"Nobody should be allowed near a driving licence until they've undertaken a comprehensive cycling course"; Lance Armstrong vs Jake Paul; Lapierre bikes back in WorldTour; Bizarre Tour de France betting tale; Festive 500 in one ride + more on the live blog

I think this ALL makes sense - only we should also start as we mean to continue!

(Note - this was build in the 1950s!  Children go a few times a year from primary age and it's also used for kids with visual impairments etc.)

Of course in the UK, just like the driving test itself, if we only do this "try other modes" once it's not going to do much.  Remember - not speeding is in the test.  And indeed most drivers walk and drive throughout their lives but that doesn't stop some drivers driving thoughtlessly and / or dangerously around pedestrians...

chrisonabike wrote:

I think this ALL makes sense - only we should also start as we mean to continue!

(Note - this was build in the 1950s!  Children go a few times a year from primary age and it's also used for kids with visual impairments etc.)

Of course in the UK, just like the driving test itself, if we only do this "try other modes" once it's not going to do much.  Remember - not speeding is in the test.  And indeed most drivers walk and drive throughout their lives but that doesn't stop some drivers driving thoughtlessly and / or dangerously around pedestrians...

That little car is great - just what's needed for most single occupant journeys (maybe not so much in the rain).

I suspect it wouldn't even have to pay "road tax" either.

Also might encourage a safer approach to driving, what with the absence of roll bars.

There are adult versions available (with rain-proofing if desired: https://en.velomobiel.nl/quatrevelo/

The parking (for free on public roads) and the people are one.

The passing (close *) and the people are one.

While your characterisation is accurate for some, I think it's more "common sense?!"  Is it just that when people feel stressed / worried they are much less likely to embrace change?

There is a set of things people are keenly concerned about right now (getting a parking space near destination, not being unexpectedly delayed while trying to get about, not having to spend extra time or money travelling).  The vision of the future presented by advocates for change probably looks impossible (if cycling "worked" and people wanted to cycle, surely they would already?)  Or at least they can't see how it would be a benefit for them.  Because right now in the UK many people's transport problems seem to be driving problems because that's how people travel!

Why would people want to accept the effort of change when that doesn't positively affect their direct concerns - or even (initially) negatively affects them.  How will this make things better?  Even if it does eventually, it looks like things would get worse first.  How long for and why would it then improve?

It's not even limited to concerns from drivers - you can read exactly the same patterns of concern and opposition from some (often US-based) vehicular cycling advocates **!

* Mostly not deliberately, just "giving cyclists as much space as you would a car" e.g. not hitting them.

** e.g. objecting to the idea of cycle infra because in their experience it's usually rubbish - fragmented, "slow" and inconvenient - and might be used as an excuse to ban riding on the road (which likely seems a very real possibility in the US).

Don't be daft.

Don't be tempted to feed the Nigel.

You know, I feel the same way about mobility scooters... And they're involved in a lot more collisions with pedestrians than are bicycles

Chris Boardman famously pointed out that cows or lightning strikes killed more people than collisions between pedestrians and cyclists. Over here in France, there's a more surprising statistic that dogs kill and injure more pedestrians than collisions between pedestrians and cyclists. For the record, one pedestrian was killed in a collision with a cyclist in 2022, zero in 2023. So let's introduce compulsory training and testing for dog owners, liability insurance and visible identification numbers for their pets and make the owners prove they have access to a private dog-walking space before they are are allowed to keep a dog

Drivers like you tsk tsk

How about having enough brain power to qualify for social media posting?

For me, it's the traffic updates on the radio. Crash or incident is far more informative and neutral.

Yes. It would also help drivers understand why cyclists can't ride at the very edge of the road (drain covers, debris etc), why they might move outwards (to avoid potholes etc), not to be surprised when they move outwards in advance of passing parked cars and that a close pass distance at 30 mph is very different from one at 10 mph.

Yeah ... but remember: e.g. not speeding is (presumably still) taught to learners, then having passed the test a very high percentage leave that behaviour behind.

I believe only incremental benefits are available by doing this.  Real change requires a change in how society views things, and that needs people to have a) skin in the game and b) constant reinforcement.  That is: they and/or their loved ones regularly cycle, the boss cycles, the police cycle - even the planners and the politicians cycle.  So it's both seen as unremarkable AND drivers get constant reminders by seeing cyclists cycling everywhere.

I think there may even be an additional obstacle - human impatience and the psychological "cheater detection" triggers.  These are obvious in the UK where cyclists are "in the way" and "slowing me down", and also "undertaking" (filtering) and this triggers aggro and complaints about "road tax".  The latter less to do with any logic or the actual money but more a feeling of "not fair".

Those obstacles apply wherever drivers could (per regulations) go much faster than cyclists.  (The Dutch example shows that drivers can accept sharing space where there are speed limits much closer to cycling speeds.  And of course where they accept those because they understand why e.g. residential areas where there might be children playing, people walking in / crossing the road etc.)

Where drivers could go much faster it may be that we have to have completely separate space - not just for enhancing cyclists' perceived (and actual) safety but to work around the psychology of those driving!

3) gaining experience using the roads at minimal risk to third parties. It's an excellent opportunity to practice hazard perception in a real world environment.

DoomeFrog wrote:

Hot Fuzz has been pushing this since 2007

Quote:

[Sergeant Angel has told Danny Butterman that Official Vocabulary no longer refers to car crashes as accidents: They are now called collisions]
Danny Butterman: Hey, why can't we say "accident," again?
Nicholas Angel: Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.

It's for the Greater Good

The Greater Good.

Danbury wrote:

"Lives lost due to lack of rural cycle paths, MP says"

Lib Dem Freddie van Mierlo - a promising new prospect!

I doubt much of this will reach the countryside in my lifetime.  The "obvious" places with "quick wins" e.g. urban areas running short of space / clogged by motor traffic are still struggling to get stuff built even on a "take a decade" timescale.

It definitely could be useful - given that in many places there are towns and villages which are an eminently walkable / cycleable distance apart but the current options are a NSL road or at best a tiny, crumbling and overgrown "footway".

The way to do it has been shown by the Dutch as usual - "tame the car" within built up areas (lower speed limits, discourage through-traffic) and build good cycle paths in the countryside (e.g. see here).  Which are of course also perfectly fine and legal for pedestrians to use, and in practice "conflict" isn't an issue because a) they build to sensible width * and b) this treatment is used where there aren't likely to be many cyclists and even fewer pedestrians.

If the Dutch are anything to go by - and with the addition of eBikes - there is also a small but real demand for actual "cycling superhighways" (long distance routes which avoid cyclists having to stop).  Most people will  still take public transport or drive these distances, BUT more provision for cycling in the countryside would at least allow people to reach public transport hubs.

* Not like the UK's "here's a 1 to 2m wide footway - stick a cycle sign on it, hey presto it's a bi-directional cycle path AND a footway!"

Most of the NSL roads around here don't have any pedestrian or cycling provision.

Whilst I realise I am in a very small minoritiy in that I cycle 25 miles each way to work (when I can drag my idle overweight @r$e out of bed in time), but if the A16 from Spalding to Peterborough had a cycle path it would probably knock 10 minutes off my ride, and I am sure others would use it for shorter portions of the route too.

I know it is never going to happen, the road won't be upgraded in my lifetime, and if it is will be to turn it into dual carriageway and get rid of roundabouts.

Lincolnshire AND South Holland - good luck!

I've never cycled on the A16 and pretty sure I never would!  I was actually thinking about South Holland in that comment (I've some passing knowledge of the area), for example bits of the A15 have a footway, but then it does the UK thing of suddenly crossing the busy road, then kind of petering out.  And there's nothing at all in places.

But yes - I think Lincs generally will be the last place if the revolution comes.  LOTS of traffic and a terrible combination of indifferent maintenance (presumably because rural hence lots of road), agricultural / heavy freight lorries, some loooong straight roads encouraging drivers to "get up to speed" while you're struggling in the wind, but also narrow / winding stuff with poor sight lines.  Oh, and deep water-filled ditches next to the roads for you to meet your end in when the draft from a large lorry wafts you off.

As is often the case this also means it can be lovely, because rural, some roads extremely quiet, the west (east of A15) is actually rolling and not flat etc.