Showing posts with label cycling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cycling. Show all posts

Sunday, 17 November 2013

Thoughts on cycling...

****

I've got a bike. You can ride it if you like.
It's got a basket, a bell that rings and
Things to make it look good.

I don't cycle. Indeed I gave my bike to my son a week or so back for him to travel to and from work. I used to cycle, back in the days when cycling five miles to school in South London was a done thing (and when schools, famously, had bike sheds behind which you could smoke).

So I was curious about the recent modest hullabaloo about cycling accidents where, if I understand correctly, they are all the fault of Boris Johnson.

The thing is that the number of cyclists involved in accidents has increased as the number of cyclists has increased. The CTC reports that the mileage cycled has increased by 20% over the past decade and that around 750,000 people regularly cycle to work.

It may be that, as numbers of cyclists increase, awareness levels increase too - both because cyclists are more expected on the roads but also that more drivers are also cyclists. And some research supports this contention:

The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods. (Jacobsen, 2003)

So more cycling means lower risks (although not necessarily fewer injuries in absolute terms, which is the reason for the silly spat over Boris) for cyclists but not for motorists.  The question is whether there's a point at which the critical mass of cyclists has sufficient of an effect on driver behaviour to begin to see the risks for the motorists fall as they are for the cyclist.

....

Friday, 18 January 2013

So where is Bradford then, George?

I got home this evening to be greeted cheerily by Kathryn saying that the Tour de France will be passing by us - through Haworth and Oxenhope on its way to the Calder Valley and beyond. Cheering news indeed on a snowy evening in Bradford.

And that's the point - Bradford is where I live, where I'm a local councillor and where this great race will pass through. It seems however that some of Bradford's MPs want to redraw our political geography and claim that these places - Ilkley, Haworth, Keighley, Oxenhope, Silsden - are not parts of the Bradford Metropolitan District Council:

"George Galloway, MP for Bradford West, said the Tour route seemed to "deliberately avoid the city, going to the leafy areas of Ilkley, Otley, Haworth and Keighley instead".

Bradford metropolitan district council is contributing a six-figure figure sum in order to bring the Tour to the district. Galloway said: "It would be money well spent if it achieved tangible and substantial benefits in tourism and revenues for the city of Bradford, but it seems clear that the Tour caravan and the hundreds of thousands who follow it will spend their money elsewhere."

Now while this is perhaps the very first time that anyone has described Keighley as "leafy", does George Galloway not think that the rest of us are deserving of tourism, worthy of Bradford Council - our council - support? Will not the thousands flocking to watch the tour along its route through the Bradford District bring substantial benefits "in tourism and revenues"?

What we see here is Galloway seeking to lay claim to his little part of Bradford being the whole of Bradford - that the parts where 40% of the district's population live are not even to be considered as part of the City. There are many, although I'm not one, who'll take George's comments - as well as the equally daft and divisive remarks from Lib Dem, David Ward - as futher cause for separating Keighley, Ilkley, Bingley & Shipley to create a new Aire-Wharfe council.

Mostly though, this just reminds us how little George Galloway either knows or cares about the place he represents in parliament.

....

Monday, 19 October 2009

A little rant: I'm in favour of cycling but....

Why...

1. Ride in the road when there's cycle lane
2. Go the wrong way up a one way street
3. Bob on and off the pavement regardless of pedestrians
4. Jump red lights
5. Turn across the road without signalling
6. Weave in and out of semi-stationery traffic
7. Ride on the pavement and in pedestrian areas
8. Allow huge queues of traffic to build up behind you and not pull over.

...and when some poor driver has nearly killed you because of your stupidity (bloke who crossed in front of me on red today) why do you think it's OK to shout and swear, make rude gestures and generally act like an idiot? Have you never considered that you'd get a little more respect and consideration if you didn't behave as if the rules of the road were invented for others.

Keep on cycling but for god sake stop trying to pretend you're better than those of us in cars. You're not.