concept of “Kami”, for a start. Emperor of Japan a god indeed! A typically ignorant projection of Western ideas onto a concept that has no Western parallel.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Are you sure you’re on the right thread?!

            Oh, I geddit, because the English “Kam!kaze cycling” doesn’t mean the same as “Kami kaze” in Japanese you think you can get away with calling the entire rest of the post rubbish.

            You’re being too inscrutable.

            You”ll have to explain how that amounts to plenty of proof.

            And how it disproves each of my points.

          • Richard Baranov

            Sorry but answering you is just getting to boring. Please simply go on the internet and learn.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Learn that you haven’t addressed any of my points and instead choose to insult me?
            I already know that!
            Clearly you are a cyclist (of the rogue rude variety)!!!

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Too many cyclists labour under the egocentric delusion that they have an equal right to roadspace with motor vehicles. They do not. Something like 85% of all UK journeys are made by motor vehicle, and these are not just frivolous outings to pass the time. Most people on bicycles are not going to work, or contributing otherwise to our economic wellbeing. And all too many of them have an exaggerated sense of entitlement that causes them to be indifferent to the road congestion they cause – when they’re not aggressively asserting their “right” to take up as much road space as an HGV…
        I ride my bike occasionally, though not as often as when I had a Viscount Aerospace Sport in the ’70s… I just don’t/cannot possibly use it for business. It’s an occasional fun thing. I don’t clog the roads with it during rush hour.

        • Toku Floyd

          Cyclists have the same right on the road as any motor vehicle.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s the problem. The danger to the cyclist is caused by the fact that he is trying to occupy the same road as a car. But a bicycle can’t maintain the speed of a car. It is hyper-maneuverable compared to a car – and therefore unpredictable. It can fit into spaces in traffic that a car cannot, creating unanticipated traffic flows for the driver. It is hard to see. And it provides no protection to the cyclist in a collision.

            For the sake of the cyclist, bicycles should be banned from major traffic arteries, where “major” is given an expansive definition.

          • Toku Floyd

            This is why we teach cycle users to take the space of a car.
            That way, the driver has to see the cycle user and acknowledge they are there. He then has to steer round the cyclist and if he cannot do that or get past, he has to slow down until there is space to overtake. Simple.

          • carl jacobs

            And of course, cyclists will always obey those rules. But even taking the space of a car doesn’t fix the inherent danger created by speed differential. A car driving fifteen miles per hour in a traffic flow of 45 miles per hour is inherently dangerous. We expect a driver to maintain a reasonable speed. But a bicycle cannot maintain a reasonable speed relative to traffic flow. A bicyclist in traffic is inherently dangerous to himself and other drivers.

          • Toku Floyd

            The point is that traffic can only go as fast as the vehicle in front, if that vehicle is slow, then traffic has to slow down too.
            Bike are classed as HPV’s, Human Powered Vehicles.

          • carl jacobs

            if that vehicle is slow, then traffic has to slow down too.

            Yes. And that difference in speed between the people behind the bike and those passing the bike can cause bad decisions. There is no reason to add that marginal risk when bikes add no compensating marginal benefit. This is an ideological thing. “I want to ride my bike, and you just have to deal with it – marginal risk or not.” Why? What justifies the marginal risk to either the driver or the cyclist?

          • Toku Floyd

            This is not a justification thing, driving a car, riding a bike, that is just how things are. Roads (after the Romans built theirs and then left the country) roads were originally built for cycle users, then, when the motor vehicle came along, they had to share it and that is how it has been ever since.

            Now that roads are getting rather crowded and motorists want to go as fast as they can, rather than the speed limit, things can get dodgy.
            But it is still there for sharing, no matter what people think, consideration is the name of the game.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s not about going as fast as you can. It’s about not wanting to kill someone. A cyclist creates risk for me. He forces me to give him room. He forces me to slow down. He distracts me from other traffic. And all because if either he or I make a mistake, he is likely going to get killed. Cyclists want to share a space that a bicycle is not mechanically fit to occupy. Whatever purpose the roads originally served, their primary purpose now is to carry the traffic of engine-powered vehicles. Bicycles don’t fit that description.

            If you want to ride a bike, find a velodrome.

          • Toku Floyd

            Illogical Captain.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, I am sure that is the immediate reaction of every driver who has ever encountered a bicycle on a 45 mph road while going up a hill.

          • Toku Floyd

            So, the motorist has to consider what is in front of him and slow down when needed, if the motorist has room, they can overtake the cyclist quite easily.

            If there is not enough room, then the motorist will have to slow down until they are in a safe position to overtake and if no chance presents, then the motorist will have to wait until a space does occur.

            The roads are so easy to use, if everyone does what they are supposed to.

          • carl jacobs

            And the argument cycles back upon itself. We have already been here before. You have yet to give one good reason why bicycles should be allowed on the same road with engine-powered vehicles. You simply presume it, and demand that I accommodate the situation.

          • Toku Floyd

            Well, isn’t that normal, I don’t have to give any reason as cycles are not banned from the roads, except motorways.

            I haven’t yet seen a reason why they should not be allowed on the roads with other vehicles. Most of the restrictions seem to be in the minds of the drivers of motor vehicles.

            Unless every single road and street has a dedicated cycle lane on both sides (which is impossible) there is nowhere else for them to go.
            Cycling on the footway is still illegal and if done, brings the cyclist into conflict with pedestrians and also a sizeable fine.

            So drivers will just have to learn that cycle users will always be there and they will have to learn how to interact safely with other road users.

          • carl jacobs

            I don’t have to give any reason

            That is indeed convenient since you wouldn’t be able to come up with such a reason.

            I haven’t yet seen a reason why they should not be allowed on the roads with other vehicles.

            You mean besides the inherent danger that is created by their presence? Why is it illegal to drive a lawn tractor on a road?

            Cycling on the footway is still illegal and if done, brings the cyclist into conflict with pedestrians and also a sizeable fine.

            I see. So you don’t want to be mixed in with pedestrians, because that would bring “the cyclist into conflict with pedestrians.” In other words, you are quite willing to impose on drivers the exactly analogous situation you do not want imposed on cyclists. I suppose you could use all the arguments I have made on this thread to support that position.

            there is nowhere else for them to go.

            This does not distress me. In fact, I’m beginning to see a solution to this problem. “Cycling on roadways should be made illegal.”

            So drivers will just have to learn that cycle users will always be there and they will have to learn how to interact safely with other road users.

            Here, let me translate. “I want to ride my bike, and you just have to deal with it – marginal risk or not.” Wait. I’ve seen that somewhere before…

          • Toku Floyd

            Admit it, you just don’t like cyclists on the same piece of road that you are on.

            Well my friend, cyclists were on the roads before we were born and they will still be there after we have left this place.

            Most drivers can handle other road users and know that it is a situation of give and take, no matter what is in front of them, be it a disabled persons carriage, a horse and cart or even a tractor and of course a cyclist.

            Now of course, you are thinking, that cycling on the roads should be made illegal. Impossible to bring in, too expensive to try and enforce and removing cycles would put far too many people out of work.

            No, you poor drivers will have us around for a long time yet.

            Just remember, when passing a cyclist, you have to give the space of a small car (think Mini) and all will be well with the world.

            Good Night, catch you tomorrow!

          • carl jacobs

            Admit it, you just don’t like cyclists on the same piece of road that you are on.

            Admit it? I thought I had been shouting it throughout the entire thread. And I will deal with it. But I don’t want to deal with it. And I don’t think there is any good reason that I should have to deal with it. Bicycles are a vanity means of transport.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “cyclists were on the roads before we were born and they will still be there after we have left this place.”
            And carriages were on the road four Millennia ago, so your point is?!

            “Now of course, you are thinking, that cycling on the roads should be made illegal. Impossible to bring in, too expensive to try and enforce and removing cycles would put far too many people out of work.”
            Wot?
            In China?!?!

            “Just remember, when passing a cyclist, you have to give the space of a small car (think Mini) and all will be well with the world.”
            Just as long as YOU remember, when passing a car, especially when undertaking, to leave the same space (think Mini)!!!

          • HJ777

            There is almost no inherent danger caused by bicycles.

            The danger on our roads is created by the size, weight and speed of motor vehicles.

          • carl jacobs

            Likewise pedestrians would create no inherent danger if bicycles were mixed into pedestrian traffic. The danger would be created by the size, weight, and speed of the cyclist on his bicycle. The argument though true is irrelevant.

          • HJ777

            In fact, many schemes do mix pedestrians and cyclists – and present little danger to either. In fact, nearly all the danger to pedestrians, even on pavements, comes from motor vehicles.

            The argument is true and your comment is irrelevant.

          • carl jacobs

            Well then. The problem is solved. We’ll just put bicycles on sidewalks and everyone can be happy. Drivers. Pedestrians. Cyclists. It’s a win/win/win.

            But wait. One of your allies on this thread (Toku Floyd) said “Cycling on the footway is still illegal and if done, brings the cyclist into conflict with pedestrians and also a sizeable fine.”

            So now I’m confused….

          • HJ777

            You’ve been confused from the start.

            Clearly you have no idea of the situation in Europe or the UK. Cycling on the pavement is illegal, unless designated. The question is a simple one of space allocation. Where enough space is allocated, mixed use is often designated and is not a problem. The problem occurs where almost no space is designated because motor vehicles are prioritised.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Your argument is only true if you continue to ignore that cyclists k!ll two to three pedestrians a year:
            That small, light, slow cyclists k!ll as many pedestrians per mile ridden as d!e in collisions with great big, one to forty ton, speeding motor vehicles per mile supposedly driven by h0m!cidal man!acs?!?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And yet, pro rata, small, light, slow and cuddly cyclists kill as many pedestrians as motorists?!?!?!!!!

          • HJ777

            They don’t.

            You are simply inventing your ‘facts’.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And you are simply ignoring the facts that cyclists k!ll two to three pedestrians a year:
            That small, light, slow cyclists k!ll as many pedestrians per mile ridden as d!e in collisions with great big, one to forty ton, speeding motor vehicles per mile driven by supposedly h0m!cidal man!acs?!?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Another one disappeared?!
            Strange then that small, light, slow cyclists should k!ll as many pedestrians per mile ridden as d!e in collisions with great big, one to forty ton, speeding motor vehicles per mile driven by h0m!cidal man!acs?!?!
            Perhaps there’s a danger inherent in the cyclists, rather than the bicyles, that we’re overlooking?!

          • Oddsbods

            I see no reason why cyclists should be banned from the roads either, as long as they obey all of the rules, no cycling two or more abreast, no entry into pedestrian zones, no crossing roads on pedestrian crossings without dismounting, no going the wrong way in one way roads, always give clear signals, look back before you turn, carry lights etc. etc.

          • Toku Floyd

            Absolutely right.

          • HJ777

            Cyclists are perfectly at liberty to ride two abreast under most circumstances. Haven’t you read the Highway Code?

            Where is your evidence that cyclists are less likely to obey the rules of the road? At least they tend not to deliberately break speed limits, unlike most drivers.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Rule 66

            You should

            keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear

            keep both feet on the pedals

            never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

            not ride close behind another vehicle

            not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain

            be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.Rule 68

            You MUST NOT

            carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one

            hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer

            ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner

          • Mr B J Mann

            For someone who can’t see the reason you’ve just made a pretty good argument for banning them.

            Once up a time you could build and use a car without testing, certifying, licensing, regulation…….

            Wherever you wanted!

            Ditto trains planes boats…..

            Try building a barge, launching it in a canal, saling it about all day, then tying it up for the night….

            And see how far the argument “canals were built for barges” gets you!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            But motorists, except for access, are banned, or at least discouraged, from most non main roads.
            So why do there have to be cycle paths?
            Why can’t cyclists just use all the back roads which are largely empty of traffic?!

          • HJ777

            Why should motor vehicles be allowed on the roads? They present a substantial danger to other road users.

            Cyclists don’t, and therefore no reason they shouldn’t be allowed.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why should motor vehicles be allowed on the roads or ways with rails running along them?

            They present a substantial danger to other rail-road users.

            Cyclists don’t, and therefore no reason they shouldn’t be allowed or rail roads!

            In fact, as they kill, pro rata, a similar number of pedestrians as die in collisions with motorists on on ordinary roads:

            And rail roads are flatter.

            Why aren’t cyclists restricted to the rail roads?!

            Hint: before you try to wriggle your way out of that, you’ve already answered your argument:

            Those evil evil heavy, speeding trains will just have to slow down, like the other 95% of passenger and goods traffic!

          • HJ777

            Incoherent R U.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Was it the bit I cut and pasted from your post thatis so confusing?!

          • carl jacobs

            The benefit of the personal car far outweighs the inherent risk. The question you refuse to answer is “What marginal benefit does a bicycle add that justifies the added risk to the cyclist of mixing cars and cycles in the same traffic flow?”

          • carl jacobs

            Bicycles are what people use for transportation before they can afford a car. In a modern economy, a bicycle has almost no utility whatsoever, and so will not be chosen as a preferred means of transport. You may wish it was otherwise. It isn’t. That means the roadways are now dedicated to engine-powered vehicles.

            We don’t let people walk down the middle of the roadway because it is dangerous to pedestrians to mix the two fundamentally incompatible traffic flows. That’s the same reason we don’t allow cyclists to mix with pedestrians. It’s dangerous. It’s time to recognize that cyclists are as incompatible with cars as pedestrians – the anti-car ideology of cyclists notwithstanding.

          • HJ777

            “In a modern economy, a bicycle has almost no utility whatsoever, and so will not be chosen as a preferred means of transport.”

            So you are saying that Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain (all of which either generally have high use of bicycle use or have major cities with high use levels) do not have modern economies. Good luck with that argument.

            You have this strange idea that cyclists have an anti-car ideology. In fact, the overwhelming majority of cyclists are also drivers (me included). It is you who is an anti-cyclist zealot. Cyclists just want the roads not to prioritise only the needs of drivers.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m saying that if bicycles were banned tomorrow, the economy would continue to function quite nicely, and probably wouldn’t even notice. If cars were banned, the economy would seize. An economy runs on transportation. Bicycles are an obsolete form of transportation. They serve no necessary purpose.

            I have nothing against cyclists. I simply don’t want them mixed into my traffic flow and for exactly the same reason I don’t want pedestrians mixed into my traffic flow. And (not uncoincidentally) for exactly the same reason you don’t want to ride among pedestrians. It creates danger to the cyclist and risk to me with no significant compensating benefit to anyone. Again I will ask. What compensating benefit justifies the marginal risk?

          • HJ777

            Asserting that bicycles are an obsolete form of transport is not the same as demonstrating that it is the case. As economies get more complex, asserting that one form of transport should be prioritised to the exclusion of others is, frankly, primitive thinking. Cars are essential for some tasks, but are entirely unsuitable for others.

            Bicycle use is growing rapidly in many European countries. Obsolete?

            I really don’t care about ‘your traffic flow’. You seem tot think it should be the priority because it is your preferred method of transport, regardless of the rights of others. I have news for you – your preferences don’t override other people’s rights.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And I have news for you – your preferences don’t override other people’s rights.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Isn’t it amazing:
            All those schoolkids cycling to school are also drivers?
            As are all those impoverished students who haven’t even passed their tests yet.
            As are all their ecomentalist car hating lecturers cycling in to lecturers.
            Not to mention all those obviously rabidly anti-car cyclists you find on cycling forums, they obviously have a fleet of cars in their garages, all the better to gob at them?!?!?
            And if as many people bought organic fair trade food as claimed to in surveys the shops would be selling nothing else.
            But it’s a well established fact that people L I E in surveys, especially on ones where they have to reveal their greeny, liberal or PC credentials.
            And while most motorists might well have a bike or two in the back of the garage, thet doesn’t make them “cyclists”!

          • JOhn Mackie

            troll

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ermmmmmm, who told you that, and why did they lie to you?!

            Did the Romans construct roads for cycles?

            Were the Turnpikes built for bikes?!

            They were built for cars.

            Yes: cars!

            The “car” is the passenger part of a ChARiot, or the name for a war or processional ChARiot, or something like a Jaunting Car.

            The car has a FOUR MILLENIA HISTORY.

            Oh, and just like a sailless ship is still a ship:

            A horseless carriage I STILL a CARriage!

            And where do you get this idea that roads were built for cycles?

            Just because some cyclist activist propagandist lied to you:

            It doesn’t make it true!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sorry, but was there some point to that post?

            Are you saying you want to strangle the arteries of the the nation through which the life blood of the economy is trying to flow?

            Are you arguing it would be wrong for councils to send out their fleets of road cleaning vehicles, travelling at 8mph, in the middle of the rush hour:

            They should instead send out humans armed with brooms and barrows, each taught to take up the space of a car, but traveling at 4mph.

            Come on, admit it:

            You want the return of the man with the red flag, don’t you:

            In both senses!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Jeeez, where have all my replies gone?!?!?

            So your argument is that Councils shouldn’t send out fleets of street sweeping vehicles doing 8mph in the rush hour:

            They should deploy HPVS:

            Blokes with brushes and barrows doing 4mph to str angle the arteries of the city through which the life blood of its economy is trying to flow!

            Why not go the whole hog and demand we return to men keeping the red flag flying in front of motors.

            Corbyn would love you!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Most roads are hilly.

            Cycles don’t like hilly roads.

            Neither do trains.

            They make nice, flat rail-roads for trains.

            So why don’t cyclists share the rail roads instead of the ordinary ones?!

            And the train driver has to see the cycle user and acknowledge they are there.

            He then has to steer round the cyclist and if he cannot do that or get past:

            He has to slow down until there is space to overtake.

            Simple!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            In fact, why do they have cycle routes anywhere near main roads?

            When cities are full of back roads with no traffic?!

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Yes… But while most cyclists are sensible, practical and realistic, an aggressive minority of lycra-clad zealots actually thinks it has equality with any motor vehicle up to and including HGVs. The way these people ride causes accidents , injury and death – and not just to themselves. They also cause congestion, which costs time and money.
            The roads are not for recreation, and not principally for a few cyclists to pootle a mile or two to work: our highways are the economic arteries through which the vital economic lifeblood of motorised traffic runs.
            Bikes might be fun, cuddly and eco-friendly, but in terms of transportation they are negligible, and I’d bet that in economic terms they represent a net drain.

          • HJ777

            The Copenhagen analysis says exactly the opposite. So much for what you’d bet.

            And where motor vehicles – an economically inefficient method of transport over short distances – aren’t prioritised, people choose to walk and cycle as has been amply demonstrated in many countries. The congestion caused by inappropriate use of motor vehicles (single drivers over modest distances) represents a huge economic cost.

            The idea that cyclists are responsible for causing injury and death to themselves and other is ludicrous and not backed by any evidence. The evidence that drivers are is overwhelming. For example, both TFL and the police say that drivers are more than twice as likely to be at fault in accidents with cyclists and whatever accidents cyclists have, rarely hurt others. The same cannot be said of motor vehicles.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Cyclists are responsible because they put themselves on very flimsy, vulnerable contraptions onto busy highways and expect to mix it on equal terms with e.g. HGVs. Quite apart from the congestion/delays they cause through taking up road space on often narrow roads.
            People en masse do not choose motor vehicles over bicycles on some idle self-indulgent whim or because they are allergic to exercise, but because for play as well as work, given a busy demanding lifestyle, bikes are not practical – not remotely.

          • HJ777

            That’s idiotic. If you are on a bicycle, then you are not in a car, and cars take up far more road space per person and hence cause far more congestion.

            People choose motor vehicles for shorter journeys because other motor vehicles make the roads dangerous for non-motorised users. Where steps have been taken to remove/ameliorate this danger (as in many European cities), 25% or more of journeys are by bicycle.

            Proper facilities improve matters for drivers as well as cyclists as drivers then suffer less congestion and pollution because there are fewer of them. We have some of the most congested and worst polluted towns and cities in Europe because of the total prioritisation of motor transport.

            You might be happy with a sedentary lifestyle sitting in traffic jams and breathing pollution, but that is no reason to advocate imposing it on others.

            You need to get out more. People would be aghast at the uninformed nature of your views in many European cities.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Nonsense! As I said, you’re really not in the real world: people choose motor vehicles even on short journeys because the practicality and immediacy outweigh hugely that of the bicycle. Of course cars take up more space! They’re bigger – right? But because they are vastly more practical, comfortable etc, people use them. Cars are the priority in terms of road space, so it’s bikes that cause the congestion – superfluous, timewasting machines which impede the vehicle of choice for most, the car…
            The “sedentary lifestyle” of cars is a by-product of the way they’re used. I drive my car to play sport twice a week, and for other recreational activities which take care of the fitness thing. Don’t be so puritanical. “Aghast” indeed – I might just have greater experience than you of “European cities”.

          • HJ777

            Driving to the golf club and using a buggy along with your corpulent friends doesn’t count.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Love it! Your agit-prop cartoonish slur is probably an excellent fit for your political views. Actually none of my friends is “corpulent” or even significantly fat, while I myself am remarkably slender and fit for my age, the product in part of sporting activities considerably more energetic than golf…
            Bicycles are charming machines which, as I say, I’ve been using most of my life; it’s a pity that too many of the more “activist” sort of cycling enthusiasts, such as yourself, get carried away and try to ascribe to bikes a degree of transportational significance they can never possibly have.

          • HJ777

            Of course, bicycles do have a major role in transport in many European towns and cities. It’s a pity you’re not better informed.

            Neither am I an ‘activist’ cycling enthusiast. I have little interest in cycling other than as a practical form of transport. i believe, however, that safe facilities should be provided for non-motorised road users. Motorised road users should not be allowed intimidate would-be cyclists off the road as they currently do.

            You are hardly likely to be ‘remarkably fit’ if you play sport just twice a week (I am a sports coach as well as a regular participant). I note that you don’t even specify what sport you do, presumably in case I laugh at you.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Your laughter is neither here nor there, and I have no interest in sharing too much personal information with you. It might be a safe bet that I’m better acquainted with European cities than you: Helsinki to Barcelona, Manchester to Prague, visited them all and many more besides. And in the nature of my work (which again is not your business) I am very well informed. So although I’m not interested in these cities you claim to be havens of cycling, I suspect you’re being a little selective in addition to your zealot’s inherent tendency to exaggerate.

          • HJ777

            An unsafe bet and you are clearly not well informed, as I have clearly demonstrated.

            I thought you were corpulent and sedentary, so thank you for confirming that I was correct.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Your believing what you want to believe, regardless of anything anyone says, is par for the course. But keep pampering your wilful delusions, until they turn and bite you. Watch out for those HGVs…

          • HJ777

            Regardless of what uninformed people like you say, you mean.

            If anyone were to listen to you we’d be in an even greater mess on our roads (and everywhere else).

          • Malcolm Stevas

            You are reduced to repetitive parrot cries of “uninformed”, “corpulent” etc, knowing all the while that I know whereof I speak: you didn’t name the mystic cities across Europe in which the inhabitants gaily cycle about their business en masse, perhaps because I told you I’ve visited a great many of them so am in a position to contradict your crass assertions. Travelling through Paris tomorrow, on my way south, where I’ll visit Nimes, Avignon and Montpellier over the next few days. Lots of cycling in France of course – outside working hours, that is, when they dress in club shirts and zoom around on racing bikes. Most of them are too sensible to think of bikes as components of their economic lives, as opposed to recreation…

          • Mr B J Mann

            You keep forgetting to provide a link for this “Copenhagen Analysis”.

            And do you have a link to back up your other assertions?!

            Cyclists kill two or three pedestrians a year.
            As I’ve repeatedly repeated ad nauseum this is, pro rata, in the same ball park as the pedestrians who die in collisions with motor vehicles,

          • HJ777

            An article on it: http://www.planetizen.com/node/78731

            and the analysis itself: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915000907#

            Yes, you’ve repeated your falsehood ad nauseum. That doesn’t make it any less of a falsehood.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

            ” In 2008, pedal bikes made up 1.8% of urban, non-motorway traffic but were involved in just 0.25% of pedestrian deaths and below 1% of serious pedestrian injuries”

            Quite apart from the fact that cyclists, pro rata, are very much less likely to kill pedestrians, they almost never (less than one every three years) kill pedestrians on pavements or pedestrian crossings, whereas motor vehicles do with depressing regularity.

            And you conveniently forget that motor vehicles also kill cyclists as well as pedestrians.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And where do they get the 1.8% from?!

            Motor vehicle figures come mainly from highly accurate milometers.

            The only significant errors come from older clocked milos – which reduce the milage.

            Cycle mileage comes from things like surveys of human beings who tend to exaggerate heir athletic prowess, size of their achievements (think fishermen) and green credentials, so are highly overestimated.

            But even if the figure is accurate, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, “pedestrian deaths” doesn’t include those on segregated cyclepaths or in parks.

            But even if there were never any on those you’re still admitting that small, light, slow, soft, cuddly cyclists could’t manage to keep their k!ll rate to less than an eighth of big, hard, solid, one to forty ton k!lling machines driven by speeding h0micidal drivers,

            In 2008.

            Any reason why they picked just one year, and that 2008?

            Why not a decade?!

            And why did you repeatedly ignore the serious injury figure in that “quote”?

            The one that shows that despite being so small, light, slow, soft, and cuddly cyclists couldn’t manage to keep the rate at which they seriously injure pedestrians down to less than a half of that of big, hard, solid, one to forty ton k!lling machines driven by speeding h0micidal drivers?!?!!!

            Plus there’s the small problem that I can’t seem to actually find your “quote” in that article!!!

          • HJ777

            I’ve just proven you comprehensively wrong. Deal with it.

            “But even if the figure is accurate, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, “pedestrian deaths” doesn’t include those on segregated cyclepaths or in parks.”

            and your evidence for this assertion is?

            “Plus there’s the small problem that I can’t seem to actually find your “quote” in that article!!”

            Then get your eyes tested. It’s there in black and white in the sidebar.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sorry, my eyes must be really bad as I can’t see where you’ve just proven me comprehensively wrong. Deal with it.

            As for the sidebar: non on my phone.

            I’ll look again when I’m on a computer.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ooh, I’ve found a sidebar which says that:

            Pedestrian casualties 2001-09 (that’s 8 years: 01-02, 02-03, 03-04, 04-05. 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 by the way!)

            Killed by cycles: 18

            Is that “just 0.25% of pedestrian deaths”?

            And don’t forget that doesn’t include non road traffic accident deaths.

            The clue’s in the name as you struggle with it.

            If a cyclist kills a pedestrian in a park, or on a BMX course, or mountain biking off-road, or even on a segregated separate cycle path:

            That’s not a road traffic accident statistic!

            But I digress, you have two sidebar boxes, which seem to contradict each other, not itself unusual for the DafT.

            But the second one also claims:

            “A study of collisions between cyclists and other vehicles from 2005-07 found police allocated blame to drivers in 60% of cases, to the cyclist in 30% and to both parties in the remainder”

            Which looks like some cherry picking from a report for the DafT.

            There’s is a report covering that kind of period on cycling accidents, but it says something like 80% of under 16, and 60% of 16 to 24 year old cyclists killed in collisions with motor vehicles were entirely responsible for their own deaths!

            Things level off with age of cyclists and motorists are slightly more to blame with older cyclists (the ones who have survived!).

            There’s probably one graph in there that shows for one type of accident outcome for one age group drivers are 60% to blame and cyclists 30%.

            But to that you’ve got to add the facts that only around 80% of reported accidents involve another motor vehicle, the rest are collisions with other cycles or inanimate objects.

            Plus the NHS reports far far more non other vehicle collision serious cyclist injuries than the police record (and the police definition of serious is far less serious than the NHS’s!).

            So much for your S!debar of Sham3!

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for: “they almost never (less than one every three years) kill pedestrians on pavements or pedestrian crossings, whereas motor vehicles do with depressing regularity”:

            Cycling is a minor transportation mode, relatively few cyclists and relatively little mileage, crossings are an infinitesimally small proportion of road length, especially with “modern” narrowed and “safety” island “protected” crossing if there is just one pedestrian on a crossing even a car, never mind a bus, will hit them, whereas there could be a dozen pedestrians and the cyclist could hit a gap.

            Oh, and cyclists are banned from riding on the pavement (but contrary to cycling myth, cars are not).

            As, due to all the above, small, light, slow, cuddly cyclists ‘only” k!ll two or three pedestrians a year on the “highway”, but even less on crossings and pavements, while big, hard, solid, one to forty ton k!lling machines driven by speeding h0micidal drivers, surprise, surprise, are involved in more deaths, as they do hundreds of billions of miles, and if they drive through a modern “safety” crossing it’s like shooting fish in a barrel:

            That’s nothing for cyclists to boast about.

            You might as well boast about your granny “only” k!lling half as many pedestrians per mile with her shopping trolley as motorists do!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oh, and as for “conveniently forget that motor vehicles also kill cyclists as well as pedestrians”:

            You conveniently forget that cyclists also kill cyclists as well as pedestrians!

            And how many cyclists shoot off a pavement, cause one vehicle to swerve, causing another to crash fatally, but disappear before the death occurs?

            I very much doubt that would be recorded as a death caused by a cyclist.

            And even if that never happens you are arguing that it’s ok for small light slow cuddly kids to spend their lives going round repeatedly st-bbing big hard heavy adults with big hard heavy coats on slowly with small light kn!ves:

            Because they hardly ever actually k!ll anyone?!?!?!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And finally got to look at (what’s available without paying on) your “Copenhagen Analysis” links.

            By a couple of greeny global warming ec0Mentalists!

            Who, surprise, surprise, think that the car has a massive economic cost and that cycle creates wealth.

            But as we’ve seen (well, there are none so blind, like you) here, the accident picture is fiddled. Vastly more cyclists end up in hospital because they came off haring about or collided with another bike than appear in the official road accident statistics, non of which, no doubt, is costed.

            And in the UK the motorist is charged for the NHS and police, etc, cost of accidents he’s involved in.

            I had to laugh when a keen cyclist pointed me to a cycling cyclopaedia which reported that a car and driver is responsible for five times as much pollution over its lifetime than a bicycle.

            He was too dim to realise that that meant that a car with five passengers was no more polluting than five cyclists, and an MPV with seven passengers much less polluting.

            You keep forgetting your bikes are manufactured in a dirty factory in China, with dirty raw materials, and shipped here in a dirty ship.

            And I wonder if they included the cost of the 3rectile dysfunction your hobby gives you? Not to mention the bad backs?! Or the injuries (self inflicted)?!?!

            No wonder you all ride in such a thrusting fashion:

            It’s a compensation thing!

            And I wonder, too, if they’ve allowed for the cost of all the congestion that cycles create, and the attendant pollution?!

            Perhaps you’d like to buy me a copy of the report so that I can check?!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well, spotted:

            They don’t have a right to obstruct the Highway (and that doesn’t just mean completely blocking it).

            They don’t have a right to inconvenience other road users.

            They have a duty to observe the relevant laws AND RULES (they are, while not in themselves specific crimes, indications of what you could and should be prosecuted for under laws such as Obstructing the Highway, or evidence of what you could be charged under Road Traffic Acts – the fact that plod rarely gets off their posterior and does anything about it doesn’t make it lawful!).

          • HJ777

            “They don’t have a right to inconvenience other road users.”

            They have a perfect right to inconvenience other road users provided they abide by the rules. Motorists inconvenience me all the time (whether I am driving, cycling or walking) mostly by obstructing me through their presence. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Hmmmmmmmmmm

            If you’re a “motorist” you’re one of those motoring without a license!

            Or you somehow managed to pass your test without ever learning the relevant part of the Code.

        • HJ777

          No, you clog the roads to a far greater extent with your car instead.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            What a remarkably thoughtless comment. Let’s see, were our highways constructed principally for people on bicycles, skateboards, scooters, horses and spacehoppers? Or were they built for the motor vehicles without which our economy would not exist and could not function – ?
            Do try to keep a sense of proportion.

          • HJ777

            What a remarkably stupid and ignorant comment.

            If you are using your car instead of cycling, you are clogging up the roads to a far greater extent (not to mention the production of dangerous pollutants). Most journeys are of 3 miles of less and are far more suitable for cycling and walking – only the prioritisation of, and danger presented by motor vehicles, prevents this, as has been amply illustrated in countries that take the trouble to protect other road users from them.

            And because people feel obliged to use motor vehicles because cycling and walking is dangerous, this makes the problem even worse.

            Everyone owns and pays for the roads, regardless of their mode of transport. Drivers should have no special rights.

            P.S. If you look at the economic analysis produced for Copenhagen, you will see that cycle journeys are, on average , more economically beneficial. Quite simply, motor vehicles cost more, and crete more externalities, to do the same job over moderate distances – they are economically less efficient for many journeys. Nobody is proposing stopping all motor traffic where it is the best mode of transport.

            Do try to think before you write.

          • Mr B J Mann

            What a remarkably stupid and ignorant comment.

            If you are using the bus or train instead of cycling, you are clogging up the bus lanes and rail roads to a far greater extent (not to mention the production of dangerous pollutants).

            So why aren’t cyclists and pedestrians “Reclaiming the RAIL Roads”?!?!?!!!

            Most journeys are of 3 miles of less and are far more suitable for cycling and walking.

            That’s why they are cycled or walked (or hopped on a bus or tube for a few stops).

            The average car does 12,000 pa, that’s an average of about 33 miles each and every single day.

            Are you saying that the average car does MORE than ELEVEN sub 3 mile journeys a day, every day?

            Or what is the breakdown you used to get your fantasy figure?!

            Or are you just regurgitating anti-car propaganda while demonstrating a lack of capacity for rational, or even independent thought?!

          • HJ777

            Oh dear, you really are very dim, aren’t you?

            Whilst capable of independent thought, I would not recommend it in your case – you would be much better off closely supervised by someone possessing a modicum of intelligence.

            Most journeys are, indeed, of 3 miles or less. There are plenty of studies that confirm this.

            The idea that this would mean that the average driver driving the average of £12k miles per years does more than eleven sub-3 mile journey a day is sublimely stupid.

            What it means is that the MEDIAN journey distance is less than 3 miles, not that the MEAN is 3 miles, less still that the average driver makes this up by multiple short journeys. Do you not understand how averages work?

            I realise that this might confuse you but imagine a driver making just 3 two-mile journeys and 2 hundred and twenty mile journeys per week. Such a driver would travel over 12k miles per year but the majority of his journeys would still be under 3 miles.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Thank you for clarifying.

            So you are confirming most car travel is of the hundred mile plus variety.

            A rather different impression than your original claim gave.

            Now, imagine I work from home four days a week, being an environmentally friendly planet loving kinda guy.

            And imagine once a week I make a journey to the office 120 miles away, and try to cram all my head office based work into that one day.

            And imagine that involves visiting two clients two miles away from the office and each other, necessitating just 3 two-mile journeys, which would take just 12 minutes by car, or an hour and a half on foot out of my already tight schedule.

            So you’re saying I should not try to cram so much in, go home, and come back for a second day, and two more 120 mile trips, and spend a pleasant half day sauntering to client meetings.

            Or perhaps you work for the council and they will pay for a hotel stay?!

            So, thank you again for the breakdown you used to get your fantasy figure?!

            Now all you have to address (from that post) is:

            If you are using the bus or train instead of cycling, you are clogging up the bus lanes and rail roads to a far greater extent (not to mention the production of dangerous pollutants).

            And:

            So why aren’t cyclists and pedestrians “Reclaiming the RAIL Roads”?!?!?!!!

          • HJ777

            You’re not getting any brighter, are you?

            It would be depressing were you not too dim to realise how dim you are.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I note you’ve gone from an insult plus a feeble attempt at a counter argument……

            To a feeble insult!!!!!!

          • HJ777

            No – I’ve just given up with you because you are incoherent and stupid.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, you had mentioned that when I quoted one of your arguments back at you it was incoherent and stupid!

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I just hope you’re not suggesting too seriously that bicycles might offer a significant alternative, either practically or economically, to motorised travel/transport. Our economy has evolved somewhat since the early 20thC. I’ve been riding bicycles for well over half a century, and driving cars almost as long as that, in UK and a variety of other countries – between 7000 and 8000 km this year in France alone, and 400 miles here in the past 5 days… IME cycling zealots like you are somewhat divorced from reality. As for your Copenhagen thing (whatever this is) who cares? Scandinavia is in some ways a different planet, and not just different geographically, economically and culturally.

          • HJ777

            Around towns and cities they obviously do for a decent proportion of journeys. I didn’t suggest for all – just a significant proportion.

            As most urban journeys are of less than 3 miles and in towns and cities, cycling is a far more efficient mode of transport for much of the time. This has been shown to be the case in many cities in Europe and increasingly in the USA (not just Scandinavia). More people cycling reduces road congestion – for those who need to use motor vehicles as well as for everyone else.

            The only person divorced from reality is you. But then I would hardly expect a dinosaur to hold opinions that are relevant to the present and the future.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Your dismissive arrogance is par for the course. I doubt it impinges on you much, if at all, that in general people choose their mode of transport. And most do not choose bicycles – for very sound practical reasons. But you’re a zealot so you don’t care. Some places are better than others for bikes, and this year I spent a few days in and around Cambridge, for work. Naturally, I drove there, but I was struck by the very large number of cycles. It’s flat, see. But of course most of the cyclists were the younger, fitter folk… Where I live the situation is very different, for various reasons. I doubt you’d understand.

          • carl jacobs

            Most journeys are of 3 miles of less and are far more suitable for cycling and walking- only the prioritisation of, and danger presented by motor vehicles, prevents this,

            So your argument amounts to “People are choosing to use a car when I would prefer they not use a car, and that amounts to an economic cost.” But there are no set rules regarding the trade between time and convenience. Different people will preference time and convenience in different ways according to circumstance. Should I walk or should I drive? Well, let’s see. What is the weather outside? How much will I have to carry on the way back? What time is it? What activity will I have to forgo if I choose to walk? People have the freedom to trade off those factors and make an individual decision that best fits their personal situation. The fact that they choose to use a car for a given trip is not your concern.

            you will see that cycle journeys are, on average , more economically beneficial.

            Well, sure. If you only focus on the effect of the bicycle on the road as opposed to the car, then you can say such a thing. But you aren’t considering the opportunity cost of using bicycles. What economic activity would not take place but for wide availability of automobiles? What in other words is the cost of using a bicycle instead of a car as reflected in the activities the otherwise won’t get done? You can’t just ignore that.

            Given a choice between driving, cycling, and walking, the average person will almost always choose to drive for any particular trip. Why? Because that choice minimizes the cost of the most important criteria – time. A round trip of three miles will take twenty minutes by car compared to 2.5 hours on foot. A cyclist would require close to an hour to complete the same trip. Both the pedestrian and the cyclist would be restricted in carrying capacity thus requiring more frequent trips. And I haven’t yet even factored in such important concepts as weather.

            Your real complaint is that people prefer to use cars when given the opportunity. You think they should make a different choice. But people will make that choice according to their own priorities, and you have no standing to invalidate the decisions they make.

          • HJ777

            That’s ridiculous. All the evidence (both surveys and practical experience) is that people don’t cycle for short journeys because of the danger and unpleasant environment imposed on them by motor vehicles.

            In towns and cities where safe facilities are provided, the proportion of people cycling rises rapidly to 25%+ levels.

            And the idea that a round trip of three miles by foot would take and hour on a bike and 2.5 hours on foot is hilariously wide of the mark. The average person walks at three miles per hour and a cycle trip of 3 miles would take about 15-20 minutes at a modest pace. It’s often quicker by bike than car due to the lack of parking issues.

            You think that instead of people making their own decisions, the decisions should be made for them by whoever can present the most danger to others in exercising their preferred mode of transport.

          • carl jacobs

            The average person walks at three miles per hour

            Yes. That’s the figure I used. You said a three-mile trip.

            As most urban journeys are of less than 3 miles …

            Three miles out. Three miles back. That’s two hours walking time. Plus friction plus time in the store. I did the same calculation for the bike at .. 15 mph. If you want to say you meant a 1.5 mile trip one way then divide the travel time by 2. It doesn’t change the logic. I’m an Engineer. I can do math.

            That’s ridiculous. All the evidence (both surveys and practical experience) is that people don’t cycle for short journeys because of the danger and unpleasant environment imposed on them by motor vehicles.

            Anytime someone says “All the evidence…” I know they are spreading bovine scatological output. Most adults don’t even have a bike. They don’t prioritize the purchase because they have a car. There are all kinds of factors that would go into the decision to use a bike and safety is only one such factor. I went out last night to get something for my wife because she wasn’t feeling well. I left the house at 10:40 pm. It was cold outside. The drugstore is less than five minutes travel time by car. The whole trip took me less than 20 minutes. How important do you think “cyclist safety” would have been to my decision to drive?

            You think that instead of people making their own decisions, the decisions should be made for them by whoever can present the most danger to others in exercising their preferred mode of transport.

            I’m unconcerned with what decisions you decide to make. I’m concerned with mixing traffic flows, and the inherent danger that creates. I wonder why not one cyclist has addressed the issue of mixing cyclists with pedestrians. Why is that prevented? Well, no, I don’t really have to wonder. I know the answer.

          • HJ777

            Oh dear.

            Let me remind you of what you wrote:

            “A round trip of three miles will take twenty minutes by car compared to 2.5 hours on foot.”

            A round trip of three miles means 1.5 miles in each direction. Clearly you can’t “do the math”. Some engineer.

            Most adults in the UK DO possess a bike. More do than own a car.

            You clearly don’t live either in the UK or Europe and your ridiculous views are of no relevance here.

          • carl jacobs

            A round trip of three miles means 1.5 miles in each direction. Clearly you can’t “do the math”. Some engineer.

            So I suppose it was too much to expect you to realize that I didn’t pull the distance of three miles out of thin air, but was using your own figure. But … fair enough. I wasn’t clear. Still doesn’t change the logic, does it? All you have done is prove that you are little more than the backside of a horse.

            No, I don’t live in the UK. But then my arguments aren’t culturally specific either. The interference of cyclist with driver is a rather universal phenomenon. Every time I pass a cyclist just prior to stopping at an intersection due to a red light, I have to wonder. Is he going to stick himself between the curb and my car? Cyclists do that kind of stuff all the time. It doesn’t matter what they have been taught about cyclist safety. What matters is what they can do. They flit back and forth between pedestrian and vehicle at a whim.

            But I have grown tired of your willingness to substitute invective for argument, and I have better things to do with my day then spend it bantering with someone whose idea of argument hasn’t progressed beyond that of a 16 year-old teenager.

            Have a nice day.

          • HJ777

            Yes, presumably you urgently need to sharpen your crayons.

            All you have done is to prove that you are what comes out of the backside of a horse.

          • carl jacobs

            Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear earlier, I don’t interact with people who go out of their way to insult me – especially over something as trivial as grammar construction in a weblog post. I half considered going through this thread and copying into this post every single insult you have felt free to scatter about this thread. But frankly you aren’t worth the trouble. And I generally trust the reader to see what is in any case so blindingly obvious.

            Now. Go away. I am sure there are others who are willing to put up with your juvenile behavior. I am not.

          • HJ777

            If you can’t take it you should learn not to dish it out. Otherwise you might be considered a hypocrite.

            And a childishly self-righteous one at that. It would appear that you consider yourself entirely justified in handing out gratuitous insults but then cry like a baby when you get them back.

            If you can’t handle it, you go away. I’m not going anywhere just because of your hypocrisy and stupidity.

          • Mr B J Mann

            What’s strange is that despite the fact that every time I pass a cyclist just prior to stopping at an intersection due to a red light, you have to wonder: is he going to stick himself between the curb and my car?

            Despite the fact that cyclists do that kind of stuff all the time.

            They will insist on telling you what they have been taught about cyclist safety, what matters, is that you leave a car’s width between you and them?!?!?!

            Strange how they don’t realise that if they want to stay safe THEY need to leave a cars width between them and other vehicles they want to pass!

          • Mr B J Mann

            I possess several bikes, my son’s, my daughter’s, my other son’s…….

            And just because every cyclist you know owns a bike, and maybe even every cyclist you know drives a car it doesn’t mean every driver owns a bike, never mind that every adult does.

            And neither does the fact that every adult has learned to ride a bike at some stage in their life mean that every adult is a cyclist, never mind that they own bike.

            And please don’t bother bringing up any surveys, especially done by cycling organisations.

            But it’s a well established fact that people L I E in surveys, especially on ones where they have to reveal their greeny, “liberal” or PC credentials.

            If as many people bought organic fair trade food as claimed to in surveys the shops would be selling nothing else!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Not many cars in Venice and even fewer HGVs, but I don’t see many cycles.

            Ooops, but if you look at the car parks on the outskirts they are full of cars.

            And see how many motor boats are used for actual transport, and are any people powered ones used, apart from for pleasure trips?!?!?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Everyone owns and pays for the roads, regardless of their mode of transport. Drivers should have no special rights.”
            Really?
            Through their Council Tax I suppose?
            Like the students who live in two cities?
            And pay Council Tax IN NEITHER?!
            But, then again, Council Tax doesn’t pay for the roads.
            In fact, Council Tax only covers a fraction of a Council’s budget.
            And roads are paid for out of government Capital and Maintenance grants.
            Now, where do they come from?
            Here’s a hint:
            Motorists pay around £50 BILLION in ROAD Related TAXes EACH and EVERY year ON TOP of their ORDINARY CITIZENS taxes.
            Whereas only a few £billion are spent on the roads, which carry most passenger and goods traffic, and as much on the rail roads, and on other public transport.
            Which, as well as treasury funding for capital projects enjoy around 50% subsidies on running costs.
            Now, you might well argue that it’s irrelevant how much ROAD Related TAXes motorists pay:
            It’s not hypothecated.
            Fair, enough, but if they finally succeeded in driving motorists out of their cars and onto public transport and bikes, and lost the £50 BILLION PER YEAR, would they continue maintaining the roads and subsidising fares, and cut £50 BILLION off the NHS budget?
            Or would they cut road expenditure, cut public transport subsidies, and try to get £40 BILLION a YEAR in passenger and cyclist taxes?!
            Over to you!!!

          • HJ777

            And you ignore rental on use of the asset. Would a landlord charge you just for maintenance, or would the rent be set to also gain a return on the asset value?

            You also ignore the costs of pollution, those of deaths and injuries, policing, etc..

            And everyone pays VAT and other taxes on a variety of goods and activities – taxes are not hypothecated. If money were not spent on motoring, it would be spent on other things – which would also generate tax revenue.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Firstly, you’ve ignored my main point.

            Let’s try again:

            If they drove motorists out of their vehicles would they slap an extra £50 BILLION PA on VAT?!?!?!!!!

            And I specifically mentioned capital as well as maintenance, as well as pointing out the £50 BILLION PA covers ALL public and private transport capital and current costs several times over.

            Plus public transport gets massive subsidies.

            Are you saying public transport users should have their subsidies replaced by charges on everything from bus lanes wasting half the road, causing congestion and pollution in other traffic to the coal and diesel pollution costs of buses, trains and trams?!

            As for policing, the motorist is the only section of society billed for police, ambulance and NHS costs (even if a cyclist was to blame).

            It’s just that, like Duty on petrol receipts, it’s kept hidden from them.

            They only find out if they are a law abiding motorist with an insurance problem.

            Like the farmer whose SORNed and uninsured bikes were stolen in a farm raid, and he got hit with the bill as the registered owner when one was later involved in an accident!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yup, unlike the cycle, bus or train which invariable leave miles of empty rail/road.

            In front of them.

            By the way, not a lot of people know this, but the M25 is the only part ever built of a five ring relief road system for London (it’s a bodge up of rings three and four into an oval-ish shape, for the pedants).

            Developed from pre war plans to relieve the clogged up roads of London.

            Pre FIRST World War.

            To relieve HORSE traffic congestion!

            If it wasn’t for motor transport London in general, and the M25 in particular, would be infinitely more congested than they are, and the systems first proposed for EDWARIAN London, which even then needed multiple ring, arterial, grid, and distributor multi-lane dual CARriageway roads wouldn’t have had a chance of coping with the modern levels of population and people and goods transport.

            And people are surprised the M25 gets congested and try to claim it proves building roads just somehow “generates” traffic, like medieval mud spontaneously generated insects, and so is counter-productive?!

        • Richard Baranov

          So those people during rush hour are just idling while you, all important are going to work. Jeez, what an ego and sense of self importance!

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Huh? “Those people”? Not too many of them, in most places I’ve visited – though I haven’t been to Peking. I try not to be self important, despite the enormous size of my ego.

          • Richard Baranov

            Frankly, I think you are full of it and have a bee in your bonnet because you are the aggressor on the road. Your contempt for cyclists comes across loud and clear and frankly makes me question whether you are fit to drive on the roads. That you think the width of handlebars is sufficient room for a bike tells me you haven’t a clue. A car that close causes turbulence and is in danger of injuring or killing the cyclist. So if you are one of those sort of drivers it tells me you are not only unfit to drive but have no awareness of the effects of your driving on others and that you are a moron and selfish egotist.
            By the way, between my brother and I, we have close to 100 years of driving. Neither he or I can recall a rude cyclist.

        • So right. My main experience with cyclist egotism (and yes, as a very young one I rode my bike miles to work when there was a transport strike on: with all the exhaust from all the cars, it was not great for the lungs) is in a park in a big city in Texas. You walk along the bayou on tricky, tree-rooted trails, and suddenly you hear the shout ‘RIDER!’ Might as well be ‘GREAT BATS OF H+LL!’. And what it really means is ‘INCOMING! DUCK!’ Great, and there I was trying to take my hubby and dog on a peaceful outing. No such luck. You were always expected to slow/step aside for them. They never considered doing the same for you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I wonder how they would respond to a response of “PITCHFORK” or some other such long handled countryside implement?

            Or even “BROLLY!”?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Of course, you shouldn’t actually poke them with it!
            Perhaps just their wheels?!

          • I doubt they’d hear it!

        • JOhn Mackie

          That brings back memories. I had a Viscount back then, too. First aluminium bike for me.
          Then I got a Peugeot and then I had a Cannondale for about 15 years service.

          Now I have Pinarello with those funky Onda forks and backstay.

    • Mr B J Mann

      I wonder what Mr Baranov would say to this from the TRL:

      Single-cycle non-collision accidents

      Hospital data suggest that many ‘non-collision’ single-cycle accidents (without a preceding collision with another vehicle) are not reported to or by the police. Nevertheless, 16% of cyclist KSI casualties for the period 2005–07 recorded in the STATS19 database did not involve a collision with another vehicle, which is unexpectedly high. The contributory factor most frequently attributed by the police in such accidents was ‘loss of control’ (67% of fatal single-cycle accidents and 44% of serious). Whether such events result from rider error, lack of skill or defects in the design or maintenance of infrastructure is not clear. After ‘loss of control’, ‘travelling too fast for conditions’, ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and ‘impaired by alcohol’ were judged to be the main contributory factors for the accidents. This group of accidents warrants further consideration.

      Maybe they were trying to get away from rude motorists after getting drunk to forget the abuse they’d received?!

  • Mow_the_Grass

    Litespeed Ti – Natchez – Shimano Ultegra 9spd – Mizuno carbon forks
    Finest kind.

  • Mr B J Mann

    “oil-fired traffic is perpetually stalled in a noxious smog of its own making”?!

    “Own making”?!?!?!!!!

    If you halve the number of city centre roads accessible to traffic, as many cities have done, and worse, you double the traffic on the rest.

    If you make traffic travel four times as far with restricted turn junctions and one way systems designed to frustrate drivers rather than improve traffic flow you quadruple traffic.

    If you reduce traffic to the speed of the horse and cart (with a fresh team, changed every hour), 7 – 8 mph, with traffic “calming”, reduced limits, misphased lights, pelicans that stay on red so long you could cross on a zimmer frame, do your shopping, cross back, and be half way home before they changed….. instead of creating a green wave of 30mph flow, that also quadruples traffic.

    And if, as rumoured in London, half of traffic is cruising looking for a parking space, you restrict on street parking and ban developments from providing their own parking, that doubles traffic.

    But if you add all those measures supposedly designed by experts to allegedly reduce traffic together:

    You actual have to MULTIPLY them!

    ie 2 x 4 x 4 x 2 = 64 yes SIXTY-FOUR TIMES the traffic we’d have without the planners “help”!

    Anyone doubting the figures feel free to substitute your own!!!

    • How can you EARN $98567/week.I can tell you If you are some intelligent you make many more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell a lie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!! ☻ ▼ ▼ ▼

      »»»»»»»»» Go to my Account For WEB ADDRESS where you earn DOLLARS

      23

    • Mr B J Mann

      No one dare challenge the maths then?!

  • colchar

    When did the bicycle triumph over the car? it certainly hasn’t here.

  • Mr B J Mann

    Designers and politicians are equally drawn — and with unusual passion —towards the bicycle. It is tempting to make a connection between pedal-power and democracy what with the bicycle’s historical associations with suffrage movements, women liberated into bloomers and social mobility of the real sort.

    Yup, those would be the suffragettes who gave white feathers to disenfranchised men and underage boys who managed to get sent home with shell-shock rather than being shot for failing to protect their womenfolk.

    And then saw all women “win” the vote at exactly the same time as all men did!

    By “designers” he is, of course, referring to stylists rather than engineers.

    And as for “democracy”, would this be the “democracy” enjoyed by the salt of the earth factory worker cycling t’mill at ‘bottm of ‘road over the ‘cobbles?

    Whether it be in Salford or Stalingrad?!

    These would be the same “artists” who support Zil lanes, be they in Moscow, or the London Olympics.

    So democracy equates to not having to walk t’mill, and enjoying a week on the coast courtesy of the local railway owner?!

    Nothing to do with Henry Ford then.

    But what would artists living in Bloomsbury know about that?!

  • Mr B J Mann

    After all, states with the most immaculate conception of social democracy — Holland and Denmark, for example — have specially vigorous bicycling cultures. But so too does the People’s Republic of China. When Dave wanted to appear as a man of the people, he got on his bike for a photo shoot. And so too did Corbyn, although they were dressed rather differently. With conflicting data like this, it’s tricky to posit a reliable theory

    Nope:

    Neither China, Dave, nor Corbyn believe in real democracy!

    As for Holland and Denmark I had to laugh when a keen cyclist showed me a video of cycling in Europe’s more cycling friendly cities:

    All I could see were cyclists carefully following intricate delineated cycle routes round pedestrian areas, stopping and waiting at cycle traffic lights even though there was nothing coming the other way, and most telling of all, cyclists dismounting to carry their cycles up overbridges or down subways to cross roads so as not to disrupt (motor) traffic flow.

    And even in Amsterdam I think that 65% of journeys are by car.

    That’s similar to central London I think.

    Increasing to something like 85% in Outer London at weekends!

    Most cycle (and train/tube/bus) “friendly” countries actually have greater per capita car ownership (and per acre and per person motorway mileage, and less rail).

    People really should check out the real facts before lecturing on their specialist subject!

    • HJ777

      “And even in Amsterdam I think that 65% of journeys are by car.”

      “People really should check out the real facts before lecturing on their specialist subject!”

      Yes, they certainly should, since the correct figure for journeys by car in Amsterdam is 22% (vs 32% by bike)

      http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/media-centre/city-hall/dossier-cycling/cycling-facts-and-figures

      Had you ever actually been to Amsterdam you would know this. You would also know that your assertions contrasting cyclist behaviour there vs here are nonsense. The biggest difference is that attitude of motorists towards cyclists – perhaps because almost every motorist there is also a cyclist.

      Neither is there any conflict between car ownership and greater use of bicycles. They simply use the appropriate method of transport for the journey.

      • Mr B J Mann

        Well, it looks like I might have misremembered my statistics for once.
        While you’re at it could you clarify what their “traffic movements” are?
        Is it like the lots of under 3 mile journeys that should be done by cycle as opposed to the 120 mile car journey?
        Is it half a dozen hops between half a dozen shops compared to one long commute into work?

      • Mr B J Mann

        Well, I’ve had a search through (what’s left, after numerous computer changes and upgrades) my links and couldn’t find a live relevant modal split one.

        Only this note:

        Inner London on a weekday over 40% of travel is by private rather than public transport.

        This rises to around 50% at weekends.

        In outer London this rises to nearly 70% private transport on a weekday and 75% to 85% at weekends!

        To quote Ken Livingstone’s TfL:

        “Though nearly half of Londoners (including children) never drive, three quarters regularly travel as car passengers – reflecting the current high levels of dependency on the car”.

        In Amsterdam it’s 60% private motor vehicle – 40% public transport.

        In Cologne it’s 67.5% private motor vehicle – 32.5% public transport.
        I would suspect the Amsterdam figures are for the whole of the city whereas the figure you quote is the inner city!

      • Mr B J Mann

        Ha! Just spotted my “mistake”!

        I was referring to a 65% – 35% private – public motor transport split.

        Your website says:

        32% of traffic movement in the city is by bike compared to 22% by car and 16% by public transport.

        Which is 58% – 42% private – public motor transport split.

        My probably decade old note is 60% – 40% private – public motor transport split.

        So my data, and my memory, aint that bad after all!

  • wicketkeeper

    All of you need to stay in more.

Close