8 ms·

Government to urge us all to walk and cycle more

71 points by Sami_Lehtinen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tomcooks 6y ago
When you're unable to provide safe public transport, you demand people move on foot. Thanks for all the lack of cycling paths and constant tax refund to car buyers I guess?
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Do they not tax cars in your country?
  - notauser 6y ago
    UK VED is a polution tax (not a road tax) and cycles don't pay it because they don't pollute. VED is a very small proportion of the UK general tax take and not ringfenced to funding roads. UK roads are funded from the general tax pot and regular cyclists in the UK – those who cycle at least once a week – are disproportionately likely to have a household income of at least £50,000 per year which means they almost certainly pay more towards road maintainance than the general population (1). In addition to this this, 83% of UK cyclists live in a household that pays VED in some form (2) anyway. The argument that cyclists pay no tax and therefore don't deserve to use the roads is rubbish. (1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/10/cycling-boom-survey https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/10/cyc... (2) https://www.eta.co.uk/2013/05/24/more-cyclists-pay-road-tax-than-car-drivers/ https://www.eta.co.uk/2013/05/24/more-cyclists-pay-road-tax-...
  - sgt101 6y ago
    Fuel is heavily taxed - 75%
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > Thanks for all the lack of cycling paths and constant tax refund to car buyers I guess? I mean, given all of the specific taxes in the UK and its municipalities on automobile ownership and operation, I don't find it credible that "car buyers" benefit from a "constant tax refund". Also, as an outsider, I remember people chiding and undermining Boris Johnson as mayor of London when he tried investing in cycling in London, I literally heard expats making fun of it. > When you're unable to provide safe public transport Nobody manufactures any mass-market HVAC system for buildings or vehicles that can do continuous air sterilization at a rate that would reliably prevent the spread of this virus. I know how I would build this, but it isn't a standard component of any vehicle as of yet. They should demand vehicles like this now, but given that nobody has experienced this sort of thing since public transit was invented, I'm not that let down that public transport isn't safe during a pandemic.
- pmontra 6y ago
  If they want to limit cars usage there is no need of cycling paths. Two ways streets become one way on one lane, the other lane is for bicycles. It must be designed to let cars reach all destinations but there is plenty of space out there in our cities (UK and everywhere else) when cars don't take it away.
- sgt101 6y ago
  >Thanks for all the lack of cycling paths and constant tax refund to car buyers I guess? Well - the lack of safe public transport is due to this thing called "global pandemic". The scandal of public transport in the UK is not London. It is Birmingham and also some elements of the North West (connection of towns to greater Manchester in particular). BTW - car's pay big taxes in the UK via fuel duty - 75% of the cost of petrol is tax.
flurdy 6y ago
Hopefully, that will persist beyond the initial knee-jerk reaction to go back to work after lockdown. Though they (UK gov, and elsewhere probably) do need to invest a lot more in infrastructure to assist. * Safe and easy to use separated continuous paths. Not just paint strips but actual physical separation. * Cut/ban hedges so you can see the car coming round the bend at 60mph on a tiny narrow lane. And so the car overtaking you on a blind corner won't push into the hedge when surprised by another car. * Wider paths to support both walkers, people with pushchairs, and slow recreational cyclist like me without pushing one into the road or hedge as they pass. * Paths beyond the towns, so you can actually safely cycle / walk to the next village. Was pretty dangerous to go see a friend when I walked everywhere with a pushcair.
- danielecook 6y ago
  > Safe and easy to use separated continuous paths. Not just paint strips but actual physical separation. I think this is such a critical point. A lot of people are not interested in getting on a busy road, but would definitely get on a bike only path. I will also add that I think cities should be creative and try to develop more bike infrastructure that is independent of the roadways altogether. The lakefront trail in Chicago is a good example. Many cities could develop similar infrastructure along rivers, through parks, through repurposed streets, etc. having a separate network is not only safer but if done right can often be faster for commuters than driving or public transport.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    We have quite a lot of that in the UK already, the trouble is it isn’t often where people make their daily journeys.
    - danielecook 6y ago
      I would not classify it as “a lot” even in the wrong places. And, even when paths do exist they are far from adequate.
- dan-robertson 6y ago
TaylorSwift 6y ago
Can someone enlightenment why opening your windows or just general walking in the public, observing social distancing, is safe from lingering viruses in the air? Wouldn't we just breathe those virus in the air if we kept our windows opened or walking by a person who was infected?
- ButterWashed 6y ago
  Yes. But it lessens your chances of contracting the virus I suspect. And should you contract it via those means the viral load is likely to be reduced.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It seems that infectious people mostly don't expel it in small enough drops for it to linger. Of course it isn't settled, but this is what all the discussion about droplet (doesn't linger) and aerosol (lingers) transmission is about.
- flurdy 6y ago
  Statistics and probability. Sitting next to an infected person at work, cinema or bus for a long time will expose to a large probability of being infected several times with a high viral load. Walking past an infected person the probability is low, the viral load hopefully quite dispersed. Though getting too close to heavy breathing and sweating jogger is not recommended.
- chadcmulligan 6y ago
  I wondered this to, and heard it explained by our radio doctor (Dr Karl in Australia). Coronavirus needs a lot of virus to get an infection - around 100,000 virus particles, whereas some others can cause an infection with just 20, so walking past isn't enough, transmission requires prolonged contact with someone infected. (not a doctor)
- biddlesby 6y ago
  See "it's less infectious than airborne viruses, like measles" at https://bestlifeonline.com/coronavirus-facts/ https://bestlifeonline.com/coronavirus-facts/ It seems like the primary transmission mode is through droplets, not air
notkaiho 6y ago
It's funny how air quality has improved both visibly and measurably during the UK's lockdown, and yet the proposals for limiting car traffic and encouraging cycling through segregated safer paths within London are always met with howls of derision.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > and yet the proposals for limiting car traffic (...) are always met with howls of derision. You honestly don't understand why?
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    Sure - because some rich people think they're better than the rest of us and polluting the city we're supposed to be sharing so they can be more properly segregated from us is fine.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > because some rich people think they're better than the rest of us Lol let me break it down for you, but it isn't "the rich" who need cars to drive to the city center. It's the low/lower middle class workers who can't afford to live in the city center but still need to get to work to pay their modest apartment in the outskirts of the city. And by the way, those who can afford the luxury of living so close to their job that they can just walk or cycle to work in the city center are not "the poor" either.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        I'm genuinely curious as to where all these middle class workers allegedly coming into London are parking, how much they pay for that, and whether it's faster to drive at average 12mph vs the Tube.
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        There's these things called the trains and the tube in London, which are significantly cheaper than driving a car into work in the middle of London every day. The middle class car owner in London is a myth.
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
I'd definitely consider cycling for work if I wasn't certain that doing so on a daily basis would get me run over before retirement. I'd also consider walking to work if doing so didn't mean walking next to noisy, polluted high-traffic roads most of the time. This could be addressed e.g. by cities progressively forcing a transition to electric cars (e.g. by switching parking spots to electric-only).
- notauser 6y ago
  There have been quite a few studies with conclusions like this: "On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ Cycling could be made better, but, it is already safer than getting fat in your car.
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    I'd bet that that doesn't hold true in SF. Cycling on Market street turned me in to a Veteran with PTSD.
    - notauser 6y ago
      Thankfully the people of SF have voted for some change for the better. https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ It isn't perfect, but, keep hopefully people will keep voting for improvements.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      I remember reading a study that looked at life expectancy of cycling vs driving, which I unfortunately can’t find right now, in many cities around the world. The TL;DR in almost all cities you’ll live longer cycling (even considering extra exposure to pollution and road accidents) than driving. Except in a very small handful of city, none of which were in the US. So cycling in SF is probably better for you than driving. But that doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a pleasant experience. (I mean getting injections isn’t fun, but vaccines are definitely good for you).
incognito_limey 6y ago
Myself and the Mrs. took free cycling lessons from the council a few years back with the idea we wanted to start cycling to work etc more. We decided it was too risky due to the terrible traffic. As a regular pedestrian, I've almost been run over multiple times in the last few years. I think the city really needs to look at banning non delivery vehicles from zones 1 and 2, or something to that effect.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Or modify the roads; driver and cyclist behavior are heavily influenced by road design. Protected lanes actually protect cyclists, and narrower roads naturally cause drivers to slow down.
  - alrs 6y ago
    Cycle facilities in countries without a strong cycling tradition are generally dangerous, illogical, and awful. Cycle facilities in countries with a strong cycling tradition are usually better-engineered but mostly exist to get cyclists "out of the way" of motor vehicle traffic. The solution is low speed limits in urban areas.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      It’s also a chicken and egg problem; it’s hard to build strong cycling traditions while cycling is poorly supported and dangerous. It’s more than needing to reduce speed. Many countries need to completely invert their mode of thinking; an hypothetical space alien in some cities would be forgiven for assuming that cars actually rule and humans serve. We’ve come to act like the fast movement of cars is the highest social good, and anything that slows traffic is heresy. We need to get back to a point about asking what the people of a city need, not just the commuters.
      - alrs 6y ago
        Re-engineering cities, even if there was a popular will to do so and it served the right business interests, would in the US be a multi-generational project. I'm not going to outright reject "it needs to be more than reduced speed limits," but speed limits are a change that can be made in the short-term that would lower noise levels, lower pollution, lower traffic fatalities, and increase tax revenue.
feralimal 6y ago
The government isn't a person. It can't 'urge', even if the BBC says it can.
- feralimal 6y ago
  In fact the BBC can't say anything either. A person wrote that. Who was that person, and why do they have such good intentions for us readers?
_bxg1 6y ago
Should also help the general population with circulation and vitamin D, which appear to be key factors in COVID outcomes
DrBazza 6y ago
Cycle more, until the end of summer 2020, then the bad weather hits, and people are back in their cars and 2020 is a distant memory. And in the UK cycling is horrifically bad. Car drivers that don't accept that cyclists have identical rights to use the road. Awful tarmac and pot holes. Drain covers and manhole covers in the road, by the gutter where cyclists are expected to cycle. Cycle paths shared with pedestrians and dog walkers. Cycle paths that are badly laid out, incomplete, badly signed, switch sides, full of obstructions and just don't join up. And then there's the law. If a cyclist is killed by a motorist, the motorist rarely gets more than a slap on the wrist. If a cyclist collides with an idiot on their mobile phone that hasn't looked before they stepped off the kerb, it's the cyclist's fault.
truculent 6y ago
If only they had the ability to make it easier to do so beyond mere urging. Alas
- truculent 6y ago
  What an impoverished sense of statehood the U.K. has
frobozz 6y ago
That's all very well, but to buy a family-sized home within a half hour walk of my office, I would need a salary north of £250k. Renting an appropriately sized home is not cheap either.

71 points by Sami_Lehtinen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

When you're unable to provide safe public transport, you demand people move on foot. Thanks for all the lack of cycling paths and constant tax refund to car buyers I guess?

Hamuko 6y ago
Do they not tax cars in your country?
- notauser 6y ago
  UK VED is a polution tax (not a road tax) and cycles don't pay it because they don't pollute. VED is a very small proportion of the UK general tax take and not ringfenced to funding roads. UK roads are funded from the general tax pot and regular cyclists in the UK – those who cycle at least once a week – are disproportionately likely to have a household income of at least £50,000 per year which means they almost certainly pay more towards road maintainance than the general population (1). In addition to this this, 83% of UK cyclists live in a household that pays VED in some form (2) anyway. The argument that cyclists pay no tax and therefore don't deserve to use the roads is rubbish. (1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/10/cycling-boom-survey https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/10/cyc... (2) https://www.eta.co.uk/2013/05/24/more-cyclists-pay-road-tax-than-car-drivers/ https://www.eta.co.uk/2013/05/24/more-cyclists-pay-road-tax-...
- sgt101 6y ago
  Fuel is heavily taxed - 75%
microcolonel 6y ago
> Thanks for all the lack of cycling paths and constant tax refund to car buyers I guess? I mean, given all of the specific taxes in the UK and its municipalities on automobile ownership and operation, I don't find it credible that "car buyers" benefit from a "constant tax refund". Also, as an outsider, I remember people chiding and undermining Boris Johnson as mayor of London when he tried investing in cycling in London, I literally heard expats making fun of it. > When you're unable to provide safe public transport Nobody manufactures any mass-market HVAC system for buildings or vehicles that can do continuous air sterilization at a rate that would reliably prevent the spread of this virus. I know how I would build this, but it isn't a standard component of any vehicle as of yet. They should demand vehicles like this now, but given that nobody has experienced this sort of thing since public transit was invented, I'm not that let down that public transport isn't safe during a pandemic.
pmontra 6y ago
If they want to limit cars usage there is no need of cycling paths. Two ways streets become one way on one lane, the other lane is for bicycles. It must be designed to let cars reach all destinations but there is plenty of space out there in our cities (UK and everywhere else) when cars don't take it away.
sgt101 6y ago
>Thanks for all the lack of cycling paths and constant tax refund to car buyers I guess? Well - the lack of safe public transport is due to this thing called "global pandemic". The scandal of public transport in the UK is not London. It is Birmingham and also some elements of the North West (connection of towns to greater Manchester in particular). BTW - car's pay big taxes in the UK via fuel duty - 75% of the cost of petrol is tax.

flurdy 6y ago

Hopefully, that will persist beyond the initial knee-jerk reaction to go back to work after lockdown. Though they (UK gov, and elsewhere probably) do need to invest a lot more in infrastructure to assist. * Safe and easy to use separated continuous paths. Not just paint strips but actual physical separation. * Cut/ban hedges so you can see the car coming round the bend at 60mph on a tiny narrow lane. And so the car overtaking you on a blind corner won't push into the hedge when surprised by another car. * Wider paths to support both walkers, people with pushchairs, and slow recreational cyclist like me without pushing one into the road or hedge as they pass. * Paths beyond the towns, so you can actually safely cycle / walk to the next village. Was pretty dangerous to go see a friend when I walked everywhere with a pushcair.

danielecook 6y ago
> Safe and easy to use separated continuous paths. Not just paint strips but actual physical separation. I think this is such a critical point. A lot of people are not interested in getting on a busy road, but would definitely get on a bike only path. I will also add that I think cities should be creative and try to develop more bike infrastructure that is independent of the roadways altogether. The lakefront trail in Chicago is a good example. Many cities could develop similar infrastructure along rivers, through parks, through repurposed streets, etc. having a separate network is not only safer but if done right can often be faster for commuters than driving or public transport.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  We have quite a lot of that in the UK already, the trouble is it isn’t often where people make their daily journeys.
  - danielecook 6y ago
    I would not classify it as “a lot” even in the wrong places. And, even when paths do exist they are far from adequate.
dan-robertson 6y ago

TaylorSwift 6y ago

Can someone enlightenment why opening your windows or just general walking in the public, observing social distancing, is safe from lingering viruses in the air? Wouldn't we just breathe those virus in the air if we kept our windows opened or walking by a person who was infected?

ButterWashed 6y ago
Yes. But it lessens your chances of contracting the virus I suspect. And should you contract it via those means the viral load is likely to be reduced.
maxerickson 6y ago
It seems that infectious people mostly don't expel it in small enough drops for it to linger. Of course it isn't settled, but this is what all the discussion about droplet (doesn't linger) and aerosol (lingers) transmission is about.
flurdy 6y ago
Statistics and probability. Sitting next to an infected person at work, cinema or bus for a long time will expose to a large probability of being infected several times with a high viral load. Walking past an infected person the probability is low, the viral load hopefully quite dispersed. Though getting too close to heavy breathing and sweating jogger is not recommended.
chadcmulligan 6y ago
I wondered this to, and heard it explained by our radio doctor (Dr Karl in Australia). Coronavirus needs a lot of virus to get an infection - around 100,000 virus particles, whereas some others can cause an infection with just 20, so walking past isn't enough, transmission requires prolonged contact with someone infected. (not a doctor)
biddlesby 6y ago
See "it's less infectious than airborne viruses, like measles" at https://bestlifeonline.com/coronavirus-facts/ https://bestlifeonline.com/coronavirus-facts/ It seems like the primary transmission mode is through droplets, not air

notkaiho 6y ago

It's funny how air quality has improved both visibly and measurably during the UK's lockdown, and yet the proposals for limiting car traffic and encouraging cycling through segregated safer paths within London are always met with howls of derision.

rumanator 6y ago
> and yet the proposals for limiting car traffic (...) are always met with howls of derision. You honestly don't understand why?
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Sure - because some rich people think they're better than the rest of us and polluting the city we're supposed to be sharing so they can be more properly segregated from us is fine.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > because some rich people think they're better than the rest of us Lol let me break it down for you, but it isn't "the rich" who need cars to drive to the city center. It's the low/lower middle class workers who can't afford to live in the city center but still need to get to work to pay their modest apartment in the outskirts of the city. And by the way, those who can afford the luxury of living so close to their job that they can just walk or cycle to work in the city center are not "the poor" either.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      I'm genuinely curious as to where all these middle class workers allegedly coming into London are parking, how much they pay for that, and whether it's faster to drive at average 12mph vs the Tube.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      There's these things called the trains and the tube in London, which are significantly cheaper than driving a car into work in the middle of London every day. The middle class car owner in London is a myth.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

I'd definitely consider cycling for work if I wasn't certain that doing so on a daily basis would get me run over before retirement. I'd also consider walking to work if doing so didn't mean walking next to noisy, polluted high-traffic roads most of the time. This could be addressed e.g. by cities progressively forcing a transition to electric cars (e.g. by switching parking spots to electric-only).

notauser 6y ago
There have been quite a few studies with conclusions like this: "On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ Cycling could be made better, but, it is already safer than getting fat in your car.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  I'd bet that that doesn't hold true in SF. Cycling on Market street turned me in to a Veteran with PTSD.
  - notauser 6y ago
    Thankfully the people of SF have voted for some change for the better. https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ It isn't perfect, but, keep hopefully people will keep voting for improvements.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    I remember reading a study that looked at life expectancy of cycling vs driving, which I unfortunately can’t find right now, in many cities around the world. The TL;DR in almost all cities you’ll live longer cycling (even considering extra exposure to pollution and road accidents) than driving. Except in a very small handful of city, none of which were in the US. So cycling in SF is probably better for you than driving. But that doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a pleasant experience. (I mean getting injections isn’t fun, but vaccines are definitely good for you).

incognito_limey 6y ago

Myself and the Mrs. took free cycling lessons from the council a few years back with the idea we wanted to start cycling to work etc more. We decided it was too risky due to the terrible traffic. As a regular pedestrian, I've almost been run over multiple times in the last few years. I think the city really needs to look at banning non delivery vehicles from zones 1 and 2, or something to that effect.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Or modify the roads; driver and cyclist behavior are heavily influenced by road design. Protected lanes actually protect cyclists, and narrower roads naturally cause drivers to slow down.
- alrs 6y ago
  Cycle facilities in countries without a strong cycling tradition are generally dangerous, illogical, and awful. Cycle facilities in countries with a strong cycling tradition are usually better-engineered but mostly exist to get cyclists "out of the way" of motor vehicle traffic. The solution is low speed limits in urban areas.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    It’s also a chicken and egg problem; it’s hard to build strong cycling traditions while cycling is poorly supported and dangerous. It’s more than needing to reduce speed. Many countries need to completely invert their mode of thinking; an hypothetical space alien in some cities would be forgiven for assuming that cars actually rule and humans serve. We’ve come to act like the fast movement of cars is the highest social good, and anything that slows traffic is heresy. We need to get back to a point about asking what the people of a city need, not just the commuters.
    - alrs 6y ago
      Re-engineering cities, even if there was a popular will to do so and it served the right business interests, would in the US be a multi-generational project. I'm not going to outright reject "it needs to be more than reduced speed limits," but speed limits are a change that can be made in the short-term that would lower noise levels, lower pollution, lower traffic fatalities, and increase tax revenue.

feralimal 6y ago

The government isn't a person. It can't 'urge', even if the BBC says it can.

feralimal 6y ago
In fact the BBC can't say anything either. A person wrote that. Who was that person, and why do they have such good intentions for us readers?

_bxg1 6y ago

Should also help the general population with circulation and vitamin D, which appear to be key factors in COVID outcomes

DrBazza 6y ago

Cycle more, until the end of summer 2020, then the bad weather hits, and people are back in their cars and 2020 is a distant memory. And in the UK cycling is horrifically bad. Car drivers that don't accept that cyclists have identical rights to use the road. Awful tarmac and pot holes. Drain covers and manhole covers in the road, by the gutter where cyclists are expected to cycle. Cycle paths shared with pedestrians and dog walkers. Cycle paths that are badly laid out, incomplete, badly signed, switch sides, full of obstructions and just don't join up. And then there's the law. If a cyclist is killed by a motorist, the motorist rarely gets more than a slap on the wrist. If a cyclist collides with an idiot on their mobile phone that hasn't looked before they stepped off the kerb, it's the cyclist's fault.

truculent 6y ago

If only they had the ability to make it easier to do so beyond mere urging. Alas

truculent 6y ago
What an impoverished sense of statehood the U.K. has

frobozz 6y ago

That's all very well, but to buy a family-sized home within a half hour walk of my office, I would need a salary north of £250k. Renting an appropriately sized home is not cheap either.