Bicycler wrote:andrewk wrote:Improve conditions for cycling but not by making conditions worse for motorists. I am strongly against reduced speed limits, chicanes (so called traffic calming measures) and other anti car measures.
This isn't a zero sum game. It is possible to improve the lot of cyclists without bashing the motorist. The cycling lobbyists who are bent on bashing the motorist and introducing anti car policies are IMO misguided and fuel antagonism between the two. A consensus to improve conditions for cycling will not be achieved if one sets out to alienate the majority.
It is possible to introduce measures that are pro car and pro cycling, eg. Segregated cycle lanes, restrictions on HGVs in urban areas. Education and enforcement though never popular is IMO needed both for motorists and cyclists.
Utility transport is a zero sum game. Travel is by one means or another. Road space is limited and decisions have to be made which have the effect (intended or otherwise) of prioritising one form of transport over another.
Well, yes, but it's not exactly a zero sum game. Even for utility transport, there's some scope to choose to travel more or less: both in number of trips (for example, combining two trips in similar directions because fuel is expensive) or in distances (for example, driving to several edge of town retail parks instead of the town centre because it's seen as "easier").
Both bicycler and andrewk are correct I think: high speed limits are anti-non-motorised-users; but measures like humps that mainly penalise cars without delivering unique benefits for walking or cycling aren't great. I've just seen a hump mentioned as helping to launch a car into some children and killing them
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.co ... e-streets/ (but apparently the children were partly to blame for playing with a bicycle, not wearing body armour and not following the highway code. Grrrrr)
Stuff like speed humps shouldn't be necessary: the police should enforce the traffic laws and motorists who campaign irresponsibly against speed cameras should be laughed out of the debate.
As a car driver, I don't think lowering speed limits is anti-car. I like guidance on what's an appropriate maximum speed for an area, which these days contributes to computers routing me appropriately and in-car information displays. In some places, I don't think a motor lane being returned to walking and cycling is anti-car because if short single-person trips don't use cars, there's more space for other cars. Look at the space difference:
We've tried building our way out of congestion for far too long and it's finally getting serious academic weight showing it doesn't work, like
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137708751 ... re-traffic - Only a madmen keeps trying the same action and expecting a different outcome. It's time to try something smarter: congestion charges and redistribution are probably key parts of it.