highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
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.
highlandsflyer":2jlf4ald said:I don't ever hear anyone claiming buses should not be on the road because they have their own lanes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
highlandsflyer":2xdtrmki said:I don't buy the thing about cycle paths leading drivers to attitudes that cyclists should not be 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.