• Of course. Environment and behaviour are reciprocal, though - they both affect each other e.g. a town creates some good cycle infrastructure > more people cycle > a higher percentage of the population becomes aware of the needs of cyclists > everyone drives better around cyclists in general > more people cycle > town creates more infrastructure > a higher percentage... and so on.

    At the moment, our government is making a very meagre attempt at changing behaviour and without providing any proper infrastructure. If you look at the Netherlands or some towns in northern Germany, 30 years ago cycling was nowhere near as popular as it is today - their governments made some incredibly good infrastructure and let the behaviour change itself.

    Perhaps it doesn't matter exactly where you start this loop, but it seems that changing environment (although expensive) is much quicker/more effective than simply suggesting people change their behaviour and hoping that the environment will eventually change itself.

    This is, of course, pulled almost entirely out of my arse.

    In principle you have a valid argument, in the sense that policy and legislation accommodated by the right infrastructure may very well be key to behavioral and cultural change on Britain's roads, or at least encourage/speed up the process.

    But I can assure you that across northern Europe i.e. Benelux, Germany and Scandinavia, it is the other way around; policy and legislation, let alone infrastructure, is a direct result of public demand - culture if you want. Having said that, policy, legislation, culture and public demand are not inconsistencies, on the contrary, in a functioning democracy they should be one and the same.

About

Avatar for Lynchman @Lynchman started