Cycle Training

@Oliver,
I just meant that it seems ironic that the biggest cyclists organisation was asked and they mainly responded by saying they were road riders, no thanks to cycle lanes like Holland.

That's not really what happened. The CTC at the time were absolutely right in trying to resist the movement to shift the burden of responsibility onto cyclists (use red rear lights, 'be safe, be seen', etc.--neither were foregone conclusions at the time) and also onto the Government (build separate cycle infrastructure so that car drivers who kill cyclists are indirectly absolved of blame, etc.). Remember that at the time, motoring was relatively new.

But then they did have special lovely trains to all over the country for a sunday jaunt to 'the provinces' I wasnt alive then believe it or not, so dont know the full story, however they got sorted out on the continent-and they still dont suffer from the level of motor use that this country does.

Don't be too blue-eyed about provision on the Continent--there are much more significant factors in play for the higher level of cycling than the construction of cycle tracks. Just because that's what everybody who doesn't know much about this sees first and immediately associates it with the high level of cycling doesn't mean that it's the decisive factor.

The most important factor, by far, is planning--in the Netherlands, the average trip length is far, far shorter than over here--owing to better land use planning and a much juster society (relatively speaking) than here. The second factor is government support for cycling across all areas (e.g., strict liability). Also, the Netherlands have a very low modal share of public transport. Overall, the modal share of private motor traffic is 42% (last figures I saw, may have changed--the Dutch are expecting a considerable increase in car traffic owing to newly-developed, less well-planned modern developments, which would mean that the modal share of cycle traffic would fall--too early to call, that one) compared to the UK at 60%. Germany is 49%.

Also, a little-known fact is that in the Netherlands and Germany, cycle users are not allowed to ride in the carriageway if there is a sidepath alongside. I have friends who've been ordered off the road by police in the Netherlands. This is because these facilities were essentially conceived to get cyclists off the road and increase motor traffic capacity (thereby causing more motor traffic). That people nowadays think that such facilities are designed to make cycling safer just illustrates how much this thinking that cyclists should bear the responsibility for road danger, not motorists, has taken hold. (NB of course cyclists can cause road danger, too, they just cause disproportionately less than motorists.)

NB the CTC didn't cause or invent motorways--they were conceived much earlier. The CTC were merely arguing that motorways (which were coming, anyway) should be the only roads were cycling would not be permitted. They essentially benefited us today very much by preventing the passing of laws like those in Germany and the Netherlands. That we have that freedom today is a huge bonus. To suggest that they damaged cycling in this way is absurd. The other countries experienced a massive dip in cycling, too. It was only in the 1970s, during the oil crises, that the Netherlands had a huge change of government policy.

@Tommy,
what it is then that causes car addiction do you reckon? I reckon it must be in car music.

Many factors, of course. Modernity, industry interests, social aspiration (everybody wants to own a carriage and move around in it, something that only 'the rich' used to be able to do--that must mean more justice and democracy, Shirley?

CTC are still old duffers I reckon, struggling to change, with respect to all members here of course.

The average age of CTC members is quite high, but a lot of people in the CTC do excellent work. Their staff are top-notch. 'Old duffers' is really unfair and inaccurate.