3 ms·

It is a balance, but is it the right balance? London is breaching the European and UK air pollution limits. My dad was a very confident cyclist but has almost s

It is a balance, but is it the right balance? London is breaching the European and UK air pollution limits. My dad was a very confident cyclist but has almost stopped due to the accidents and near misses. He didn't wait for a fatality. I feel like the demographics of who cycles in London is pretty limited, it's the young confident cyclists. No children, very few tandem bikes with children, few women [1]. Much of London doesn't have room for cycle lanes (we have a few, and many mixed cycle/bus lanes. Even those are often used by turning vehicles rather than being physically separated like in NL). US transformations, once they get rid of (enough of) the cars, have lots of space for BRT, or cycle lanes, or etc. London also has a not-enough-parking policy for the city centre, which helps reduce car traffic, parking minimums are the bane of dense, cycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly development. In other words, the picture of a high street is showing good transit first of all, not good cycling infrastructure. [1] https://www.onlondon.co.uk/will-londons-cycling-gender-gap-close-because-of-superhighways/ https://www.onlondon.co.uk/will-londons-cycling-gender-gap-c...

throwaway22032 5y ago
I guess that from the perspective of someone who both cycles and drives on the roads, the balance seems to self-evidently be correct (or at least close to it) because I both want to and are able to do both. It's not _perfect_, but yeah, my city is not the M1 (main motorway/highway in the UK), you can cycle in it, if you don't want to, you don't have to. There are loads of other options, not only the car but the train, the bus, walking, etc. I've never really been a fan of using the statistical approach because it doesn't work without first defining some sort of goal. Changing the percentage share, or absolute level, of either cycling or driving, in either the positive or negative direction, isn't something that I have any interest in. My original post is kind of aimed at that problem - that it seems as if these issues are painted as "pro-cycling group wants X" or "pro-driving group wants Y" when really what we need is "pro-both group wants X/2 and Y/2" or something like that. Freedom of choice is generally better than the alternative.

throwaway22032 5y ago

I guess that from the perspective of someone who both cycles and drives on the roads, the balance seems to self-evidently be correct (or at least close to it) because I both want to and are able to do both. It's not _perfect_, but yeah, my city is not the M1 (main motorway/highway in the UK), you can cycle in it, if you don't want to, you don't have to. There are loads of other options, not only the car but the train, the bus, walking, etc. I've never really been a fan of using the statistical approach because it doesn't work without first defining some sort of goal. Changing the percentage share, or absolute level, of either cycling or driving, in either the positive or negative direction, isn't something that I have any interest in. My original post is kind of aimed at that problem - that it seems as if these issues are painted as "pro-cycling group wants X" or "pro-driving group wants Y" when really what we need is "pro-both group wants X/2 and Y/2" or something like that. Freedom of choice is generally better than the alternative.