You're viewing a single thread.
As someone forced to drive for their commute, who has frequently been made late by cyclists forcing emergency stopz, and who hates the way things are currently going on the roads, this isn't going to win my vote.
The issue is that I'm forced to drive due to public transport being too expensive, unreliable, and, let me be frank, unsafe in some areas if you're transporting a laptop after dark. Ever tried to move a box of teaching supplies around on a bike, ye god's never again!
I don't want freed up bus lanes, I want more buses with a guard on then after dark. The roadworks fines, I think everyone wants that sorted out because it hits buses really hard. As for parking - definitely - better parking for bikes outside local shops, and safe storage for people travelling on public transport with luggage or heavy loads.
Less popular but definitely needed - insurance for bike users and mandatory licenses (sorry but some folks out there are accidents waiting to happen on a bike).
Insurance and licencing for cyclists is a really terrible idea. Everywhere that has tried mandatory insurance has given up on it because it just isn't worth the cost. If you want to do licenses how to you administer the tests? What age do you have to be to take it? And therefore how many children are you banning from cycling? The issues disappear once you have decent infrastructure for cyclists, which is a much better solution for both sides.
So in Germany for example, cyclists over the age of 13 (I believe) are required by law to use the road. And using the road, they should know the rules of the road.
In most places, some form of cycling classes is an integral part of the curriculum, with an actual exam in fourth grade. Though it's all voluntary, no child is legally required to participate.
So the license kids get from that is not an official document and more symbolic than anything, but I think it's quite nice for them to have actual classes and an exam they can take for it.
Education is great, but adding more barriers to entry isn't. It's the cars that cause the danger and we should be doing as much as possible to get people out of them.
Oh yeah, I just wanted to give some thoughts on it. That system as it is in Germany isn't really a barrier, it's just an optional thing kids can do, and I for one think that's good.
But then again, I'd rather have bike lanes that are completely separate to reduce possible danger, instead of telling cyclists to share the road with some of those lunatics I'm encountering daily
Cyclist insurance is primarily so expensive (here) because cyclists here are fucking morons with no affinity for personal safety and responsibility.
I understand their plight as a motorcyclist (as well as other vulnerable travel methods) However, in my experience acting like shit and expecting everyone else to ensure YOUR safety is not a very appropriate way to stay safe.
I actively behave on the roads as if being targeted by a bit squad. I have had one accident in my entire driving life that could be considered my fault. Yet, when speaking with cyclists etc. All they have to talk about is their latest near fatality that most certainly wasn't their fault! No sir they had absolutely no hand in it!
Infrastructure is the answer, not insurance.
I agree, good luck getting it past even the most progressive government in my country. Nobody wants to pay their fair share of tax (and votes accordingly) and yet all expect the investment in infrastructure that comes with it.
Shocking, to say the least.
When I bike here (Somewhere in Sweden) I barely ever have to interact with any cars because the car roads and bike lanes are entirely separate.
In the middle of the city you could make a case about lanes with pedestrians and bike lanes that often are only separated by a painted line.
The crossings have separate buttons for pedestrians and bikes. Traffic is very rarely ambiguous, at least in urban areas. It's easy to bike "the right way".
There are rules for biking, and some assholes break them, but that goes for everything.
Basically, I agree with the other commenter. Infrastructure is the answer.
I appreciate your comment and sentiment, could you come over and inform my country on how to build a city? As it stands, it's more convenient, planned for, and infrastructure installed for cars. The only thing keeping me from using one of my smaller transportation methods to commute, remains safety. Safety of myself, but also safety of my ride.
I certainly don't have enough good ideas to remedy this, but I sure hope someone else does.
I understand, while I live in Sweden, I didn't grow up here. I wish I could convince people back in my home country that reducing cars is a worthwhile goal, and certainly better people than me have tried. I'm not arguing for you to simply bike and take the risks, I didn't and I wouldn't.
Reducing car reliance would be a big project even if everyone agreed. I don't take it for granted here. Even in Sweden we're also facing risks of reduced public transportation and favoring cars, and that worries me. It's like finding a little piece of a well working system and watching it become underappreciated and potentially destroyed.
I both drive and cycle for commuting, and having experience with both it's hard to imagine what practical use mandatory insurance would be for cyclists, given that only third-party insurance is mandatory for drivers, and it's largely to cover the huge amount of physical damage someone can create with a 2-tonne block of metal propelled by an engine, something that really isn't comparable to ~10kg powered only by one person's legs.
and yeah sure hypothetically a cyclist could make a mistake that indirectly causes a car to cause an accident but this relatively very rare compared to the hundreds of accidents directly caused by drivers every day, and even rarer that the accident would be solely the fault of one party (ie. if a cyclist in front of a driver did a bad maneuver and the driver had to do an emergency stop, the driver was probably far too close to the cyclist)
at the end of the day, calls for cyclists to have insurance or licence plates usually come from people who are less invested in whether or not these are practical solutions, and more from car drivers who irrationally just want cyclists to suffer from the same inconveniences they have to deal with
As someone whose aunt was hospitalised because a young (early 20s) cyclist hit her on the pavement and sped off, I disagree.
Never caught, she ended up with a fractured hip. While it's easy to believe "all cyclists are good people like me", the reality is that every group of transit users has its problem members.
I do agree, cars can cause a lot more damage (and injuries are almost always MUCH more serious), which is why you'd set a lower premium rate for cyclists. They're covered, so you are covered.
If I am ever in a position to cycle in to work, I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if someone hits me and damages my bike, I won't be relying on their goodwill or just footing the bill.
Sure, that's why I qualified that harmful accidents do happen, though relatively rarely compared to car accidents, and relatively rarely anywhere near as harmful as a similar incident if it was caused by a car.
Similar anecdotal incident - I know someone who was hospitalised and got multiple fractures while riding his bike on a cycle path because someone was walking their dog without a lead and the dog ran in front of his bike. These things can and do happen, they're not unusual - but it's also a weak argument for, say, mandating that all dog owners get liability insurance for their pets.
Apples and oranges friend.
You're not campaigning to increase the number of dogs on the road, you are aiming to increase the number of cyclists.
At the moment, the main worry is car/cycle interactions and car/person; however let us say all cars vanish and everyone who drove now cycles. You're now going to have a LOT more cycle/cycle and cycle/person interactions. Indeed, without the requirements of formal road training (I.e. a license) you're going to see injuries from cycle incidents in every city daily. It's a matter of probability, more so an increasing one.
Then again, "dog causes 50 person pile up" might well mandate stronger laws for dog owners, with cyclists pushing for it. So perhaps it isn't so much apples Vs oranges and more failing to appreciate scale - that the issue isn't the apples and oranges, but the sheer number of them!
You're really hitting the nail on the head with this analogy. If you replaced all the cars with cyclists then yes you'd increase the number of cycle accidents, but no one of those cyclists would be capable of causing anywhere even remotely near the level of carnage one car driver can cause. In fact, the amount of damage a single cyclist can cause would decrease with fewer cars on the road, given that at present the worst damage a cyclist can cause is by indirectly causing a car driver to crash.
Yes and no.
We'd see more minor injuries (remember, all commuters are tired cyclists, so they're more likely to have minor bumps), but many less majore ones (at least among young cyclists, older ones in collisions I do not know enough about to comment reliably).
Let's not forget, pedestrians exist as well, and are just as unobservant as cyclists (pedestrians usually have right of way, though no cyclist I know respects that!).
these are some absolutely wild generalisations and honestly daft assumptions but I doubt there's much to be gained arguing this point any more
Holy shit I don't want to live where you're living. It sounds horrible.
South of England, 10/10 would not recommend.