| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Cyclists and support for local shops | |
| Posted by: | Charlotte Kasner | |
| Date/Time: | 26/03/19 16:37:00 |
| Of course I'm selective; anyone who want to read the full report can do so without me reproducing it on this forum. "2% of the travelling public" is the figure that TfL and the DoT TfL quote. Numbers vary locally but, if you want to look at London, consider the recent, national YouGov poll that found that Londoners were the least likely to ever want to cycle. This indepedent study, commissioned by TfL, looked at 14 town centres across London - you can read the figures for yourself. You may "believe" that perceived danger is the single, biggest reason that people don't cycle but that is not what peer-reviewed studies find. Any researcher will also know that reported reasons for doing or not doing something must be treated with caution. As I posted before, many people say that they would like to lose weight but only a small minority do and and even smaller minority keep the weight off in the long term. If they say that they want to lose weight by cycling, for instance, the same would still apply. It is very easy to tell a researcher that you would like to cycle but don't because it is too dangerous but, when segregated cycle facilities are provided, they have not attracted new cyclists. The 3 town study to which I refer wa longitudinal - this was the case for all 3 towns over 2 years. I have not been able to acces any O & D studies for cycling. If you know of any, I would be interested in reading them. Another peer-reviewed study published in Preventative Health found that most cycling journeys were of very sort duration and distance and would convey no appreciable health or fitness benefits on the cyclist. There are plenty of options for people to get fit without using the public highway as an excuse. "Cyclists live longer" - really? Than whom? The vast majority of the population do not cycle. Does that mean that everyone who gets on a bike will live longer than any of them? Of course not. Does that mean that no one else has all sorts of ways of getting fit that have nothing to do with cycling? More to the point, does that mean that people who might benefit from being fitter will take up cycling. Obviously not, whatever the facilities provided. there are just too many other variables to take into account to make such an assertion. I agree that cycing is relatively safe: the figures for the EWCS show that, but those millions have already been wasted and are costing businesses very dear. If you really want to worry about the most vulnerable road users in proportion to the numbers using the mode, then TfL and DoT figures show that motorcyclists are much more likely to be injured or killed. They are not demanding that millions of pounds be spent segregating them from other traffic and they are tested, licensed and identifiable in the event that they might be at fault. "..we have to get people cycling to cut pollution". CS9 will result in pollution-absorbing, mature trees being lost. We have already lost the hedgerow on back commion. Lambeth council felled 3 mature birch trees to accommodate cyclists - none of this was on the plan or the "consultation". CS9 will result in more pollution as traffic is funnelled along a narrowed road and pushed into side streets as a result of side roads being closed. There are, as I pointed out in my post, many more realistic ways of cutting pollution that are already in progress. Cycleways have proved elsewhere that they are definitely not one of them. Just consider the forced idling of engines on the Embankment and an excellent example of gridlock that rarely existed there prior to the cycle lane. People have not abandoned cars, taxis or freight vehicles because there is a cycle lane there because cycling is not an alternative. The number of people driving in London is comparatively low compared to the rest of the UK and is declining. 70% per cent of households in London do not own a car and car ownership is in decline. Those people are not cycling, the majority are using buses. Cycle lanes will make bus journeys slower, services even less regular and contribute to more pollution. Cycling might be "the quickest way to move around in London" but it quite clearly is not the choice - or a viable option - "for the majority of people" (71% I remind you). Now, if you don't want to scare people, I suggest that you don't use Richard Hammond as an example - how many times has he been seen on TG and the GT falling off bikes of various sorts and don't even mention his record in motor vehicles. |