U know this inflating thing got me thinking about the infamous CTUK rubber dinghies.
Too often when thinking "shareable width" or "secondary position", the situation is presented cross section wise, a cyclists a point-like roadway obstruction.
While this can be useful pointing out how few lanes are "shareable width" (distance from edge hazards + margin-o-safety + cyclist shoulder width + passing distance + car width, run out of lane width yet?), viewing the situation as point-like situation is a wrong premise.
The idea I got is to describe also cyclists' area of influence as rubber dinghies interacting with the motorists' rubber dinghies. (BTW I'm completely serious now.)
Both can be inflated or deflated according to the situation etc.
But a pithy one-liner or a one-thousand-pager powerpoint isn't going to have much effect. What I would like to see is mr Skylark rolling up his sleeves and saying: "Enough talk gentleman, let's take it outside". Take it to the streets.
U know this inflating thing got me thinking about the infamous CTUK rubber dinghies.
Too often when thinking "shareable width" or "secondary position", the situation is presented cross section wise, a cyclists a point-like roadway obstruction.
While this can be useful pointing out how few lanes are "shareable width" (distance from edge hazards + margin-o-safety + cyclist shoulder width + passing distance + car width, run out of lane width yet?), viewing the situation as point-like situation is a wrong premise.
The idea I got is to describe also cyclists' area of influence as rubber dinghies interacting with the motorists' rubber dinghies. (BTW I'm completely serious now.)
Both can be inflated or deflated according to the situation etc.
But a pithy one-liner or a one-thousand-pager powerpoint isn't going to have much effect. What I would like to see is mr Skylark rolling up his sleeves and saying: "Enough talk gentleman, let's take it outside". Take it to the streets.