| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Why bikes lanes don't make traffic worse. | |
| Posted by: | Ed Saper | |
| Date/Time: | 24/05/22 21:46:00 |
| You were pretty clear in your post - you quoted the TFL report to say that 21% of Londoners had ridden a bike in the last year (2018/19) and that most cyclists had been cycling for a long time. From that you deduced "cycle lanes actually benefit a small section of the population" and stated: "I question the efficiency of having the cycle lane and the overall benefits to travel in London it delivers." I don't think you should misinterpret my response as not understanding your point simply because I did not agree with it. I do agree that it is still a relatively small proportion of all Londoners who cycle regularly - although the numbers cycling regularly vary widely from area to area - e.g. Hammersmith: 31% cycle at least monthly and 18% at least weekly. Whereas you use a London wide average to justify removing cycling infrastructure in Chiswick where C9 has already proved successful, I say it justifies more cycling infrastructure here to connect up the schools and in many other areas. The sort of cyclist who historically commutes into London daily on main roads, aggressively defending themselves against traffic and still regularly getting killed and injured in the process is a minority. It certainly doesn't describe me, my wife, my kids or the families on Chiswick Tractors who use C9 on the school run. Nor does it describe the majority of people in London who long ago voted with their feet and stopped cycling because it feels / is so bloody dangerous on a road network that had safe cycling designed or suffocated out of it. Removing the cycle lane would take away highly efficient transport infrastructure - one that doesn't generate CO2, air pollution or traffic congestion. It would also make the roads more dangerous for a lot of people and thus significantly reduce growth in cycling, which is exactly why some people want it removed. |