Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[Cyclone 10]

Still waiting for you to actually address all the points I've asked you to look at.

[Guest makapaka]

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Still waiting for you to actually address all the points I've asked you to look at.

Theyre meaningless - you’ve no evidence to suggest that stopping children riding on roads

will reduce take up.

 

You think kids should be able to cycle on roads - I don’t - you don’t have to keep trying to think of reasons why you are right and i am wrong.

[I1L2T3 10]

3 hours ago, makapaka said:

Theyre meaningless - you’ve no evidence to suggest that stopping children riding on roads

will reduce take up.

 

You think kids should be able to cycle on roads - I don’t - you don’t have to keep trying to think of reasons why you are right and i am wrong.

We used to cycle on roads from about age 7-8 and after passing the cycling proficiency test we were allowed to cycle to school. On weekends we’d cycle halfway across the county and back, on main roads and country lanes.

 

In those days if a bobby saw you cycling on the footpath they’d stop you and tell you to get on the road.

 

What has changed?

[Bargepole23 337]

6 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

We used to cycle on roads from about age 7-8 and after passing the cycling proficiency test we were allowed to cycle to school. On weekends we’d cycle halfway across the county and back, on main roads and country lanes.

 

In those days if a bobby saw you cycling on the footpath they’d stop you and tell you to get on the road.

 

What has changed?

Nothing at all in reality, only perception of risk.

[Guest makapaka]

12 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

We used to cycle on roads from about age 7-8 and after passing the cycling proficiency test we were allowed to cycle to school. On weekends we’d cycle halfway across the county and back, on main roads and country lanes.

 

In those days if a bobby saw you cycling on the footpath they’d stop you and tell you to get on the road.

 

What has changed?

Just because as a 7 year old you were allowed to cycle by road half way across Yorkshire doesn’t make it right.

[I1L2T3 10]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

Just because as a 7 year old you were allowed to cycle by road half way across Yorkshire doesn’t make it right.

Why not? We had a great time. Nobody was hurt. Motorists in those days didn’t hate cyclists

[ads36 217]

17 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

What has changed?

in 1970 there were 15million cars/vehicles in Britain, now there are over 30million - and they're making more journeys.

 

It's easy to understand why people don't feel safe cycling, and as a result, they drive more. it's a vicious circle.

 

we desperately need to embrace active travel. We've seen that other cities in northern Europe can achieve cycling rates in excess of 50% (and climbing - the more they spend on cycle routes, the more people cycle). 

 

surely we can aim for 20% ? - which would reduce traffic to school-holiday levels. Yes, even with our hills, which really aren't as big a barrier as you might think (bikes have gears), and even if you do live at the top of blake st, you'll be walking up at 1mph, and riding down at over 20, your average speed will still be in double digits - faster than city driving!

 

Our air is polluted, our roads are congested, our city centres and residential areas are overwhelmingly dominated by parked* cars, we're fat, and lack of exercise is killing us.  We've built a country that dictates the necessity of car-ownership, which costs at least £3000 per year, per car - we've pushed millions of people into transport poverty.

 

but let's spend our time discussing ways to make cycling less accessible, i'm sure that'll fix something.

 

(*on average, cars spend 90% of their time stationary, often parked on pavements, or blocking bus routes)

Edited July 24, 2019 by ads36

[Bargepole23 337]

18 hours ago, makapaka said:

Just because as a 7 year old you were allowed to cycle by road half way across Yorkshire doesn’t make it right.

So your solution is to ban it, rather than enable it.

 

My take is that we should be enabling anything that encourages walking, cycling and public transport usage in a joined up way.

 

Starting our young people on that path at an early age is the right thing to do.  We haven't done that in this country, we have demonised it, made it difficult, if not impossible. So now we have got roads full to bursting with cars, and terrible, life endangering pollution. We spend billions on making it worse, not better.

[Janus 28]

4 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

We spend billions on making it worse, not better.

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

[Guest makapaka]

4 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

So your solution is to ban it, rather than enable it.

 

My take is that we should be enabling anything that encourages walking, cycling and public transport usage in a joined up way.

 

Starting our young people on that path at an early age is the right thing to do.  We haven't done that in this country, we have demonised it, made it difficult, if not impossible. So now we have got roads full to bursting with cars, and terrible, life endangering pollution. We spend billions on making it worse, not better.

Horse has bolted.

 

allowing kids to endanger themselves and others on the roads isn’t the answer.

[Bargepole23 337]

18 hours ago, makapaka said:

Horse has bolted.

 

allowing kids to endanger themselves and others on the roads isn’t the answer.

Disagree. Providing as many people as possible with alternatives to just jumping in the car by default, with traffic free routes, pedestrianised streets etc normalises the car-free alternatives. Encouraging that at an early age is what happens in other countries, we are just lacking the political will to make it happen here. What we get are unsuitable cycling routes, public transport where it is extraordinarily difficult to take your bike, and generally a pitiful level of investment. We will happily spend gazillions on straightening a bit of road, or fattening up a roundabout just so we can fill it with more and more cars, and baulk at spending a fraction of that on non-car infrastructure. I can't see a positive outcome from that route.

 

Final point. The children on the roads on bikes are generally on side streets, not the A1. They are endangering nobody. The only people endangering anybody are car drivers, either through accidents, or increasing pollution.

[Guest makapaka]

4 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Disagree. Providing as many people as possible with alternatives to just jumping in the car by default, with traffic free routes, pedestrianised streets etc normalises the car-free alternatives. Encouraging that at an early age is what happens in other countries, we are just lacking the political will to make it happen here. What we get are unsuitable cycling routes, public transport where it is extraordinarily difficult to take your bike, and generally a pitiful level of investment. We will happily spend gazillions on straightening a bit of road, or fattening up a roundabout just so we can fill it with more and more cars, and baulk at spending a fraction of that on non-car infrastructure. I can't see a positive outcome from that route.

 

Final point. The children on the roads on bikes are generally on side streets, not the A1. They are endangering nobody. The only people endangering anybody are car drivers, either through accidents, or increasing pollution.

On the final point - you’ve exaggerated the scales from a side street to the A1.

 

i see plenty of children riding on roads which are neither of the above - and are just busy inner city roads. 

 

Nr pontefract the other day 3 young children were pedalling the wrong way down the road between Castleford and Knottingley which is a nsl stretch of road.

 

im not saying that’s rife -  but it isn’t isolated either.