You are reading a single comment by @Backstop and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I'd rather teach a 5 year old to ride here than the A10! Reducing the complexity of a task to be learned is good pedagogy, where that also massively reduces the risk of death or serious injury I think it's obvious that such facilities should be expanded.
And of course most cycling should be on exactly these kind of tracks segregated from motor traffic, further enhancing their possible utility.
Backstop
Well. As I suspect I've said before in this thread, the 'Model Traffic Area' is kind of emblematic of the 'Road Safety' tendency, one of whose main aims was to scare people walking and cycling, and in this case mostly children, off the streets. The idea was that it would be safer to inculcate in people that they should avoid the risks of moving as traffic. Of course, people cycling slowly, 'holding up' drivers, or having the temerity to cross streets on foot, rather got in the way of the great mass motoring revolution (as did the inevitably longer queues of drivers when they could get to the end of the next queue faster). Hence, cycling 'education' was done away from the streets, with the lessons learned on these tiny tracks essentially not applicable to cycling on the streets by most. Cue a huge drop in cycling and walking, therefore much lower activity levels, and the associated much greater health risks (which are now going to get even worse given 'micro-mobility' and people using silly little electric machines to avoid walking and cycling even more). The idea that you should always use a motorised machine when moving about is to a large extent caused by the great deprecation of active travel, of which the 'Model Traffic Area' was one manifestation.