£94m but no change in attitude.....?

You can say providing discrete cycle pathways is marginalising cyclists, but it could also be considered as prioritising cyclists.

highlandsflyer":23yzn88y said:

You can say providing discrete cycle pathways is marginalising cyclists, but it could also be considered as prioritising cyclists.

Click to expand...

The problem is, it just gives ammunition and kinda fosters / encouraged those attitudes in the troublesome drivers - those that believe bikes have no place on the road - and they're the real concern.

Carelessness will always happen - it's those with the truly negative attitudes that need addressing - and segmenting cyclists away from the roads is giving them more lead in their pencil (yes, yes, yes I know, the pedantic will point out it's not lead, it's graphite...)

The problem is those with the problem attitudes, and it's those that seem to get encouraged with cycle paths and the whole "you shouldn't even be on the road type attitudes".

I don't ever hear anyone claiming buses should not be on the road because they have their own lanes.

How about all the cycle routes far away from the road?

Fuelling driver attitudes against cyclists? Providing an alternative to sharing the roads, something not all cyclists want to do? Possibly both, but those of us who want to use discrete cycle ways don't owe anything to militant cyclist who wants to become traffic jam in the traffic jam.

A work colleagues Dad lost his life using a discrete cycleway because some arriss placed a tree branch across it. I don't mind cycleway at all, but finding one that's designed well, maintained properly, and isn't rife with low life scrotes is a hard task. Generally speaking I'd sooner take my chances mixing it with the Audis.

highlandsflyer":2jlf4ald said:

I don't ever hear anyone claiming buses should not be on the road because they have their own lanes.

Click to expand...

Me neither.

I don't think that's the point, though.

highlandsflyer":2jlf4ald said:

How about all the cycle routes far away from the road?

Fuelling driver attitudes against cyclists? Providing an alternative to sharing the roads, something not all cyclists want to do? Possibly both, but those of us who want to use discrete cycle ways don't owe anything to militant cyclist who wants to become traffic jam in the traffic jam.

Click to expand...

Thing is, though, this thread is all about drivers attitudes to cyclists - well some drivers. That's never going to be helped, and probably further deteriorated by simply thinking throwing money at cycling "facilities" being the answer - it's not.

And cycle paths are never going to be comprehensive / everywhere. So simply pursuing the prospect of funding more facilities is simply going to embolden those drivers with shonky attitudes, and then make it even a more hostile landscape for those inevitable situations where cyclists have no option but to cohabit on the roads with vehicles.

I'm not suggesting some call-to-arms, or some advocacy that cyclists who want to use cycle paths, shouldn't, rather they should become part of the madding crowd. I'm just raging against the light that is money, "facilities" and segregation being the answer. It's not - it's a big hairy crock. I've no problem with people wanting to have them and use them - but it sure as shit won't help those that have no option but to use the roads at times, who encounter the increasing issue of drivers with attitude, making cycling on road an increasingly hostile, but unnecessarily so, activity.

Something needs to be done to redress this idiocy that's largely being unfettered - because it seems to be becoming ever more rampant - you've only to read comments on news articles with videos, or youtube videos to realise that many, and an increasing many, behind the wheel of a car, or vehicle, are become increasing ignorant, yet at the same time increasingly arrogant about their place on the roads.

That can be addressed - just like other "undesirable" aspects of driving that get attention, with sufficient will - but won't and will be ignored, if the people slopping out any funds allocated, think it's purely "facilities" that are the answer.

No real argument there. I just feel that cycle networks are part of the solution, not a distraction from it. I also feel it is possible to create a network that indeed covers every major route. I personally would prefer never to share the road again.

highlandsflyer":18k1x8ct said:

How about all the cycle routes far away from the road?

Fuelling driver attitudes against cyclists? Providing an alternative to sharing the roads, something not all cyclists want to do? Possibly both, but those of us who want to use discrete cycle ways don't owe anything to militant cyclist who wants to become traffic jam in the traffic jam.

Click to expand...

Neil":18k1x8ct said:

Thing is, though, this thread is all about drivers attitudes to cyclists - well some drivers. That's never going to be helped, and probably further deteriorated by simply thinking throwing money at cycling "facilities" being the answer - it's not.

And cycle paths are never going to be comprehensive / everywhere. So simply pursuing the prospect of funding more facilities is simply going to embolden those drivers with shonky attitudes, and then make it even a more hostile landscape for those inevitable situations where cyclists have no option but to cohabit on the roads with vehicles.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't particularly want to be a militant cyclist, I am also a motorist with an interest in "retro" cars as well, hopefully the thread is also about possible solutions rather than just another rant about inconsiderate motorists but it seems to be getting worse - spending the money in the right area, segregation does seem to exasperate matters, even a cycle lane seems to promote the idea that this is the space needed and the only space rather than the 5ft clear space that is supposed to be left.

daugs":brwyriil said:

highlandsflyer":brwyriil said:

How about all the cycle routes far away from the road?

Fuelling driver attitudes against cyclists? Providing an alternative to sharing the roads, something not all cyclists want to do? Possibly both, but those of us who want to use discrete cycle ways don't owe anything to militant cyclist who wants to become traffic jam in the traffic jam.

Click to expand...

Neil":brwyriil said:

Thing is, though, this thread is all about drivers attitudes to cyclists - well some drivers. That's never going to be helped, and probably further deteriorated by simply thinking throwing money at cycling "facilities" being the answer - it's not.

And cycle paths are never going to be comprehensive / everywhere. So simply pursuing the prospect of funding more facilities is simply going to embolden those drivers with shonky attitudes, and then make it even a more hostile landscape for those inevitable situations where cyclists have no option but to cohabit on the roads with vehicles.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't particularly want to be a militant cyclist, I am also a motorist with an interest in "retro" cars as well, hopefully the thread is also about possible solutions rather than just another rant about inconsiderate motorists but it seems to be getting worse - spending the money in the right area, segregation does seem to exasperate matters, even a cycle lane seems to promote the idea that this is the space needed and the only space rather than the 5ft clear space that is supposed to be left.

Click to expand...

I'm with you - I don't want to be a militant cyclist, either. I'm divided on them, really - sometimes I'm glad somebody is willing to stand up, and in some instances, I think they can go overboard on the whole thing.

Inevitable facts remain, though - there's never going to be a sufficiently comprehensive network of cycle paths such that cyclists and motorist will never have to share the roads. But the more and more paths that are created, seems to give those neanderthals-without-a-cause-or-a-clue that bit more lighter-fuel-on-a-bonfire to their attitude that cyclists have no place in the road, in their way.

And more to that, really, if cycle paths did cover a lot of major routes, that would just leave cyclists even more exposed (on several fronts) in more rural or minor routes.

There's plenty of cycle paths already - I'm not saying there should be no more, or no money should go towards them. But I'll say it again, what really does need focus, resource and will / commitment to resolve, is addressing the burgeoning hostility in many drivers to cyclists - that needs some focus, yet always seems to be ignored, swept under the carpet, or trivialised. What it needs is some determined campaign - a la drink driving in past times, or the whole thing about speed and safety cameras. This isn't a minor compliance thing that's about desirability, it's about misfiring neurons, and true life-and-limb safety for a valid group of road users, that up to now, all the focus and resource just seems to be thrown at token "facilities" that have probably in their own way help foster the divide and the changing attitudes which are truly what makes a lot of cyclists at risk today (carelessness, and their own bad behaviour notwithstanding).

I don't buy the thing about cycle paths leading drivers to attitudes that cyclists should not be on the road.

If that is the case, it must be a tiny minority because I have never encountered that.

The drivers who drive with no consideration for cyclists are most likely totally unaware of cycle paths in my view. They are just idiots, and an extra cycle path or two is not going to influence that.

highlandsflyer":2xdtrmki said:

I don't buy the thing about cycle paths leading drivers to attitudes that cyclists should not be on the road.

Click to expand...

Well where should they be, if not on the road?

highlandsflyer":2xdtrmki said:

If that is the case, it must be a tiny minority because I have never encountered that.

The drivers who drive with no consideration for cyclists are most likely totally unaware of cycle paths in my view.

Click to expand...

I'm not buying it.

That entire argument about not being on the road, in their way - I've seen that, I've also seen it on countless videos.

Where else should they be, if not on the road?

To me, there's some cause and effect. Prior to there being cycle paths or lanes, you'd maybe get the odd driver, who'd give attitude, but there's no other argument, really, is there - in those days, where else could a cyclist be. I think some of it has been a consequence of their being cycle paths / lanes, but at times some cyclists not using them, which has tipped some fatal balance in the perspective of some drivers, that they now tend to extend to all scenarios.