highlandsflyer":39hzoi90 said:
Neil":39hzoi90 said:
1. Complete separation is never going to happen in our lifetimes.
2. The more instances where cyclists are marginalised - because there are facilities in other areas, will have them seen as the exception and not the rule.
3. Cyclists have had to co-exist with motorised traffic on 50+ roads for decades. But all the same - separation due to higher speed traffic, doesn't mean it should be done everywhere - nor that the argument applies everywhere. And realistically, will never be everywhere, in the foreseeable.
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?
1. Plenty progressive changes I regard as ideal won't happen in my lifetime. Mortality or longevity doesn't shape the argument, nor my thoughts.
Thing is - we don't have comprehensive separation for pedestrians - what hope and even more marginalised group, like cyclists.
highlandsflyer":39hzoi90 said:
2. Providing safe alternatives to riding on dangerous roads is not marginalising. Would you argue bridleways and pedestrian paths are marginalising those groups?
I'm saying that once drivers get out of the habit, and have a handy excuse for not giving consideration, they won't, and they don't. That's why I gave the open plan scenarios as an example.
highlandsflyer":39hzoi90 said:
3. We are talking about an ideal, (most policy is idealistic); if separation works it should be the default. The fact complete separation will not happen in the foreseeable future is no argument against moving in that direction.
It's never completely happened for pedestrians - so what chance cyclsits.
That said, I'm not arguing truly against them so much, I'm just not convinced what we have already, are so great - some are blighted by absolute fuckwittery of the highest order. Plus, given the context of this thread (specifically, driver attitude) it does nothing to help, and potentially has a negative impact on driver attitudes.
highlandsflyer":39hzoi90 said:
4. I am all for pedestrian priority zones, with vehicles restricted to access only. Logic is not being reversed to suggest separating cyclists where traffic is moving at higher speeds. Are we to allow cyclists onto motorways then? Is that the ideal, to have every road in the land shared with all traffic? Should we do away with pavements too? Perhaps you should study the resultant maelstrom we can observe in the city streets of some developing countries.
I'm not advocating complete anarchy on the roads, and I can see perfect sense in segregation on higher speed, more established main trunk roads - it tends to be easy to provision cycle facilities.
The problem I have is the extrapolation - it's always "'some' are good, 'more' are better". And specifically in relevance to the subject of this thread, I just don't believe that throwing more money at cycling "facilities" or some other "blue sky" ideas on how to waste money are the best way of tackling the burgeoning issue with driver attitudes towards cyclists. But the problem seems to be, that TPB believe that getting some funding, and spending some funding means "job done".
