CYCLE PAVEMENTS
This is from an anonymous Guardian journalist and here's the link to post a message of support: www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate
Why not take cyclists off the roads completely? Put them on the pavements...
Near-death experiences are supposed to provoke profound reflection. Speaking for myself, the exact opposite seems to be the case. Cycling home the other day, having narrowly avoided being sandwiched between a bendy bus and a white van, the most banal, obvious thought popped into my head: motorised transport and bicycles don't mix.
The conundrum is this. We need to get on bikes more, but bikes are too puny to share the road with the likes of bendy-bus driver and white-van man. Although allocated cycle routes have worked for bike-friendly countries like Denmark and Holland, our cycle paths, cobbled together on the cheap by civic engineers with little understanding of the needs of regular cyclists, aren't up to the job. With the health of the environment and the *lives* of 140 cyclists a year at stake, surely it's time to admit defeat and impose automotive apartheid. The best, most economical way to do this? Simply reserve half our pavements for bikes. Pedestrians use one side, cyclists the other and we leave the roads to the internal combustion engine.
Of course, the backlash would be fairly predictable: there would always be some who would argue that, if we take over pavements, pedestrians will hate cyclists even more than they do already. But the time has come to face a few harsh truths: bikes have more or less colonised pavements anyway - something has to give, and the sooner pedestrians accept that certain sacrifices have to be made, the better it will be for all of us.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. And as I can attest after my recent brush with mortality, it's a war zone out there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that problems arise from the belief held by pedestrians (and by society at large) that pavements are for pedestrians and roads are for traffic. Just because this is the way it's always been doesn't make it an unalterable fact, nor does it equate to "the best way". Pedestrians have had pavements to themselves for long enough. If I had a pound for everytime someone told me "I'd love my kids to cycle to school but it's too dangerous" I'd be fabulously wealthy. If cycling were perceived as safe, the roads would be much quieter, especially in built-up provincial areas. I wouldn't recommend that cyclists steam in and take over every high street. On main trunk roads the pavements are often very wide and certainly wide enough for a cycle lane. Also, on pavements lining these arterial routes (not motorways), there are seldom many pedestrians anyway because everyone, so it seems, is in a car. Cyclists would have to give way and slow down for pedestrians, naturally. Of course there are those who would disobey this etiquette but in all probability they are likely the ones who disobey it already. Finally, if a cyclist accidentally brushes against a pedestrian in passing, it's hardly a disaster is it?? The worst-case scenario probably equates to a split carrier bag, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a minor inconvenience worthy of an "Oi!". (Remember: the majority of people drive to and from supermarkets....) Hardly the same inconvenience as a double decker bus, transit van or heavy plant vehicle knocking you to the ground and running over your feet or body.
With all the new houses being built on greenbelt land in inaccessible areas miles out of town, many more people will soon be forced to drive on already-gridlocked roads whether they want to or not. So, all in all, I'm fairly relaxed about the issue of cyclists on the pavements. Only a matter of time...
This is from an anonymous Guardian journalist and here's the link to post a message of support: www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate
Why not take cyclists off the roads completely? Put them on the pavements...
Near-death experiences are supposed to provoke profound reflection. Speaking for myself, the exact opposite seems to be the case. Cycling home the other day, having narrowly avoided being sandwiched between a bendy bus and a white van, the most banal, obvious thought popped into my head: motorised transport and bicycles don't mix.
The conundrum is this. We need to get on bikes more, but bikes are too puny to share the road with the likes of bendy-bus driver and white-van man. Although allocated cycle routes have worked for bike-friendly countries like Denmark and Holland, our cycle paths, cobbled together on the cheap by civic engineers with little understanding of the needs of regular cyclists, aren't up to the job. With the health of the environment and the *lives* of 140 cyclists a year at stake, surely it's time to admit defeat and impose automotive apartheid. The best, most economical way to do this? Simply reserve half our pavements for bikes. Pedestrians use one side, cyclists the other and we leave the roads to the internal combustion engine.
Of course, the backlash would be fairly predictable: there would always be some who would argue that, if we take over pavements, pedestrians will hate cyclists even more than they do already. But the time has come to face a few harsh truths: bikes have more or less colonised pavements anyway - something has to give, and the sooner pedestrians accept that certain sacrifices have to be made, the better it will be for all of us.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. And as I can attest after my recent brush with mortality, it's a war zone out there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that problems arise from the belief held by pedestrians (and by society at large) that pavements are for pedestrians and roads are for traffic. Just because this is the way it's always been doesn't make it an unalterable fact, nor does it equate to "the best way". Pedestrians have had pavements to themselves for long enough. If I had a pound for everytime someone told me "I'd love my kids to cycle to school but it's too dangerous" I'd be fabulously wealthy. If cycling were perceived as safe, the roads would be much quieter, especially in built-up provincial areas. I wouldn't recommend that cyclists steam in and take over every high street. On main trunk roads the pavements are often very wide and certainly wide enough for a cycle lane. Also, on pavements lining these arterial routes (not motorways), there are seldom many pedestrians anyway because everyone, so it seems, is in a car. Cyclists would have to give way and slow down for pedestrians, naturally. Of course there are those who would disobey this etiquette but in all probability they are likely the ones who disobey it already. Finally, if a cyclist accidentally brushes against a pedestrian in passing, it's hardly a disaster is it?? The worst-case scenario probably equates to a split carrier bag, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a minor inconvenience worthy of an "Oi!". (Remember: the majority of people drive to and from supermarkets....) Hardly the same inconvenience as a double decker bus, transit van or heavy plant vehicle knocking you to the ground and running over your feet or body.
With all the new houses being built on greenbelt land in inaccessible areas miles out of town, many more people will soon be forced to drive on already-gridlocked roads whether they want to or not. So, all in all, I'm fairly relaxed about the issue of cyclists on the pavements. Only a matter of time...
