New scheme aims to encourage Reading drivers to ditch their cars for bikes

the little onion wrote:

It isn't about actually getting people on bikes, otherwise they would build infrastructure. It is about allowing the council to claim it is promoting cycling, but without the hassle and political effort of actually building infrastructure.

This.  Welcome to the wonderful world of "aims" and "proposals" and "overall intentions".

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

We already have infra in place, it's just not viable for many (from their POV) to use.

I see it from a similar perspective, we already have cycling infrastructure.

If anything, we need segregated infrastructure for motorised vehicles so they can't harm vulnerable road users.
Infrastructure/facilities is the ultimate incentive, all other gimmicks are a bit pointless and a waste of time/effort/money without the basics being in place.
Many town centres have been pedestrianised to exclude cars, the logical next step is to broaden that outwards from the town centre.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

We already have infra in place, it's just not viable for many (from their POV) to use.

I see it from a similar perspective, we already have cycling infrastructure.

If anything, we need segregated infrastructure for motorised vehicles so they can't harm vulnerable road users.
Infrastructure/facilities is the ultimate incentive, all other gimmicks are a bit pointless and a waste of time/effort/money without the basics being in place.
Many town centres have been pedestrianised to exclude cars, the logical next step is to broaden that outwards from the town centre.

Yes, we need infrastructure and facilities (like showers in offices), but (apart from a bit of short-term pain to install it), you can't go round pissing off the majority user group, or it backfires in attitudes towards the minority group. Stopping someone driving their car around a town centre isn't going to make them think "I know, I'll buy a bike", let alone go out and do it.

What we do need is intelligently designed infrastructure. For example, a few years ago my local council installed a shared-use path along a busy road. I've used it precisely once, out of interest, and decided I'd rather cycle on the road than have to dodge round all the runners, other cyclists and dog walkers and stop to cross every junction.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The only way to increase cycling in any real numbers and to the masses is to make motoring such a pain in the arse in towns and cities that people give up, it worked the other way around so sucessfully.

I just don't see how that could work. People won't give it up, they'll just carry on driving while complaining about what a pain it is ("my 2-mile school run takes 2 hours!"), and will kick out any politician that doesn't pledge to provide unlimited space for driving.

They already tend to alternate between complaining about the lack of free parking and then complaining about the car parking they just asked for getting in the way of their driving. They demand parking periods be extended, then complain they can't find a free space because of all the other motorists staying longer in the spaces.

Addiction is a powerful thing.

You have to improve alternative methods of travel simultaneously with very slowly ceasing to pander to drivers. Carrot and stick have to travel in lock-step.

crazy-legs wrote:

Does anyone actually do this sort of thing? As a leisure/commuter type rider, I get on a bike, I want to go to work/to the shops. Simple.

Not log the bloody thing on yet another app, not enter a competition, not earn points for shops I'll never go in. I just want to ride somewhere, in normal clothes, not get killed while doing it and have somewhere safe to lock my bike up once I get there.

But isn't that just like loyalty card schemes: by getting people to log their journeys, the council doesn't need to bother with "proper" surveys, they can just mine the information voluntarily supplied (what? you though loyalty card schemes were for the customer's benefit?? )