Conservative government “pursued poisonous culture wars” between cyclists and drivers, says new transport secretary – as Labour vows to “take back streets” for all road users

Infrastructure is essential. Paint is not infrastructure. 

I'm guessing the previous idea of banning cars completely didn't work out?  But you still seem to be hoping ("...it so easily could be made redundant.")  I don't think this one will fare any better (in isolation - more effective road policing and holding drivers to *some* standards are parts of overall change).

"Everybody admits that the problem is the behaviour and consequent murder/maiming of others by aggresive and inept drivists."

Well - that is a problem; certainly "lack of safety" is a commonly-cited reason for people not cycling.  However it's maybe not "the" problem (in fact the roads are actually statistically very safe in the UK compared to history / the rest of the world).  I suspect even if we could convince non-cyclists that nobody ever dies they still wouldn't cycle - it just doesn't feel pleasant or convenient to most.  And of course there are other reasons (already have a car, have built my life round it, driving gives me status etc.)

There are loads of things which are "obvious" and appear to be "open goals" but which just ... continue not happening.  Politics, yes - but that's basically the question - how to create the path from here to there?  Some otherwise "clearly true" bright ideas are simply not going to get over the first barrier ("why should I do something which seems to negatively affect me?").

If you didn't already I recommend the recent talk by Chris Boardman (mattw just posted this) which spends a lot of time on exactly this point - overcoming the barriers to politicians and bureacrats doing the right thing, and how to put this effectively to ordinary people.

Also - one of the "pull" factors of cycle infra is in fact "the stuff we then don't need to do because no motor vehicles" e.g. not having to stop at so many traffic lights (per junction, on a route).

chrisonabike wrote:

"Everybody admits that the problem is the behaviour and consequent murder/maiming of others by aggresive and inept drivists."

Well - that is a problem; certainly "lack of safety" is a commonly-cited reason for people not cycling.  However it's maybe not "the" problem (in fact the roads are actually statistically very safe in the UK compared to history / the rest of the world).  I suspect even if we could convince non-cyclists that nobody ever dies they still wouldn't cycle - it just doesn't feel pleasant or convenient to most.  And of course there are other reasons (already have a car, have built my life round it, driving gives me status etc.)

A desire to see more active travel is understandable but perhaps rather peripheral to the main issue, which is the death of circa 1800 people a year on the roads and the serious maiming of another 30,000 per year. (The problem exists over the rest of the humansphere, as over one million are killed annually by motorised road transport, and a similar large pro-rate number maimed).

Although this is a cycling forum it doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum where all that matters is getting people to cycle and buy the associated products whilst getting healthier. Even so, those ambitions would surely be furthered by dealing with the major problem of carmageddon and the associated motornormativity.

The fundamental issue is the nature of the car and similar - overpowered, far too fast, far too heavy and far too easy to obtain and drive in any old fashion one likes. But it would be an easy begining, relatively speaking, to deal with a core part of this fundamantal problem, which is the freedumb for carloons to do all that damage to others.

The other highly damaging aspects of motornormativitiy could also be addressd but as a lesser issue and one that'll take a lot more time & effort to arrange - a root & branch revision of the laws governing the power, speed, weight and access of and to cars.

Cycling infrastructure and all the issues of bad design and wasted costs is a distraction - a rag-bandage on the gaping wound of carmageddon.  It'll fix nothing of much consequence. Cyclists will still get killed on "their" infrastructure, just as peds have been killed on "theirs" for decades.

motonormativity is the cause of many of these deaths, people who shouldn't be driving are encouraged to by a lack of alternatives and a society happy to turn a blind eye until something goes wrong.
Law enforcement is just shutting the barn door once the horse has bolted, you can try and whip drivers into saints all you want but it'll never be as effective as reducing the number of drivers and increasing the physical separation between them and other road users.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

motonormativity is the cause of many of these deaths, people who shouldn't be driving are encouraged to by a lack of alternatives and a society happy to turn a blind eye until something goes wrong. Law enforcement is just shutting the barn door once the horse has bolted, you can try and whip drivers into saints all you want but it'll never be as effective as reducing the number of drivers and increasing the physical separation between them and other road users.

The best way to reduce the number of drivers is by removing the worst of them.

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but a) nature continually produces new fools and b) I suspect this is a "law of diminishing returns" - there are a (relatively) small number of drivers who cause a lot of mayhem but there are a vast number of "careful, competent " drivers but with a non-zero chance of doing something fatally stupid (because humans) and that may sum to the bulk of the number?

Ergo while policing is a part of it first try to reduce or at least better manage the interaction of humans in cars with those outside them - ideally also making those non-car journeys more attractive than driving (virtuous circle - getting less driving, so less problems, and more support / demand for further reducing the space allocated for driving etc.)

Of course "UK- style road safety" did the first part by "removing the vulnerable road users" entirely if possible but if not diverting them and giving the direct routes to motor traffic. The exact opposite is the better way.

chrisonabike wrote:

It certainly wouldn't hurt, but a) nature continually produces new fools and b) I suspect this is a "law of diminishing returns" - there are a (relatively) small number of drivers who cause a lot of mayhem but there are a vast number of "careful, competent " drivers but with a non-zero chance of doing something fatally stupid (because humans) and that may sum to the bulk of the number? Ergo while policing is a part of it first try to reduce or at least better manage the interaction of humans in cars with those outside them - ideally also making those non-car journeys more attractive than driving (virtuous circle - getting less driving, so less problems, and more support / demand for further reducing the space allocated for driving etc.) Of course "UK- style road safety" did the first part by "removing the vulnerable road users" entirely if possible but if not diverting them and giving the direct routes to motor traffic. The exact opposite is the better way.

I agree, though I think that removing the worst drivers may actually result in a better driving culture and thus improve things overall. e.g. if drivers think that there's a very good chance that they'll get caught using a mobile phone sooner or later, then they'll be less likely to do so

But apparently the mainstream in the UK has been basically happy with the death toll for years - we actually had one of the safest road systems, so much that it never impacts enough people. Heck even the US has folks who are broadly happy with their much worse death toll.

Great if enough people cared but I'm not sure this has been a major selling point for change anywhere since the 70s and NL's "stop de kindermoord" campaign (when they definitely did have shocking death toll).

As Chris Boardman points out people care about themselves and issues immediately affecting them. If you want support for "taking away" eg. driving convenience (lower speeds, less road space, making some routes one way) you have to offer some reasonably immediate benefit. Putting that in terms of "safe independent mobility for children" is probably the best selling point. I don't think saying "we're nicking more drivers" convinces people.

I just disagree with your last point - indeed I think it's a "perfect the enemy of better" point. In fact what the Dutch situation shows is you can have a major impact on safety (while still having mass motoring) - so much so that even with the greatest percentage of trips cycled - by far - in the "development world" - by fit, unfit, young, old, disabled people etc. - the rate of KSIs in crashes is still globally very good. (If you sent a similar number of children and pensioners out cycling on UK roads I don't think it would be pretty... but it doesn't matter because they just don't! )

chrisonabike wrote:

But apparently the mainstream in the UK has been basically happy with the death toll for years ....... As Chris Boardman points out people care about themselves and issues immediately affecting them....... I don't think saying "we're nicking more drivers" convinces people. 

The death & maiming toll has not been publicised to the degree it should be. I doubt that many would be happy with it if they knew about not just the numbers but the details. Motornormativity (news)papers over the awful & gory details - so perhaps the real issue centres on the conspiracy of various agents, particularly the gutter press, to portray all this death and maiming as normal-so-acceptable and "no ones fault - they're accidents".

People who are involved - victims, families, friends and even perpetrators - with the vast numbers of deaths & maimings will certainly be caring about themselves, as would others who are enabled to see and imagine themselves in such circumstances.

chrisonabike wrote:

In fact what the Dutch situation shows is you can have a major impact on safety (while still having mass motoring) -

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Cugel wrote:

The death & maiming toll has not been publicised to the degree it should be. I doubt that many would be happy with it if they knew about not just the numbers but the details. Motornormativity (news)papers over the awful & gory details - so perhaps the real issue centres on the conspiracy of various agents, particularly the gutter press, to portray all this death and maiming as normal-so-acceptable and "no ones fault - they're accidents".

I agree - it's not publicised as it could be. BUT ... a) although there definitely *have* been conspiracies (eg. see the original PR triumph in victim-blaming - the US invention of "jaywalking") now I'd say it's less conspiracy more natural tendency of newspapers to publish "news" - *car crashes* just doesn't interest people apparently. b) ... and groups have been trying for time eg. Roadpeace, the Road Danger Reduction Forum etc.

Again - it's all very well to identify cars as the problem (even some politicians and councillors know that) - how do you get all those "careful drivers" to drive less, sometimes drive more slowly and give up "their" parking space?

EDIT split response so less lengthy...

Cugel wrote:

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Nope - or at least I hope not. The "solution" is not "just" cycle infra (though that's necessary it isn't sufficient).

In fact the bigger part is the Dutch "Sustainable Safety" approach. That actually isn't "just bikes" or even just infra. It has delivered safety improvements for pedestrians and in fact drivers. Examples that do exactly what you're asking about are a) a ban on motorists overtaking into a lane of oncoming traffic (which can be physically prevented eg. like a motorway there's a barrier so you can't be tempted) b) pedestrians are even further from motor traffic because there is a cycle path between them and the road. (There are many more...)

Apparently NL is rated one of the safest places in the world for pedestrians - but maybe that's a coincidence? Or something to do with the windmills...?

There's also the effort to give people choices and make those attractive relative to driving eg. public transport improvements.

Getting people out of their cars and stopping them polluting, making noise, taking up space as well as killing people is in fact hard and needs lots of levers pulled. (But without pieces like cycle infra this gets nowhere).

Of course like everyone you and I work on "feeling" but you can of course go and experience NL, or other places. And look at the numbers.

Again the "Dutch way" has been proven to work - and deliver improvements in a step-by-step way so most places can indeed start from where they are now. In several different countries.

Still waiting on any large place just making driving disappear, or legislating peace on the streets...

Cugel wrote:

...

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Separated infrastructure is an imporant step in getting people to travel via non-car means and thus it enables more questioning of motornormativity. This is one reason why I am a fan of e-scooter trials (despite all the problems with them) as it re-frames the narrative about how people get from A to B.

Indeed. Unfortunately like LTNs what was a simple term for a useful tool seems to have been seized upon by people and mischaracterised as the entirety of a plan for change. So "it can't work because it can't go everywhere". Either that or people use "perfect the enemy of better" arguments "people are still killed by motor traffic in NL therefore their changes were useless".

While there are apparent "solutions" which are false dawns in isolation * some things appear *necessary*. Without making "more cycling" a goal at the start I suspect something like it will emerge when people attempt to show how we can in practice get people out of cars / enable cheap and efficient *private* transport (which people seem to want).

There are some other ideas but I don't believe they exist large scale in reality (or their effects are minor). We need to guess what the "side effects" of these might be ... (Obviously there's a weird South African who's very keen to say the answer is autonomous taxis, seen some support here also...)

* Some ideas would limit improvements to a very low level ("shared space" / "shared use paths" without any further changes) or quickly hit diminishing returns / don't address some element of the problem (just focusing on "police it better" because a) we would need a LOT of police b) humans just go wrong from time to time c) doesn't address issues like people just don't want to cycle in fast or heavy traffic, and they'll still be driving.

chrisonabike wrote:

Indeed. Unfortunately like LTNs what was a simple term for a useful tool seems to have been seized upon by people and mischaracterised as the entirety of a plan for change. So "it can't work because it can't go everywhere". Either that or people use "perfect the enemy of better" arguments "people are still killed by motor traffic in NL therefore their changes were useless". While there are apparent "solutions" which are false dawns in isolation * some things appear *necessary*. Without making "more cycling" a goal at the start I suspect something like it will emerge when people attempt to show how we can in practice get people out of cars / enable cheap and efficient *private* transport (which people seem to want). There are some other ideas but I don't believe they exist large scale in reality (or their effects are minor). We need to guess what the "side effects" of these might be ... (Obviously there's a weird South African who's very keen to say the answer is autonomous taxis, seen some support here also...) * Some ideas would limit improvements to a very low level ("shared space" / "shared use paths" without any further changes) or quickly hit diminishing returns / don't address some element of the problem (just focusing on "police it better" because a) we would need a LOT of police b) humans just go wrong from time to time c) doesn't address issues like people just don't want to cycle in fast or heavy traffic, and they'll still be driving.

The problem is that a lot of people who are making a lot of noise about LTNs etc. are the people who realise that the dream of the private motor car is no longer practical and are desperately trying to stop any progress.

I definitely wouldn't trust the word of that South African bloke who appears to be Trump's dancing monkey. He created and pushed the whole "tunnel" company purely to sabotage cities from improving public transport - he knew it wasn't going to work, but just wanted to stop public transport from working well too.

In short, when people stop listening to the tripe that is shared on FaceBook and the like, they'll realise the actual state of things when they hop on a bike/scooter and just happily breeze past all the drivers stuck in traffic.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cugel wrote:

...

You keep ignoring the motornormativity effects on all of those besides cyclists. The notion that seprate infrastructure will somehow solve the bigger problem of carmageddon ignores the damage they do to themselves and each other, along with the damage to cyclists 99% of whom probably don't live and cycle anywhere near such seprate cycling infrastructure.

Separated infrastructure is an imporant step in getting people to travel via non-car means and thus it enables more questioning of motornormativity. This is one reason why I am a fan of e-scooter trials (despite all the problems with them) as it re-frames the narrative about how people get from A to B.

It may be that in densely-populated spots, such as cities and large towns, proper cycling infrastructure (not white line murder strips) could encourage more folk to cycle.  London is the obvious example - although I'm not really aware of any other city or large town where so many cycle about to work & pleasure as a result of cycling infrastructure. (I am aware of various bits of semi-deserted cycling infrastructure, though, here and there).

London has managed to install some successful cycling infrastructure largely because politicians regard London as the centre of the Blighty universe and because there's a lot of money swilling about in London that sometimes gets spent on something other than white elephants and investement properties for klepto-oligarchs living & operating in totalitarian states. Moreover, you'd be mad to sit in a car-jam for hours a day just to get 4 miles to work and back.

However ....

*  How will such good quality cycling infrastructure be afforded and established in the hundreds of other densely populated areas, many of which have councils that have gone bankrupt?

*  How will cycling infrastucture be established alongside the millions of miles of non-urban roads, on which the accident rates for cyclists (and probably peds) is greater than in towns and cities?

* Even if such cycling infrastructure was afforded and built (no chance, though, is there) in such places, how many Blighters would cease with the car in favour of their new bicycles?

* How will Blighterland deal with the continuing carmageddon murder & maiming rates that will drop perhaps one or two percent as cyclists are made slightly safer here and there?

********

I'll keep repeating it, despite me face turning blue: the core problems are motornormativity and the freedumb of the dangerous and incompetant to go on murdering & maiming with their cars (and not just murdring and maiming cyclists).

The solution is to extract the incompetant and dangerous from their cars, via policing them and preventing them from having access to motorised vehicles. Such efforts will also slowly reduce and perhaps even eliminate motornormativity, not unlike with sucking on a fag and blowing it in everyone elses' faces was made no-longer-normal by use of the law.

The problem is the nature of motorised transport and its free access to all, even proven idiots. The roads themselves are not a problem (apart from the motorised vehicle-made potholes) and make a very fine cycling infrastructure, even when cars driven by considerate and competant drivers use them at the same time.

I know this from spending 64 years riding a bike on such roads.

Cugel wrote:

It may be that in densely-populated spots, such as cities and large towns, proper cycling infrastructure (not white line murder strips) could encourage more folk to cycle.  London is the obvious example - although I'm not really aware of any other city or large town where so many cycle about to work & pleasure as a result of cycling infrastructure. (I am aware of various bits of semi-deserted cycling infrastructure, though, here and there).

Well "cycling infra" isn't just "a separated cycle path" (it's certainly not paint and signs...)

As people keep saying - a part-truth - in some senses (or rather places) "cycle infra" isn't needed!  But that needs careful qualification.

The "separated cycle path" parts are simply what is needed where nothing else will do.  Why is it needed and when?  Because most people won't cycle / let their children cycle independently on roads and streets due to lots of drivers, or big vehicles like buses and trucks, and/or drivers at >> 20mph.  Or where progress would be inconvenient because e.g. traffic lights for motor vehicles or buses stopping.

Ultimately the "necessary but not sufficient" criteria here are: a) people feel safe cycling and b) cycling is convenient and pleasant, AND c) cycling is convenient relative to driving a given journey.  (All that is not *sufficient* for mass cycling, there are other considerations e.g. secure cycle parking at either end - but just concentrating on the part I think most people consider "infra").

The vast majority of the distance that it's pleasant and convenient to cycle on in NL is actually just "space shared with motor traffic".  The magic is a kind you'll be familiar with - "just make the cars disappear - remove some car through-routes, and slow any remaining ones right down" (as is well explained in this video, and this one on the misunderstood "cycle street").

However simply trying to tell people / legislate that much driving must cease / become less convenient - without providing alternatives and guiding people through the process - is going to fail (even in the Netherlands).  It's a dance of push-pull.

The good news is there are some relatively simple, unintrusive and inexpensive tools for making areas cycling friendly and lowering motor traffic which have in fact been in use in the UK for decades.  "Modal filtering" is a key one (along with making some streets one-way for drivers).  If only we hadn't just had a frenzy about "LTNs" and "15 minute cities"...

The challenge is it is exactly at the busy spots (main roads, junctions) that we will be needing the most controversial interventions - because ultimately people need connected networks of cycling routes and want to feel safe going into or through the centres of places - currently where now they're all driving...

Cugel wrote:

[ London ]

Well, there are in fact places where more people cycle.  What about Cambridge?  Now - there are some specific critera here which make it special (e.g. lots of  students and rules on cars, small place, flat etc.)  But many places in the UK are smaller than Cambridge, many are flat (and places like York or the centre of Edinburgh have "historic streets" and lots of tourist business.  Where there's (political) will some of the "low tech, low drama" interventions could give much improved conditions - and build support for the more challenging changes.

Cugel wrote:

*  How will such good quality cycling infrastructure be afforded and established in the hundreds of other densely populated areas, many of which have councils that have gone bankrupt?

A good question - some cash is needed to get the ball rolling.  However the current roads budget is still enormous.  Some can come from that.  Chris Boardman made some good comments on "money" - in fact when politicians and councils want to do something they almost always can find a way (particularly when it's something relatively cheap - like improving streets).  Getting more people to cycle and walk rather than drive is also a massive cash saver (and benefits local business etc.) - it's a net positive return on investment.

Cugel wrote:

*  How will cycling infrastucture be established alongside the millions of miles of non-urban roads, on which the accident rates for cyclists (and probably peds) is greater than in towns and cities?

Initially - it won't.  That's OK though - we know the status quo will continue in some places even as things change elsewhere.  (No other way to do this unless you declare driving illegal overnight and confiscate all the fuel - and you'll fail at that!)  Far less "building" will be happening that most people think (see above).

The Dutch solution here is ... shared use!  As in - if there are country roads with high speed build cycle paths (or upgrade quieter routes).  Pedestrians can always use cycle infra legally - and if there are barely any of them and few cyclists this "sharing" works fine.

Cugel wrote:

Even if such cycling infrastructure was afforded and built (no chance, though, is there) in such places, how many Blighters would cease with the car in favour of their new bicycles?

Well ... it happened in Seville, from nothing.  It's happening in lots of other places.  Dramatically it happened all over NL.  Now you might argue that it's more like they never lost mass cycling - partly true but in fact it did decline just like in the UK and they started bulldozing motorway space for the car.  They've just been able to slightly reverse that.

Cugel wrote:

* How will Blighterland deal with the continuing carmageddon murder & maiming rates that will drop perhaps one or two percent as cyclists are made slightly safer here and there?

That would be the common idea that cycle paths are just icing on the cake for current cyclists.  In fact all of these "street improvement" and "car restriction" measures (which include some "cycling infra") are ... for everyone!  Including drivers; in fact (nothing slows up drivers like other drivers!)

(For some of your questions again I really recommend Chris Boardman's Active Travel England recent chats on practicalities from where we are in the UK right now).

On the "how do you get any change from where we are" we kind of agree - but you have to explain:

• Where the support and the money will come for "police it better" (or "improve driver behaviour")?  Removing "bad drivers" will have some popular support but just look at the current policing and courts - the bar for "good enough" is shockingly low.  If you think infra is expensive just try getting sufficient police and court staff (and prisons!) to make a dent in this!  Also good luck persuading people that e.g. the Advanced Driving Test is now the minimum standard or that they should be retested periodically (although I'll happily lend my support).
  (I'm not against "better policing" at all; the UK appears to have some "low hanging fruit" here.  I just think it has rather limited power to "make things safer" without incredible expense and other side effects.  I think it has almost no power to persuade people to share space with fast motor traffic).
• How do you persuade the vast numbers of people to just not drive some of those journeys they clearly consider "vital"?  What alternative(s) are you going to offer them (when for a long time as numbers decline will still be a lot of people driving, or trucks driving about...)?
• Most people aren't cycling now.  And while there are still trucks / fast motor traffic people aren't going to cycle in those places.  They still aren't going to be happy waiting on their bikes at traffic lights for ages...

Cugel wrote:

It may be that in densely-populated spots, such as cities and large towns, proper cycling infrastructure (not white line murder strips) could encourage more folk to cycle.  London is the obvious example - although I'm not really aware of any other city or large town where so many cycle about to work & pleasure as a result of cycling infrastructure. (I am aware of various bits of semi-deserted cycling infrastructure, though, here and there).

London has managed to install some successful cycling infrastructure largely because politicians regard London as the centre of the Blighty universe and because there's a lot of money swilling about in London that sometimes gets spent on something other than white elephants and investement properties for klepto-oligarchs living & operating in totalitarian states. Moreover, you'd be mad to sit in a car-jam for hours a day just to get 4 miles to work and back.

However ....

*  How will such good quality cycling infrastructure be afforded and established in the hundreds of other densely populated areas, many of which have councils that have gone bankrupt?

*  How will cycling infrastucture be established alongside the millions of miles of non-urban roads, on which the accident rates for cyclists (and probably peds) is greater than in towns and cities?

* Even if such cycling infrastructure was afforded and built (no chance, though, is there) in such places, how many Blighters would cease with the car in favour of their new bicycles?

* How will Blighterland deal with the continuing carmageddon murder & maiming rates that will drop perhaps one or two percent as cyclists are made slightly safer here and there?

********

I'll keep repeating it, despite me face turning blue: the core problems are motornormativity and the freedumb of the dangerous and incompetant to go on murdering & maiming with their cars (and not just murdring and maiming cyclists).

The solution is to extract the incompetant and dangerous from their cars, via policing them and preventing them from having access to motorised vehicles. Such efforts will also slowly reduce and perhaps even eliminate motornormativity, not unlike with sucking on a fag and blowing it in everyone elses' faces was made no-longer-normal by use of the law.

The problem is the nature of motorised transport and its free access to all, even proven idiots. The roads themselves are not a problem (apart from the motorised vehicle-made potholes) and make a very fine cycling infrastructure, even when cars driven by considerate and competant drivers use them at the same time.

I know this from spending 64 years riding a bike on such roads.

Decent separated infrastructure is only a piece of the puzzle, and as you say, our culture's motornormativity is at the heart of a lot of issues.

Ideally, the money for it would come from road budgets. Progressive politicians may well see the excellent return for the outlay on cycling infrastructure and thus want to put more money into it.

The traffic policing aspect is harder as police budgets don't benefit from issuing fines to drivers (if they did, then there would be an outcry from motorists, I guess), but again, traffic policing can be improved to make use of dashcam footage (pretty much free apart from the admin side of things) and I'd like to see them flying drones around to capture poor driving, though coppers on bikes would be very effective at catching phone-users.

I doubt that we'll get to the point of having infrastructure on narrow country lanes and often the landscape doesn't lend itself well to it (e.g. moving hedges around). However, the more that we can chip away at motornormativity by getting more of the population out of cars, then the greater the chance that drivers will be less aggressive towards cyclists.

Cugel wrote:

Loadsa money for "cyling infrastructure" would be a waste of money, not because such "infrastructure" is useless but because it so easily could be made redundant. 

Everybody admits that the problem is the behaviour and consequent murder/maiming of others by aggresive and inept drivists. No one who wants to ride a bike is frightened by the road tarmac or white lines.  It's the carloons that are putting them off.

The carloons also murder and maim each other, peds, children playing, their passengers and those of other motorists, untold numbers of wild beasts and other people's dearly-loved pets. They are the fundamental cause of vast costs to the NHS, police and other public services; and a serious menace to the mental state of a vast number of the families & friends of the murdered/maimed too.

********************

The Answer, then, is so bluddy obvious - detect and prosecute the carloons, making oodles of money in the process from fines & car confiscations to pay for the costs of detection and prosecution. Extract more value from these criminals by making them public service slaves, rather than putting them in gaols costing taxpayers a fortune.

In reality, the only objection to such an approach is one of politics: no political party is brave enough to risk the votes of carloons and their supporters in implementing a true war not on motorists but those motorists who are a clear and present danger to everyone else, not least to other motorists and even themselves.

Quite. We don't want a war on motorists, we want a war on dangerous and inconsiderate motorists.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 Quite. We don't want a war on motorists, we want a war on dangerous and inconsiderate motorists. 

Nay sir, and twice nay.  Picking on the dangerous is not enough, not nearly. They should all be tarred with the same brush, every one of them and deported to that Australia, leaving the roads clear for me.

mike the bike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 Quite. We don't want a war on motorists, we want a war on dangerous and inconsiderate motorists. 

Nay sir, and twice nay.  Picking on the dangerous is not enough, not nearly. They should all be tarred with the same brush, every one of them and deported to that Australia, leaving the roads clear for me.

I hear Rwanda has some accommodation available.

Road.cc's sister site already went...

https://off.road.cc/content/feature/discovering-rwanda-on-an-epic-bikepa...

World championships there next year. I understand it will be very safe...

John Forrester has never been right

KHAN!