Former health minister Thérèse Coffey claims plan to boost cycling and walking is "anti-driver"

And not far from Kesgrave High School (the nationally-known school with a high percentage of cycling - or at least it was when I lived in the area decaces ago).  Luckily just outside Coffey's constituency, though I wonder what  effect Coffey's party-mate may have had on the area.

Dr Dan ? nothing, Main Road in Kesgrave is just as bad as anything Woodbridge chucks at you to cycle on, imo its actually worse, but people always cite the high school and think the problems must be solved.

which is probably why nothing changes and less than a few miles away the very thought of just putting a bollard and a few bits of cycle path to aid all those kids learning to cycle in Kesgrave actually to go somewhere other than the estate they live on ends up with being criticised so much.

for all Coffeys bluster, shes just reflecting the views of the people she has talked to in Woodbridge about it, you dont get 2000+ comments on these types of consultation normally, do you ?

She has a doctorate in crystallography...

I believe she was following the "Winston Churchill diet" - bubbly and cigars.  Although I'm not sure if Churchill favoured turnips?

Yes doesn't she just look at the height of health. What chance have the population got when a "unhealthy" is in charge. Get a bike, walk a bit more, lose weight and eat a far better quality of food. 

If we can encourage 30% of drivers to stop using the car that is a positive for everyone, 60% and drivers are on almost car free roads, peds and cyclists are in a safer environment. That is not anti-car. Language like that is simply to polarise and create division. Active travel can not be anti car as some people must use cars and may not be able to take advantage of active travel facilities.

Patrick9-32 wrote:

When will these people realise than in order for cycling and walking infrastructure to be truly successful it has to be anti-car because cars are anti cycling and walking, in order to promote one you have to supress the other. We have promoted cars over everything for 75 years, we need to spend some time balancing the scales. 

I was just about to post something similar, but you've hit the nail on the head there.

Tories - all about fake culture wars and never about facts.

well keep in mind the county council leading and proposing these active travel changes is Tory.

so work that one out.

Patrick9-32 wrote:

When will these people realise than in order for cycling and walking infrastructure to be truly successful it has to be anti-car because cars are anti cycling and walking, in order to promote one you have to supress the other. 

That's a very antagonistic way of looking at things. It is possible to promote several things at once. It's also possible to promote one thing that benefits several parties. You might not like cars, but that doesn't mean they are anti-you.

john_smith wrote:

That's a very antagonistic way of looking at things. It is possible to promote several things at once. It's also possible to promote one thing that benefits several parties. You might not like cars, but that doesn't mean they are anti-you.

Well ... actually driving does tend to suppress other modes (particularly when promoted and provided for to the extent our various governments and councils have over time).

I would say the purveyors of motoring have on numerous occasions been knowingly anti-people (or at least people who aren't paying for their cars / fuel).  There was the jaywalking issue, the lead in petrol issue, the "demolishing your neighbourhood / green space to make way for roads" issue, the "flogging massive, more dangerous vehicles to work around tax" issue ...

Without serious efforts to avoid motor routes dividing places (for those who would walk / wheel / cycle), making places unpleasant to be in (noise, pollution, hard impermeable surfaces and parked cars everywhere) and creating a feedback loop whereby ameneties and workplaces come to require a car to access them ... yes - the benefits of driving come at significant detriment to other things.

I'd call it "rebalancing".  We can now see that some of the bright future promised us in the early days of mass motoring didn't appear - and there are indeed limits to the "good" we can get when everyone is driving.  There are also some significant issues.

We need to "tame the car".

"Anti-car": a single square metre of paved or even passable outdoor (or visible from outdoors) surface, anywhere, is not open for anyone to drive or park their car there.

andystow wrote:

"Anti-car": a single square metre of paved or even passable outdoor (or visible from outdoors) surface, anywhere, is not open for anyone to drive or park their car there.

Yep.

There is a practical limit to how much land can be allocated to transport. And of course, once you build properties etc it is almost impossible to increase land allocated to transport (knocking down buildings to make full road (inc pavements etc) wider isn't acceptable.

Generally most space is currently allocated to transport by motor vehicle. It is therefore all but impossible to allocate space to any other mode of transport without removing space from motor vehicles in urban areas...