“Not one single helmet…”: Motorists slam cycling “people carrier” image as “needlessly putting your family in danger”; “Why is the right at war with cyclists?” asks Guardian columnist – as GB News launches latest anti-cycling poll + more on the live blog

TimPedaller wrote:

""Of course, away from ‘super safe’ SUV-land, others longed for a world (or country) in which that kind of photo is viewed as normal."
 ... for instance, the England of fifty years ago in which most people who drove motor cars were more aware of, and more considerate of, people on bicycles.

When they weren't drunk.

OTOH our trip to the past might still show positives around cycling.  Perhaps more of those drivers cycled regularly for transport themselves - or had relatives that did?  And there were definitely fewer drivers - so there were emptier roads  Plus a greater proportion of journeys cycled - so drivers would be expecting to see cyclists.

EDIT - in fact, I think you really need to go back to the England of the 'fifties - nineteen fifties - or before, to get the full effect.

Or the comment was meant as a joke. 

Another brainwashed by the corrupt msm.

eburtthebike wrote:

“Why is the right at war with cyclists?”

Because everything they've done over the past fifty years has been proved wrong*, but they won a bye-election by lying about LTNs and cyclists, so it's all they've got.  When the entire basis for your party has been shown to be utter bolox, you've got to shout very loud and point at something else that people love to hate.  They can't point at immigrants or women, but they can lie about cyclists because they are one of the out groups it's still not illegal to attack.

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

One of the ironies at the moment is that a lot Conservatives bang on about Johnson and going back to the 2019 manifesto, whilst also wanting to abandon net zero and active travel policies, both of which were in the 2019 manifesto.

eburtthebike wrote:

“Why is the right at war with cyclists?”

Because everything they've done over the past fifty years has been proved wrong*, but they won a bye-election by lying about LTNs and cyclists, so it's all they've got.  When the entire basis for your party has been shown to be utter bolox, you've got to shout very loud and point at something else that people love to hate.  They can't point at immigrants or women, but they can lie about cyclists because they are one of the out groups it's still not illegal to attack.

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

Enterprise Allowance Scheme, but the success wasn't intended

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

Enterprise Allowance Scheme, but the success wasn't intended

I hate you.

eburtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

Enterprise Allowance Scheme, but the success wasn't intended

I hate you.

It's particularly amusing as the EAS encouraged the types that Thatcher and the right-wingers absolutely did not want to be encouraged. At least we got Britpop out of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/26/thatcher-enterprise-allowance-scheme-artists-rachel-whiteread-jarvis-cocker-britpop-ybas

eburtthebike wrote:

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

I don't want you to think I'm defending her on anything else, and I'm not sure if it counts as a policy, but she was pretty much the first world leader to acknowledge and warn people about climate change and advocate for the need for international action. She gave a speech to the UN about it in 1989.

Something the anti-science right-wingers forget as they tend to their Maggie shrines. Along with her support of the single market.

eburtthebike wrote:

they won a bye-election by lying about LTNs and cyclists,

they lied about LTNs

they won the by-election

It is not know whether lying about LTNs was the main reason for the result.

eburtthebike wrote:

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

There was an article in the Grauniad (IIRC) yesterday about how Right to Buy has led us to the current situation.  People complain about councils not building new social housing, but then a newbuild social housing estate which won awards has all been sold off under RTB within three years of opening.  Why would councils bother building any housing when they'll be forced to sell it?  Was this an intended consequence or an unintended consequence of RTB?

brooksby wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

There was an article in the Grauniad (IIRC) yesterday about how Right to Buy has led us to the current situation.  People complain about councils not building new social housing, but then a newbuild social housing estate which won awards has all been sold off under RTB within three years of opening.  Why would councils bother building any housing when they'll be forced to sell it?  Was this an intended consequence or an uniuntended consequence of RTB?

I'd go for "intended". Property owners benefit when the supply of housing dwindles and they can charge much more for rent.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

*Name a policy of Maggie's which has worked?  I'll wait.

There was an article in the Grauniad (IIRC) yesterday about how Right to Buy has led us to the current situation.  People complain about councils not building new social housing, but then a newbuild social housing estate which won awards has all been sold off under RTB within three years of opening.  Why would councils bother building any housing when they'll be forced to sell it?  Was this an intended consequence or an uniuntended consequence of RTB?

I'd go for "intended". Property owners benefit when the supply of housing dwindles and they can charge much more for rent.

Which makes it weirder how the big housing companies are always saying they'd definitely build more to help the national housing shortage, if only those pesky planning regulations / zoning didn't get in the way.

Allow building on green belt land and they'd build luxe houses there, but overall wouldn't build any more houses than they would anyway.

brooksby wrote:

Why would councils bother building any housing when they'll be forced to sell it? 

The problem isn't being forced to sell it.

Its being forced to sell it at a discount AND not getting the money to allow for replacement construction...

"Mr Halfon's resignation as skills, apprenticeships and higher education minister, was unexpected but his letter to the prime minister was warm, saying he believed there was "quiet admiration" for Mr Sunak across the country."

I am not sure which country Mr Hafon lives in because there is sure as shit not a quiet, loud or any other volume, admiration for Rishi Sunak in any of the countries of the UK. He is believed to be unfit for the job by people from across the political and social spectrum, its one of the only things most people in the UK actually agree on. 

Having said - I'd certainly be up for giving one of these a go!  If someone living near the paths would be prepared to store these I bet you could get a roster of Edinburgh cyclists happy to add doing a few miles around the paths to their routines.

Again - perhaps we're spoiled in Edinburgh as a) we have a "spine" of completely motor-traffic free routes (albeit currently threatened by conversion to tram routes) and b) groups and individuals do e.g. litter clearing and c) these are maintained more or less by the council - fallen trees are removed reasonably quickly, vegetation is pruned maybe more than once per year, they're salted in freezing weather - although not using the best method, brine...

Getting it done regularly is important. If you wait for too many leaves to collect and start to break down and turn into a soggy, muddy, sludgy mass, more simple contraptions won't work, and only the most enthusiastic of supporters could clear more than a short stretch in one go.

chrisonabike wrote:

RE: bike lane sweeper.

Had that idea myself before - as have others (e.g. Dave McGraw's home made bike snowplow).  Early days but a) looks like it wouldn't be adequate for the damp leaf-mold and mud plastered over my local shared use paths in Edinburgh* plus fairly chunky branches after wind and b) for anything much less than that a simple brush towed / pushed would probably suffice.

Going against the tide but I feel this is an example where it's sometimes "easier to solve with more / new technology" (even fairly basic things like this) which would be overall better done via a more communal effort.  Having local authorities involved is certainly important (even if that's occasional).  But the ideal would be having community groups getting involved in maintenance (e.g. like Sustrans encourage).  This happens in many places, often informally. (I've seen others also carrying kit for e.g. glass clearance - unless they were off curling?).  That can bring lots of side-benefits like feeling of stewardship of these resources, social interaction - and indeed better maintenance (even stuff that can't be fixed will get more effectively reported).

Unfortunately getting reliable maintenance tends to require more formal organisation - and setting up, running and keeping groups going requires effort.

* Former railway lines through some deep tree-lined cuttings.

As usual, the question is...how do they do this, in the Netherlands?

I haven't been for years and there are some Dutch residents who post here I think - so hopefully we'll find out!

I've mentioned winter (e.g. rock salt is really better for the drivers - and separate cycle paths can be easier to clear) already.

It's apparent that the cycle ways (and indeed footways) are seen as just as much a part of the "transport network" as the roads / railways.  So presumably regular year-round maintenance will be scheduled by the local authorities [1]?

This actually begins with design - e.g. attention to drainage (of course, the Dutch have a reputation there - so can be allowed the occasional non-standard virtuoso design [2] [3]!)  Very often Dutch cycle paths feature trees - and this is deliberate.  So of course not only is the need to maintain these factored in but they're added in a way designed to minimises the effects of roots on the build environment.

For physical maintenance / renewal / updates the little I understand suggests there are some more major cultural / legal / organisational differences (e.g. which bodies are responsible for what, to whom) which mean that it might be harder to import how they do it there to the UK.  In some cases that's more centralisation: so apparently there's a national database of underground infra and if you do some digging you're expected to notify the system!  Does the same exist in the UK?  When Edinburgh dug up the city for a tram line they clearly had little idea of what was under there and dealing with that added large sums to the cost / delays.

Ruin the aerodynamics though, and as for the weight...