A public health crisis? Or should we all just pretend it is normal and unavoidable.

https://www.citylab.com/design...d=NDM5NTg2MjEyOTk5S0

 This is a piece about car-free/reduced downtown areas in Stockholm and Oslo.

Here in Vancouver, there is pubic hysteria over the suggestion of a congestion charge. Many seem to feel that the solution to congestion is to bring more cars into the city.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

Venice doesn’t have any today, nor does it have any cyclists!

 

As usual your example of Venice remains irrelevant to the rest of the world. But you need to get your anti-cycling dig in, I guess. To put the size of the car and cyclist free part of Venice into perspective, it would fit into Hyde Park.

Eloise posted:

Oh and replacing private cars with taxis isn't part of the answer either!

It actually is part of the answer. In parts of most cities a huge amount of space is devoted to parking (a typical car spends about 85% to 95% of its lifetime parked). Moving towards a shared mobility (taxies, ride share and car-share) model frees that up for other uses, including safe non-motorised transport.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

Venice doesn’t have any today, nor does it have any cyclists!

 

As usual your example of Venice remains irrelevant to the rest of the world. But you need to get your anti-cycling dig in, I guess. To put the size of the car and cyclist free part of Venice into perspective, it would fit into Hyde Park.

You are wrong, as usual, on both counts. Venice is not irrelevant. It is a real example of pedestrian/public transport only, in a modest sized city. Not everyone lives in London or Vancouver !

The fact that Venice is also cyclist-free simply adds to the evidence that cycling doesn't have to be part of the solution. On the other hand, your opening post is simply your usual dig at motorists.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

Venice doesn’t have any today, nor does it have any cyclists!

 

As usual your example of Venice remains irrelevant to the rest of the world. But you need to get your anti-cycling dig in, I guess. To put the size of the car and cyclist free part of Venice into perspective, it would fit into Hyde Park.

You are wrong, as usual, on both counts. Venice is not irrelevant. It is a real example of pedestrian/public transport only, in a modest sized city. Not everyone lives in London or Vancouver !

The fact that Venice is also cyclist-free simply adds to the evidence that cycling doesn't have to be part of the solution. On the other hand, your opening post is simply your usual dig at motorists.

Venice is a very small city in the context of its car and bike free central islands. But anyway, if a 1km radius (or thereabouts) city centre is made pedestrian-only (as is increasingly happening), I would be fully behind it. In downtown Vancouver, I walk everywhere I need to go already. I don't get my bike out, nor do I uses the bus or ubiquitous share-bikes, although many do. The area I cover on foot is perhaps similar to the size of Venice and it would be fabulous is much of it were fully pedestrianized, with limited access only for transport modes for the disabled . But I'm not going to walk the 25km from my home in to work each day. The bus is convenient, but unpleasant (the constant motion of turning, stopping and starting makes me nauseous). I won't drive because of the negative impact of costs, parking, pollution, safety, health and congestion. Cycling is perfect for my commute and saves me many hours of time and money each week.

I don't know why you dislike cycling as a transportation method so much. It is just weird.

winkyincanada posted:

I don't know why you dislike cycling as a transportation method so much. It is just weird.

First, the important bit (for this thread)

Cyclists would park up on the perimeter of the city just like motorists. And as you say, in most cases the city area or central part of it could be pedestrianised with transport modes for the disabled. In larger cities, pedestrian Zones could be connected by public transport eg bus, water-bus, tram/train/metro.

Secondly, the trivial part (for this thread)

Its not cycling per-se to which I have views that differ from yours (and others), simply the rather aggressive drive, by cyclists, for free access to the highway infrastructure which can already be congested at certain times during the day.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I don't know why you dislike cycling as a transportation method so much. It is just weird.

simply the rather aggressive drive, by cyclists, for free access to the highway infrastructure which can already be congested at certain times during the day.

I have exactly the same issue with bloody pedestrians. They pay absolutely nothing for damn sidewalks and they want them everywhere. They follow few rules, walk while distracted, wear funny clothes and have a sense of entitlement that makes my blood boil. They aren't registered, and pay no insurance or road tax. The sidewalks should be torn up to make room for more car lanes and parking. That would fix everything.

It is all the cyclists' fault, you know.....

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I don't know why you dislike cycling as a transportation method so much. It is just weird.

simply the rather aggressive drive, by cyclists, for free access to the highway infrastructure which can already be congested at certain times during the day.

I have exactly the same issue with bloody pedestrians. They pay absolutely nothing for damn sidewalks and they want them everywhere. They follow few rules, walk while distracted, wear funny clothes and have a sense of entitlement that makes my blood boil. They aren't registered, and pay no insurance or road tax. The sidewalks should be torn up to make room for more car lanes and parking. That would fix everything.

Almost funny winky, almost.

Let's just guess that about 95% of the commuting population are pedestrians (at some stage in their commute), and about 5% of the commuting population are cyclists (for all or part of their commute).

And let's just guess that about 40% of the commuting population are motorists (at some stage) and they have to pay to have access for the motoring part of their commute. My view is that cyclists could and should pay for occupation/utilaisation. But you know that already, so i'll leave it at that.

The pedestrian part of the commute is free at the point of utilisation to one and all, including cyclists and motorists alike.

Perhaps this will help soothe the way you feel about "bloody" pedestrians, including those who park their bike and have to walk across Hastings to the office ?

Anyway, As I indicated in my posts above, this element is the trivial part of the thread. I really didn't expect you to escalate it.

winkyincanada posted:

It is all the cyclists' fault, you know.....

 

Now that IS funny !

And the new Tesla S will resolve ALL that, when it arrives later this year (or next)

winkyincanada posted:

It is all the cyclists' fault, you know.....

 

It is an unfortunate consequence that some cyclists hog the road delaying motorists from overtaking; this may cause other motorists to slow down due to inherent lane changing; your photos capture this phenomenon beautifully.

If more of the general public were encouraged by policy makers to get on their bike, it could possibly introduce new dangers from overweight vehicles. We need to have stringent rules and regulations in place to discourage road users from procuring  blind advantage of the system. In addition, assisted driving also needs to be debated at national and trans-national levels to ensure that the assistant has two hands on the handles at all times (an exception for signalling). Furthermore, specifications are needed to ensure that all bicycles or any vehicle that is considered roadworthy, be tested at specified periods at approved inspection centres. This photo clearly illustrates the need for the general public to adhere to guidelines.

Minh Nguyen posted:

If more of the general public were encouraged by policy makers to get on their bike, it could possibly introduce new dangers from overweight vehicles. We need to have stringent rules and regulations in place to discourage road users from procuring  blind advantage of the system. In addition, assisted driving also needs to be debated at national and trans-national levels to ensure that the assistant has two hands on the handles at all times (an exception for signalling). Furthermore, specifications are needed to ensure that all bicycles or any vehicle that is considered roadworthy, be tested at specified periods at approved inspection centres. This photo clearly illustrates the need for the general public to adhere to guidelines.

Winkyinchina..............

Don Atkinson posted:

My view is that cyclists could and should pay for occupation/utilization. But you know that already, so i'll leave it at that.

 

I know that's your view. I don't so much have issue with that as such, as with the way you seem so serious when you propose your idiotic occupancy charge. The problem with your truly unworkable and inefficient bike-tax solution is that would effectively spell the end of cycling, and that no tax would ever be collected. You must realise this, you otherwise seem a smart guy, so my only  logical conclusion is simply that you have an irrational hatred of cycling as a means of transport. 

Well, on this subject your “logical conclusion” is simply wrong.

And that applies to both the irrational and hatred aspects of that conclusion.

But I think the basics of your thread deserve better than this diversion. So I’ll try to resist further comment.