I'm always a bit concerned with the knee jerk response of looking to the continent and immediately assuming that infrastructure, seperate cycle lanes and the like are what we must have over here. But no one seems to take into account the size of London in comparison,
from Wikipedia (for my sins)
Utrect
Area(2006)
• City and municipality 99.32 km2 (38.35 sq mi)
• Land 95.67 km2 (36.94 sq mi)
• Water 3.64 km2 (1.41 sq mi)
Elevation 4 m (13 ft)
Population (1 May 2013)
• City and municipality 323,617
• Density 3,279/km2 (8,490/sq mi)
• Metro 640,000
London
Area
• City 1,572.00 km2 (606.95 sq mi)
• Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
• Metro 8,382.00 km2 (3,236.31 sq mi)
Elevation[1] 24 m (79 ft)
Population (2012)[2][3][4]
• City 8,308,369
• Density 5,285/km2 (13,690/sq mi)
• Urban 9,787,426
• Urban zone 11,905,500
• Metro 15,010,295
how long are the average journeys in those cities abroad that we aspire to make ours like, how far is the average journey? What are people primarily using their bikes for? Does the infrastructure cover the whole of the journey or some of it?
Those who are pushing for infrastructure change, segregation, etc, seem, to my mind, to believe this change will happen overnight. It might. But I am doubtful, and if that is the case, cycle training, and how we as cyclists interact with other motorised transport, and how they interact with us, isn't going away anytime soon. The issues still need to be addressed and just saying it should be like this (points at photo's of utopian dutch cyclepaths) isn't enough.
I'm personally against segregation, but more people cycling is something to be worked towards by all parties rather than the divide and slag off which some, and I'm saying this carefully, some of those who are advocating segregation and more infrastructure are involving themselves in..
I'm always a bit concerned with the knee jerk response of looking to the continent and immediately assuming that infrastructure, seperate cycle lanes and the like are what we must have over here. But no one seems to take into account the size of London in comparison,
from Wikipedia (for my sins)
Utrect
Area(2006)
• City and municipality 99.32 km2 (38.35 sq mi)
• Land 95.67 km2 (36.94 sq mi)
• Water 3.64 km2 (1.41 sq mi)
Elevation 4 m (13 ft)
Population (1 May 2013)
• City and municipality 323,617
• Density 3,279/km2 (8,490/sq mi)
• Metro 640,000
London
Area
• City 1,572.00 km2 (606.95 sq mi)
• Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
• Metro 8,382.00 km2 (3,236.31 sq mi)
Elevation[1] 24 m (79 ft)
Population (2012)[2][3][4]
• City 8,308,369
• Density 5,285/km2 (13,690/sq mi)
• Urban 9,787,426
• Urban zone 11,905,500
• Metro 15,010,295
how long are the average journeys in those cities abroad that we aspire to make ours like, how far is the average journey? What are people primarily using their bikes for? Does the infrastructure cover the whole of the journey or some of it?
Those who are pushing for infrastructure change, segregation, etc, seem, to my mind, to believe this change will happen overnight. It might. But I am doubtful, and if that is the case, cycle training, and how we as cyclists interact with other motorised transport, and how they interact with us, isn't going away anytime soon. The issues still need to be addressed and just saying it should be like this (points at photo's of utopian dutch cyclepaths) isn't enough.
I'm personally against segregation, but more people cycling is something to be worked towards by all parties rather than the divide and slag off which some, and I'm saying this carefully, some of those who are advocating segregation and more infrastructure are involving themselves in..