Now here's an alternative view on Cycling.

[mike_nofx]

I dispute that my deleted post was off topic. It was directly in relation to the OP.

You know an agenda is being pushed when an on topic reply which did not threaten or insult forum members, which contributed to the thread, which relates to matters of the road on an automotive forum ‘pub’ section - gets deleted.

[Maka]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

I dispute that my deleted post was off topic. It was directly in relation to the OP.

You know an agenda is being pushed when an on topic reply which did not threaten or insult forum members, which contributed to the thread, which relates to matters of the road on an automotive forum ‘pub’ section - gets deleted.

I agree mostly with your post, imo no AFF agenda though. I'm a bit disappointed but thems the rules, kudos to you for speaking your mind & maybe speaking for others too lol.

cheers, Maka

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

I dispute that my deleted post was off topic. It was directly in relation to the OP.

You know an agenda is being pushed when an on topic reply which did not threaten or insult forum members, which contributed to the thread, which relates to matters of the road on an automotive forum ‘pub’ section - gets deleted.

Your deleted post referred to bike rego, and an identity system for the riders.

This has nothing to do with the OP, which was an article about Bicycle lanes, not the riders.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by cheap

Brisbane City Council spent millions appeasing the greenie/bike riding fraternity, we have dozens of bike hire spots throughout the CBD, on any given day 95% of these bikes are simply not used. Complete waste of taxpayer money.

im that 5% that rides town bikes

[chrisandsharon]

Lawrence Solomon: Ban the bike! How cities made a huge mistake in promoting cycling


‘huge mistake’ - lmao. That has made my day and yes I agree.





.

[burnz]

the A.C.T. has the best bike setup, car and bikes not together in most of Canberra.

Sydney, well it's an after thought, cars are now funneled into a single lane.

[aussiblue]

I regret opening this debate now but if the whole article I referenced (in full below) is read in full it is indeed about more than cycling lanes; it's more about who does and should bear the costs. No doubt though it is biased and written by someone who doesn't support any form of social welfare or state subsidies and that users should pay for all services they receive.

Cycling lanes consume more space than they free up, add to pollution and drain the public purse

Lawrence Solomon
December 1, 2017
10:30 AM EST


The bicycle has come a long way since the 1980s when bicycle advocacy groups (my group, Energy Probe, among them) lobbied against policies that discriminated against cyclists. In the language of the day, the bicycle epitomized “appropriate technology”: It was a right-sized machine that blessed cities with economic and environmental benefits. At no expense to taxpayers, the bicycle took cars off the road, easing traffic; it saved wear and tear on the roads, easing municipal budgets; it reduced auto emissions, easing air pollution; it reduced the need for automobile parking, increasing the efficiency of land use; and it helped keep people fit, too.

Today the bicycle is a mixed bag, usually with more negatives than positives. In many cities, bike lanes now consume more road space than they free up, they add to pollution as well as reducing it, they hurt neighbourhoods and business districts alike, and they have become a drain on the public purse. The bicycle today — or rather the infrastructure that now supports it — exemplifies “inappropriate technology,” a good idea gone wrong through unsustainable, willy-nilly top-down planning.

London, where former mayor Boris Johnston began a “cycling revolution,” shows where the road to ruin can lead. Although criticism of biking remains largely taboo among the city’s elite, a bike backlash is underway, with many blaming the city’s worsening congestion on the proliferation of bike lanes. While bikes have the luxury of zipping through traffic using dedicated lanes that are vastly underused most of the day — these include what Transport for London (TfL) calls “cycle superhighways” — cars have been squeezed into narrowed spaces that slow traffic to a crawl.

Cars have been squeezed into narrowed spaces that slow traffic to a crawl

As a City of London report acknowledged last year, “The most significant impact on the City’s road network in the last 12 months has been the construction and subsequent operation of TfL’s cycle super highway … areas of traffic congestion can frequently be found on those roads.” As Lord Nigel Lawson put it in a parliamentary debate on bicycles, cycle lanes have done more damage to London than “almost anything since the Blitz.”

As a consequence of the idling traffic, pollution levels have risen, contributing to what is now deemed a toxic stew. Ironically, cyclists are especially harmed, and not just because the bike lanes they speed upon are adjacent to tailpipes. According to a study by the London School of Medicine, cyclists have 2.3 times more inhaled soot than walkers because “cyclists breathe more deeply and at a quicker rate than pedestrians while in closer proximity to exhaust fumes … Our data strongly suggest that personal exposure to black carbon should be considered when planning cycling routes.” Cyclists have begun wearing facemasks as a consequence. A recent headline in The Independent helpfully featured “5 best anti-pollution masks for cycling.” Neighbourhoods endure extra pollution, too, with frustrated autos cutting through residential districts to avoid bike-bred congestion.


Health and safety costs aside — per kilometre travelled, cyclist fatalities are eight times that of motorists — the direct economic burden associated with cycling megaprojects is staggering. Paris, which boasts of its plan to become the “cycling capital of the world,” is in the midst of a 150-million-euro cycling scheme. Melbourne has a $100-million plan. Amsterdam — a flat, compact city well suited to cycling — is spending 120 million euros on 9,000 new bicycle parking spots alone. Where cold weather reigns for much of the year, as is the case in many of Canada’s cities, the cost-benefit case for cycling infrastructure is eviscerated further.

If roads were tolled, no cyclist could bear the burden he foists on society

The indirect costs of cycling also loom large because cycling lanes typically displace lanes that formerly accommodated street parking, especially outside rush-hour periods. Businesses that rely on street parking for their customers are often bitter at seeing their sales gutted. Cities not only lose revenue from street parking, they also lose revenue from public transit because — anecdotally, at least — people are switching to bikes more from public transit than from cars. And because the demand for parking hasn’t vanished, cities now find themselves levelling buildings on main streets and side streets in favour of parking lots. In effect, the varied uses to which the lanes adjacent to the sidewalk were once put — for car and bike traffic during rush hour and for parking benefitting delivery vehicles, local businesses and their patrons at other times — has devolved into a single-function piece of under-used pavement.

In a user-pay or market economy, where users pay for the services they consume, bicycle lanes would be non-starters outside college campuses and other niche settings. If roads were tolled to recover the cost of asphalt and maintenance, no cyclist could bear the burden he foists on society. The cyclist has been put on the dole, made a taker rather than a giver to society.

Some of the bike backlash — resentment at the privileged position of cyclists, who are notorious for flouting the rules of the road without contributing their fair share — manifests itself as economic penalty. Oregon, which has a high proportion of cyclists, recently became the first state to levy a sales tax on new bicycles, even though Oregon has no general sales tax. Legislators “felt that bicycles ought to contribute to the system,” explained a state senator who co-wrote the bill, expressing a sentiment widely held across the continent.

The most telling opposition to cyclists, though, may be cultural. They are often seen as an entitled, smug and affected minority. In the U.K., cyclists are mocked as “mamils” (middle-aged men in Lycra); in U.S. inner cities they’re seen as the preserve of “white men with white-collar jobs” furthering gentrification. Almost everywhere they’re seen as discourteous, and as threats to the safety of pedestrians. At least two cities in the U.K. have banned cyclists from their city centres and just this month the government of New South Wales in Australia decided to ban bikes (but not automobiles, motorcycles, trucks or trams) on a popular Sydney street that had been a bike commuter route. The government explained it wants the street to become conducive to pedestrians. Other street bans important to Sydney’s downtown are in the works.

City politicians around the world are in a race to make their cities “bike-friendly.” The more they succeed, the nastier things will get.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

[simon varley]

'they' don't want cars in cities. and to be honest I don't really want to be driving in a city either. The whole point of this at least indirectly is to push car users off the roads in the cities. London already has a congestion charge and a low emissions zone, but at least public transport is halfway decent (when it isn't full to bursting)