beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I can assure you that plenty of dickheads will get aggressive at the parent riding with them though.
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
maomao
普費斯
I suppose having a proficient adult makes it safer and definitely better than the twat in the video hanging back to get it all on film. But there are a hundred child cycling deaths and a quarter of a million injuries a year in this country. My own seven and a half year old ran ahead without looking into a carpark where she's been told dozens of times to stay with me, because she saw her friend and got excited last night. I think you're nuts and I genuinely hope that no harm comes to your kid.
It’s still illegal though. Should we pick and choice the laws we obey.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
MelbourniansThe who?
Incidentally just seen a three hour film of someone driving around the outskirts of Melbourne and was impressed by the cycle bridges across the main roads. Weird but interesting system for filtering traffic onto main roads as well
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The fact is - unfortunately - that cycling on the road with motor traffic is risky, including for adults. If this weren't the case, there would be no need for things like segregated cycle lanes.
Of course, this doesn't mean no-one should do it (or that the risk should be exaggerated). But everyone has to make their own decision on what level of risk is ok... including for their kids.
This is one of the reasons I think it's important for transport policy or expectations never to be based only on cycling. Cycling must always be part of a range of alternatives presented to people, which must include walking and public transport.
This can be a bit of a problem sometimes, because cycling advocacy groups are often some of the most effective in influencing policy. To be clear, I've got nothing against forceful cycling advocacy in itself. Even schemes primarily addressing cycling infrastructure usually have side benefits for pedestrians, and it's all an important part of the wider aim of displacing private motorists as the group who have the biggest say in how our roads and streets operate.
But you can end up with people so focused on cycling that everything transport related gets seen from the perspective of "can it be done by bike".
If we are talking about getting kids to school then I would say the most important thing is making sure it can be done without private car. That means looking at public transport and also looking at how far schools are from pupils' homes. Ideally in urban areas it should be walkable. Provisions for cycling should always be complementary to these more important things. It should never become the main alternative to car use, because not everyone is able to cycle, and not everyone should be expected to accept the risk involved (which will depend on a whole load of factors).
The point Im trying to make here is perhaps a slightly vague one, but I guess what I'm getting at is that an expectation of "your 5 year old can cycle to school" is one that should never be set up. You can end up making the choice one that is between car and cycling, whilst not acknowledging that the latter is risky. Yes, it's risky mainly because of motorist behaviour (and many assumptions that will not change quickly) but that's irrelevant to the choice of whether your kid cycles to school or not.
Actually I think it's the same for adults - you should not set up an expectation that an adult should cycle to work either - absolutely you should make it an option for those who want to, and encourage as many people to do it as possible - but there should always be walking and public transport there as the priorities.
Whenever I see promo material for traffic related schemes I have a look at the imagery used ... is it all focused around cheerful cyclists or is it also showing happy pedestrians and bus services and so on. Sometimes I feel there's an overemphasis on the cycling component.
Some of the discussion around this video also seems a bit tunnel-vision. Yes, the driver should have given more room or stopped. Yes it would be great if we could make our streets safe enough that a 5 year old could cycle unprotected like that. But the dad's expectation - that he should be able to get his kid to school in that manner - is unrealistic, and his indignation misdirected. It would be more useful to talk about why that is how he is taking the kid to school - is it because there is no bus service? Get that fixed first. More parents and small kids will benefit from folk getting angry about lack of public transport, than getting angry about what happens when they let their 5 year old cycle through traffic. Is it because it's too far to walk? As others have mentioned, having kids going to faraway schools is a problem in itself.
What I've written above, of course, opens the field for certain people who want to say things like "Aha! So, by the above logic, when you say we must ban all cars everywhere immediately, that is stupid, because it's unrealistic".
Of course, this doesn't mean no-one should do it (or that the risk should be exaggerated). But everyone has to make their own decision on what level of risk is ok... including for their kids.
This is one of the reasons I think it's important for transport policy or expectations never to be based only on cycling. Cycling must always be part of a range of alternatives presented to people, which must include walking and public transport.
This can be a bit of a problem sometimes, because cycling advocacy groups are often some of the most effective in influencing policy. To be clear, I've got nothing against forceful cycling advocacy in itself. Even schemes primarily addressing cycling infrastructure usually have side benefits for pedestrians, and it's all an important part of the wider aim of displacing private motorists as the group who have the biggest say in how our roads and streets operate.
But you can end up with people so focused on cycling that everything transport related gets seen from the perspective of "can it be done by bike".
If we are talking about getting kids to school then I would say the most important thing is making sure it can be done without private car. That means looking at public transport and also looking at how far schools are from pupils' homes. Ideally in urban areas it should be walkable. Provisions for cycling should always be complementary to these more important things. It should never become the main alternative to car use, because not everyone is able to cycle, and not everyone should be expected to accept the risk involved (which will depend on a whole load of factors).
The point Im trying to make here is perhaps a slightly vague one, but I guess what I'm getting at is that an expectation of "your 5 year old can cycle to school" is one that should never be set up. You can end up making the choice one that is between car and cycling, whilst not acknowledging that the latter is risky. Yes, it's risky mainly because of motorist behaviour (and many assumptions that will not change quickly) but that's irrelevant to the choice of whether your kid cycles to school or not.
Actually I think it's the same for adults - you should not set up an expectation that an adult should cycle to work either - absolutely you should make it an option for those who want to, and encourage as many people to do it as possible - but there should always be walking and public transport there as the priorities.
Whenever I see promo material for traffic related schemes I have a look at the imagery used ... is it all focused around cheerful cyclists or is it also showing happy pedestrians and bus services and so on. Sometimes I feel there's an overemphasis on the cycling component.
Some of the discussion around this video also seems a bit tunnel-vision. Yes, the driver should have given more room or stopped. Yes it would be great if we could make our streets safe enough that a 5 year old could cycle unprotected like that. But the dad's expectation - that he should be able to get his kid to school in that manner - is unrealistic, and his indignation misdirected. It would be more useful to talk about why that is how he is taking the kid to school - is it because there is no bus service? Get that fixed first. More parents and small kids will benefit from folk getting angry about lack of public transport, than getting angry about what happens when they let their 5 year old cycle through traffic. Is it because it's too far to walk? As others have mentioned, having kids going to faraway schools is a problem in itself.
What I've written above, of course, opens the field for certain people who want to say things like "Aha! So, by the above logic, when you say we must ban all cars everywhere immediately, that is stupid, because it's unrealistic".
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I wondered if that was what you meant. Have to say in ten years living in Australia, five in Victorian never heard of Melbas - except for the Dame. BTW it's Melburnians, they are quite particular on that
.Is Melbourne meant to be a good cycling city then?
Like I say I lived in Vic for five years, but outside Melbourne - so my experience of travelling around the city is as a pedestrian and public transport user.
I'd say the public transport of Melbourne was probably on par with London (through again no experience as someone who has actually lived in the city for any length of time). Perth was not quite so good, but probably a little above average compared with most major UK cities.
The free hop-on, hop-off tram service around Melbourne CDB was good, Perth had something similar with buses (maybe still does? Chairman Meow ) and is something more UK cities should do. Manchester has the free shuttle buses but that is the only UK city I know that has some sort of free city centre transport.
EDIT: I think things are improving for us Loiners though - the pedestrianisation of City Square is a very good move
Last edited:
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
maomao
普費斯
That's unfortunate but buses are a far safer method of transportation than cars no matter how you fiddle the figures.
Yep - some terrible bus drivers out there. Hope the driver loses their licence. Doesn’t seem a similar thing though.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Yes I've noticed that bus drivers make unfortunate mistakes and need more training while car drivers are just reckless idiots.
I changed it after reading that it was rather different from the bollard incident. Should have licence taken away.Yes I've noticed that bus drivers make unfortunate mistakes and need more training while car drivers are just reckless idiots.
maomao
普費斯
Well we need buses, we don't need private cars.Yes I've noticed that bus drivers make unfortunate mistakes and need more training while car drivers are just reckless idiots.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Who is "we"?
maomao
普費斯
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Society.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
As I said on, I don't know, page 94: no one has yet demonstrated how we can replace all the private cars with buses without being North Korea.
Platty Sage presumably subscribes to the Thatcher view of society.
maomao
普費斯
What does that even mean? I don't have a car and yet I'm considerably better off both materially and socially than a North Korean. None of that wealth or freedom is dependant on others' private motor vehicles.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
It would take a North Korean level of repression and consequent deprivation of wealth and freedom to ban all private cars in the UK and replace them with buses. North Korea is the only country that has banned private cars for a reason. Unless you have a plan of how it could reasonably be done otherwise?
And yes everyone knows it's possible to live within the range of those nice TfL red buses and not own a car.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
You build a comprehensive, nationalised public transport system, free at the point of use.
There you go, that wasn’t so hard.
Stalinist!
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
I should note I'm not some fervent anti-car person, and understand that the way we've ordered our economics, spaces, communities, workplaces, etc. over 50 years has meant that people don't have an awful lot of choice other than a car, especially with the continual lack of investment and priority for public transport systems, cycle networks, etc.
But surely people can see that we've got ourselves into a huge hole here? Back in the 90s and the protest movement it was clear that forever building more highways, bypasses ontop of bypasses, new housing developments miles away from amenities, and forever encouraging individualist car use at the cost of public transport was on a 'road to nowhere'.
But surely people can see that we've got ourselves into a huge hole here? Back in the 90s and the protest movement it was clear that forever building more highways, bypasses ontop of bypasses, new housing developments miles away from amenities, and forever encouraging individualist car use at the cost of public transport was on a 'road to nowhere'.
maomao
普費斯
This is just meaningless piffle and a refusal to recognise the many environmental, social and health benefits of public transport over private cars. Yes, it would take wider changes than just getting rid of the cars but no that doesn't mean we would embark on a programme of juche.
You're floundering around because you wanted to do your buses are dangerous thing but it doesn't work because buses are literally one of the safest methods of transport available.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
How does this work?
Say I live near Diss station and start an 8am shift at Battlies Green industrial estate near Bury St Edmunds on Monday.
Currently this takes 1 day 13 hours by bus and train (or 4 hours 21 minutes if I'm happy to arrive at 6pm on Saturday).
By car it's 28 minutes.
How would a comprehensive public transport system make all these types journeys reasonably practical? How many buses would this involve and how many people would be on each bus. What would this cost?
When I asked last time it involved the mass relocation of millions of people.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Your continued showing of just how much you lack any kind of imagination or problem solving ability is quite the thing.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
If you know where the people who want cars banned have demonstrated any imagaintion or problem solving ability that tackles this problem, please do share.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I'm not disputing that the balance between car use and public transport should to change. I'm disupting the contention in the OP and elsewhere in this thread that private cars ought to be banned, and that there is some practical way to achieve that.
maomao
普費斯
Yes, the ability to travel through 20 miles of semi rural sprawl to do a shitty job is true freedom and the only thing that stands between us and communism.
Employers should have to justify the amount of travel it takes their staff to get to work. It will be less easy to live in the countryside and work in a city but cities will be nicer.
