The Benefits of Cycling (for all)
Discussion
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_fi...
Published ahead of today's Parliamentary debate on a national cycling strategy - not that I'm holding my breath, but this makes for compelling reading. Benefits at an individual level, for road safety, local economic prosperity, social isolation, saving the NHS £17bn over 20 years...what's not to like?
Any talk here on in of road tax, red lights, lycra, riding two abreast, scaring horses and riding on the pavement is OFFICIALLY BANNED!!
Published ahead of today's Parliamentary debate on a national cycling strategy - not that I'm holding my breath, but this makes for compelling reading. Benefits at an individual level, for road safety, local economic prosperity, social isolation, saving the NHS £17bn over 20 years...what's not to like?
Any talk here on in of road tax, red lights, lycra, riding two abreast, scaring horses and riding on the pavement is OFFICIALLY BANNED!!
uncinquesei said:
Just visited NP&E for the first time.
Brilliant. Whenever I venture there, against my better judgement (but it's a bit like peeping into the spooky house that everyone says is haunted when you were a kid - you shouldn't but somehow you can't help but), I feel like I need a shower afterwards...Parliament debate has been stunning in its stupidity. Compulsary helmets debated, now New Forest MP wants registration plates for bikes during New Forest sportives (becuase they already have numbers on dont they?!? - well researched Mr Julian Lewis....
If you gave the Govt any solution for congestion and health issues which was free, other than cycling, they would knight you on the spot...
If you gave the Govt any solution for congestion and health issues which was free, other than cycling, they would knight you on the spot...
2volvos said:
I think the whole point of it is that mass cycling benefits society as a whole in many ways, not just person doing the pedalling...
Eh? I didn't think it was that difficult. My point was, an academic paid by British Cycling is hardly going to come up with an extensive review of the danger, cost, waste, stupidity, and just plain poor taste of mass cycling, is he?grumbledoak said:
My point was, an academic paid by British Cycling is hardly going to come up with an extensive review of the danger, cost, waste, stupidity, and just plain poor taste of mass cycling, is he?
I am guessing you haven't read it cover to cover.Or perhaps even the cover.
I strongly doubt Dr Rachel is a he.
Going out on a limb but it makes me wonder whether the rest of your post was as well researched.
grumbledoak said:
Eh? I didn't think it was that difficult. My point was, an academic paid by British Cycling is hardly going to come up with an extensive review of the danger, cost, waste, stupidity, and just plain poor taste of mass cycling, is he?
Where to start, where to start..?Remember, what we are talking about here is folk cycling as a means of utility local transport. Not racing, not fitness training, not mountain biking, not wearing lycra. Using a bike to go to work, nip to the shops, kids riding to school. Everyday stuff.
Danger: There shouldn't be any danger to cycling at all really. If you accept that there is an ambient risk to pretty much everything a person does - boiling a kettle, climbing a ladder, crossing the road - all have danger attached to them. The more people who cycle, the less 'danger' there is. We have to accept that the main cause of accidents on the roads are drivers. Drivers are the common denominator. People driving cars have accidents. The more cars on the roads the more accidents there are - car/car, car/pedestrian, car/motorbike, car/cyclist. The fewer cars on the road, that would be the product of more people on bikes, would reduce the overall danger for everyone. Come on, we all know just how easy it is to do the rush hour drive during school holidays? Just that small reduction in the number of cars not being there suddenly feels like liberation, freedom, even though it's only a small fall in the proportion of cars on the road. Imagine that. Every day. Because a small number of people have decided not to drive, but to ride.
Cost: To who? I can't commute to work by bike any more but when I did a few years ago my fuel and parking costs disappeared completely. I was quids in. If you are talking about the cost of infrastructure, paid for out of general taxation, I really think that the cost of redesigning a few junctions and laying some kerbs to separate bike lanes to keep people safe isn't really all that in the general scheme of things. If only there was political will behind it though - like Pablo alluded to above cycling really is a silver bullet to so many problems that the modest cost really is a moot point.
Waste: Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Waste of what? Calories? 531 Reynolds tubing?
Stupidity: No, got me there too
Poor taste: ??
Edited by 2volvos on Thursday 16th October 23:59
2volvos said:
Where to start, where to start..?
Remember, what we are talking about here is folk cycling as a means of utility local transport. Not racing, not fitness training, not mountain biking, not wearing lycra. Using a bike to go to work, nip to the shops, kids riding to school. Everyday stuff.
Danger: There shouldn't be any danger to cycling at all really. If you accept that there is an ambient risk to pretty much everything a person does - boiling a kettle, climbing a ladder, crossing the road - all have danger attached to them. The more people who cycle, the less 'danger' there is. We have to accept that the main cause of accidents on the roads are drivers. Drivers are the common denominator. People driving cars have accidents. The more cars on the roads the more accidents there are - car/car, car/pedestrian, car/motorbike, car/cyclist. The fewer cars on the road, that would be the product of more people on bikes, would reduce the overall danger for everyone. Come on, we all know just how easy it is to do the rush hour drive during school holidays? Just that small reduction in the number of cars not being there suddenly feels like liberation, freedom, even though it's only a small fall in the proportion of cars on the road. Imagine that. Every day. Because a small number of people have decided not to drive, but to ride.
Cost: To who? I can't commute to work by bike any more but when I did a few years ago my fuel and parking costs disappeared completely. I was quids in. If you are talking about the cost of infrastructure, paid for out of general taxation, I really think that the cost of redesigning a few junctions and laying some kerbs to separate bike lanes to keep people safe isn't really all that in the general scheme of things. If only there was political will behind it though - like Pablo alluded to above cycling really is a silver bullet to so many problems that the modest cost really is a moot point.
Waste: Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Waste of what? Calories? 531 Reynolds tubing?
Stupidity: No, got me there too
Poor taste: ??
Brilliant post, well said! You've forgotten one thing - fun. How many car journeys are fun? And to back up your comments about danger - Remember, what we are talking about here is folk cycling as a means of utility local transport. Not racing, not fitness training, not mountain biking, not wearing lycra. Using a bike to go to work, nip to the shops, kids riding to school. Everyday stuff.
Danger: There shouldn't be any danger to cycling at all really. If you accept that there is an ambient risk to pretty much everything a person does - boiling a kettle, climbing a ladder, crossing the road - all have danger attached to them. The more people who cycle, the less 'danger' there is. We have to accept that the main cause of accidents on the roads are drivers. Drivers are the common denominator. People driving cars have accidents. The more cars on the roads the more accidents there are - car/car, car/pedestrian, car/motorbike, car/cyclist. The fewer cars on the road, that would be the product of more people on bikes, would reduce the overall danger for everyone. Come on, we all know just how easy it is to do the rush hour drive during school holidays? Just that small reduction in the number of cars not being there suddenly feels like liberation, freedom, even though it's only a small fall in the proportion of cars on the road. Imagine that. Every day. Because a small number of people have decided not to drive, but to ride.
Cost: To who? I can't commute to work by bike any more but when I did a few years ago my fuel and parking costs disappeared completely. I was quids in. If you are talking about the cost of infrastructure, paid for out of general taxation, I really think that the cost of redesigning a few junctions and laying some kerbs to separate bike lanes to keep people safe isn't really all that in the general scheme of things. If only there was political will behind it though - like Pablo alluded to above cycling really is a silver bullet to so many problems that the modest cost really is a moot point.
Waste: Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Waste of what? Calories? 531 Reynolds tubing?
Stupidity: No, got me there too
Poor taste: ??
Edited by 2volvos on Thursday 16th October 23:59
http://road.cc/content/news/133176-australian-stud...
I personally don't think infrastructure needs to change. Bad habits of drivers are the biggest problem, if these could be improved the benefits to all would be massive.
Thankyou! I was trying to address Grumble's choice of criticisms but you are totally right. The enjoyment of cycling is absolutely core to why I do it.
You only have to spend five minutes reading the posts in this section to see that cycling brings a huge amount of enjoyment, satisfaction, fitness and comaraderie to those who choose to do it.
You only have to spend five minutes reading the posts in this section to see that cycling brings a huge amount of enjoyment, satisfaction, fitness and comaraderie to those who choose to do it.
2volvos said:
Where to start, where to start..?
Remember, what we are talking about here is folk cycling as a means of utility local transport. Not racing, not fitness training, not mountain biking, not wearing lycra. Using a bike to go to work, nip to the shops, kids riding to school. Everyday stuff.
Danger: There shouldn't be any danger to cycling at all really. If you accept that there is an ambient risk to pretty much everything a person does - boiling a kettle, climbing a ladder, crossing the road - all have danger attached to them. The more people who cycle, the less 'danger' there is. We have to accept that the main cause of accidents on the roads are drivers. Drivers are the common denominator. People driving cars have accidents. The more cars on the roads the more accidents there are - car/car, car/pedestrian, car/motorbike, car/cyclist. The fewer cars on the road, that would be the product of more people on bikes, would reduce the overall danger for everyone. Come on, we all know just how easy it is to do the rush hour drive during school holidays? Just that small reduction in the number of cars not being there suddenly feels like liberation, freedom, even though it's only a small fall in the proportion of cars on the road. Imagine that. Every day. Because a small number of people have decided not to drive, but to ride.
Cost: To who? I can't commute to work by bike any more but when I did a few years ago my fuel and parking costs disappeared completely. I was quids in. If you are talking about the cost of infrastructure, paid for out of general taxation, I really think that the cost of redesigning a few junctions and laying some kerbs to separate bike lanes to keep people safe isn't really all that in the general scheme of things. If only there was political will behind it though - like Pablo alluded to above cycling really is a silver bullet to so many problems that the modest cost really is a moot point.
Waste: Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Waste of what? Calories? 531 Reynolds tubing?
Stupidity: No, got me there too
Poor taste: ??
Yep, I'd like to see some explanation too. Cost? It costs more to use a cheap machine fueled for free which doesn not require parking space? Taste? It's good tatse to commute in a four cylinder hatchback on finance suffering chronic depreciation?Remember, what we are talking about here is folk cycling as a means of utility local transport. Not racing, not fitness training, not mountain biking, not wearing lycra. Using a bike to go to work, nip to the shops, kids riding to school. Everyday stuff.
Danger: There shouldn't be any danger to cycling at all really. If you accept that there is an ambient risk to pretty much everything a person does - boiling a kettle, climbing a ladder, crossing the road - all have danger attached to them. The more people who cycle, the less 'danger' there is. We have to accept that the main cause of accidents on the roads are drivers. Drivers are the common denominator. People driving cars have accidents. The more cars on the roads the more accidents there are - car/car, car/pedestrian, car/motorbike, car/cyclist. The fewer cars on the road, that would be the product of more people on bikes, would reduce the overall danger for everyone. Come on, we all know just how easy it is to do the rush hour drive during school holidays? Just that small reduction in the number of cars not being there suddenly feels like liberation, freedom, even though it's only a small fall in the proportion of cars on the road. Imagine that. Every day. Because a small number of people have decided not to drive, but to ride.
Cost: To who? I can't commute to work by bike any more but when I did a few years ago my fuel and parking costs disappeared completely. I was quids in. If you are talking about the cost of infrastructure, paid for out of general taxation, I really think that the cost of redesigning a few junctions and laying some kerbs to separate bike lanes to keep people safe isn't really all that in the general scheme of things. If only there was political will behind it though - like Pablo alluded to above cycling really is a silver bullet to so many problems that the modest cost really is a moot point.
Waste: Don't really understand what you're getting at here. Waste of what? Calories? 531 Reynolds tubing?
Stupidity: No, got me there too
Poor taste: ??
Edited by 2volvos on Thursday 16th October 23:59
Stupidity? Yep, spend just a few minutes in Europe and I'll think you'd agree that the way we're dong things here is utterly, utterly stupid.
The findings of the report is common knowledge though imo.
In fairness though we can't ignore the costs.
It isn't possible to snap our fingers and suddenly have Denmark levels of cycling.
It would need a massive public education and marketing push for a start since as shown on here the vast majority of drivers have an incredibly irrational hatred of cyclists.
Furthermore the on-road infrastructure (segregated lanes, separate traffic lights, proper cycle paths) would cost a VAST amount.
Not to mention the disruption a dedicated lane would cause in most UK cities where there is only one lane available anyway!
As the OP says it is all pretty obvious stuff but there is clearly a reason why we aren't Denmark.
It isn't possible to snap our fingers and suddenly have Denmark levels of cycling.
It would need a massive public education and marketing push for a start since as shown on here the vast majority of drivers have an incredibly irrational hatred of cyclists.
Furthermore the on-road infrastructure (segregated lanes, separate traffic lights, proper cycle paths) would cost a VAST amount.
Not to mention the disruption a dedicated lane would cause in most UK cities where there is only one lane available anyway!
As the OP says it is all pretty obvious stuff but there is clearly a reason why we aren't Denmark.
mybrainhurts said:
When I take over, all bicycles will be melted down to make cars and all skinny lycra-clad bicyclist runts will be banished to a rock in the South Atlantic.
Can't say fairer than that, can I..?
Shut it gramps, you're just jealous because you can't keep up on your zimmer frame.Can't say fairer than that, can I..?
I wonder what the government really wants though? £17bn saving against the NHS sounds great, but (hypothetically) if everyone tomorrow ditched their cars for a year, and instead cycled, what would the government lose in terms of tax (from fuel as well as VED, and also i suppose the tax on new cars that wouldn't be purchased during this special year)?
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff