People are more mutable than property boundaries. What happens on the
A48 is mostly a matter of cost and priorities: the crux of the matter
is what happens in towns, and there we come up against the unfortunate
fact that we built a lot of our main roads with 50ft between
properties (and 30ft between drainage channels). We'd be a bit stuck
if it weren't for people being adaptable. What we probably need is
some academic understanding of how people can (and are prepared to)
change to fit the roads, just as much as the other way round (hint:
they drive more slowly).
Richard
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Horton, Dave
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Ian, Richard and all
>
> I absolutely agree with Ian about this, and I also wonder whether it is perhaps time that those of us who engage in thinking about cycling and/or who have conducted empirical research into cycling start figuring out how best to throw our collective weight behind as unambiguous a position as we can muster.
>
> I personally believe (based on recent empirical research with which I have been involved) that such a position should be based firmly around the idea that a mainstream culture of ordinary cycling (whether across England, across Britain, or indeed, across anywhere else) will only emerge if we create the structural-material affordances to it - this would include the kind of provision which Ian suggests is required along the A48. More broadly, it would include starting boldly on the path - to be continued over a generation and more - of designing and building our mobility environments (whether 'urban' and/or 'rural') around the assumption that cycling is the most sensible and obvious mode of mobility for most people, for most of the time, for journeys of five miles (8 km) or less.
>
> If the 'research community' could reach consensus around the kinds of changes required, it could potentially have a much more significant effect on the 'advocacy', 'practitioner' and 'policy' communities.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Dave Horton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Ian Perry
> Sent: Fri 19/08/2011 12:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Urban vs rural
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> In this case then, it is best to do nothing - and accept that the Dutch are
> the only nation in Europe "foolish" enough to invest their money in
> rural/intercity cycling infrastructure.
>
> There are a number of villages, with children along the A48 - but we do not
> see the children as they are safely locked away... Each day buses move
> children short distances along the A48 (and other main-roads) to schools,
> which are just a short cycle ride away. Not only do segregated rural
> cycling paths allow daily utility cycling, but also leisure cycling and
> infrequent travel to visit neighbouring towns. Yes, very few make these
> journeys by bicycle today, but no one in the towns and villages along the
> A48 uses a train to travel from home... because there are no trains...
>
> If we build the right infrastructure, people will use it, and the larger we
> build the network, the more often they will use it!
>
> Rural infrastructure is probably as good an investment as urban
> infrastructure - without it, cycling will remain in a tiny niche.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Richard Mann <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Ian Perry
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > There are some who would like to see a cycle lane painted in the gutter
>> of
>> > the A48 (and other main routes). However, I would not let my child (or
>> want
>> > to see any child) use them, with vehicles speeding past at 60, 70, 80 mph
>> > just centimetres away! Cheap is not good, and often unusable. It is time
>> > that in the UK we did things well - cheap is often a waste of time and
>> > money!
>> > What should happen is that the road is narrowed, and the saved space (on
>> one
>> > side) used to provide a segregated, two-way cycle path that everyone
>> > considers safe and attractive to use. Painted hard-shoulders are not
>> > acceptable or attractive to most, provide limited safety, and thus the
>> most
>> > expensive form of cycling infrastructure.
>>
>> Nobody is going to spend that money if only a handful will use it.
>> You'd be exceedingly lucky to get a child that far out of Bridgend,
>> regardless of facility (maybe if you installed a free sweet-dispenser
>> every hundred yards, but otherwise forget it). It's not pleasant
>> cycling alongside high-speed traffic, even if you've got a segregated
>> route.
>>
>> It's time we did things well = it's time we did things exceedingly
>> slowly, and probably not even start.
>>
>> Alternatively, you can copy places in the UK that have been successful
>> (cue ad for my paper in Glasgow)
>>
>> Richard
>
|