Indeed. Bad weather or hills are silly straw men arguments deployed only by people who are either totally intransigent about any and all change, or who are desperate to keep hold of their car for ideological reasons and not for practical ones. The latter is a common Republican perspective in the US, that public transport is fundamentally un-American, and the ideal is for everyone to have private transport.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Road spending vs Rail spending.
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Llanigraham
On Moderation
I can't believe you're implying that a gradient as shallow as that is somehow unsuitable for walking and cycling.
Erm - you were the one who stated East Anglia was flat - when it is anything but.
Rather than deflect - try admitting you were wrong.
And e bikes don't address the issue that cycling when it is cold, wet or dark is unattractive for all but hard core cyclists.
You were wrong in claiming that the UK is unsuited for cycling on the basis of topography though, and I don't see any recognition of that!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most of it is.
If it's cold put your big coat on.
If it's raining, fair enough, drive or go by bus that day. But the Dutch aren't bothered, and despite the reputation it doesn't rain on the vast majority of days in the UK, even in Manchester.
If it's dark - wha? Are you serious? Get some decent lights.
I didn't say it was "unsuitable" but it is a steady climb and was refuting the absurd statement that East Anglia is "flat".
Look, if you want to cycle, feel free. Nobody's stopping you. I have no desire to use a cycle as one of my main methods of transport.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most of it is.
And therein lies the problem. This kind of glib, sanctimonious response which seems to be typical of cyclists and environmentalists. The hair shirt solution.
People are perfectly happy to walk and cycle in the rain, if that's what gets them to where they need to be in time and at the right price. Remarkably we have these things called coats. For all of the rest a frequent urban bus or metro service would be provided and remarkably these are generally waterproof.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You're going to need to walk from the car park to wherever you're going, even if you live in MK where you can park very near your destination in most cases.
But in all seriousness, it sounds like you're totally wedded to your car and drive everywhere. So by all means do, but accept you'll be taxed increasingly heavily on doing so so provision can be made for more community-thinking people to do otherwise.
This is a hilarious caricature. Are you seriously suggesting you don't go outside on foot when it's dark or raining? Cycling is fundamentally no different...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Relatively speaking, that incline is not noticeable. That's what was meant by flat.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Some people indeed don't, and there is that big inequality whereas a bloke might just be bothered about the dark meaning he can't see too well where he's going but a woman might have a genuine fear of rape*, and we do need to find a way to fix that. However, the "RUK Standard Minority" can in this case still drive if they really must. The key is that most people aren't driving in urban areas when it can be avoided.
I'm not in favour of banning cars, either completely or from specific areas aside from city centre pedestrianisation which we already have (give or take pollution controls on older ones which I do support), but things like high cost of parking and congestion charges can manage car usage down to much lower levels. And if you do want to pay £15 to drive into London and another £30 to park, you can. Sometimes it does make sense to use the car even in that sort of context. The key is creating opportunities not to use it.
* I'll walk or cycle more or less** anywhere in MK in the pitch dark. My Mum even if with me is terrified of it.
** I'd think twice about Fishermead or the Lakes Estate for those who know MK, though.
Nobody is bothered whether you want to use a bicycle or not though. But it'll be your taxes just the same as mine that go towards building a new national network of segregated walking and cycling paths.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree that's absolutely an issue, but of course walking and cycling policy just can't really help when it comes to the terrible scourge of, for example, sexual violence against women.
Will I choose to walk when it's dark or raining ? No. Why would I ?
If I walk, it's for leisure so I can enjoy it, which means nice weather and somewhere I want to explore. Do I want to walk to the supermarket to buy groceries ? Absolutely not.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's mostly not dark (when we're awake) and it's mostly not raining.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
And the railway system couldn't operate efficiently without the road system.
I really think you need to look at a map!
Lots of people walk to get their weekly grocery shop because it's a completely free form of transport and it makes better use of one's time for some light exercise, which people generally want on health grounds. You could say almost all of the same for cycling your shopping, which allows you to carry enough for a whole family's weekly shop if you want to. I don't see anyone saying that you must do that, but other people do, so why not provide for it with segregated paths?
I think you mean the railway system couldn't work *at all* without roads. Even the very first railways were constructed with roads providing the access.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You could perhaps rephrase that as "the places where most people live in the UK aren't hilly". Much of the middle of Wales is hilly, as is much of rural Scotland and northern England, as is that fairly large area of nothingness west of Leicester and east of Birmingham, north of Northampton and south of Rugby, but comparatively few people live in those places.
But this is just being finiticky as @A0wen was. The points are twofold:
1. A lot of people in the UK live in places where cycling with an unpowered bicycle is entirely feasible for any able bodied adult.
2. For those who don't, an e-bike will remove the hills for you.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Nobody is proposing to do away with roads.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Even a driver who hate cyclists benefits from segregated cycle paths, as if the cyclist is on a segregated path they're not on the road in front of them, and if more drivers switch to cycling they're not in the queue in front of them.
I'm confident that this, rather than some sort of community-mindedness, is the reason why drivers don't villify cyclists in the Netherlands (aside from that most drivers there are also cyclists).
OK but as we've said what feel like a hundred times now, there's no question of getting rid of roads or private motoring entirely.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
But the be equally finiticky, you did say a lot of the UK was flat, which it isn't.
And whilst an electric bike might be a great idea, how many people can actually afford to buy one? Even a second hand one in our local cycle shop is over £500. That isn't a figure a lot of people could find easily, especially at the moment.
jnjkerbin
Member
More people than can afford to buy a car.
How many people can afford to buy, fuel, and insure a car? If we had more safe cycling routes and less car-centric infrastructure, ditching the car would be an option for many. Cycle to Work also helps towards the cost of a bike.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Car clubs too. The big hire companies are shysters, but car clubs are a different game entirely.
Bit in bold Hmmm..... Daventry ? Oh, wait a minute......
Borough Hill - Wikipedia
Llanigraham
On Moderation
I really don't think some people understand what it is like to live in a very rural area, where there is little to no public transport, and where what there is only covers the biggest population centres, doesn't integrate with the rail system, and often only runs on certain days and with limited hours. Here a car is unavoidable, and even an electric bike wouldn't surfice.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,297
In 2021 the UK had a population density of around 276 people per square kilometre (67.03 million over 242,494 square kilometres) spread over 374 bottom-level local government areas
90% of that population (>60.327 million) lived in 317 of those local government areas (ending between North Kesteven and South Holland), which is around 105,663 square kilometres. That's a population density of 571.83 per square kilometre. That's a higher population density than the average for the Netherlands, and is towards the top end of large population groupings.
75% of that population (>50.273 million) lived in 251 of those local governemnt areas (ending between Cherwell and South Staffordshire), which is around 49,778 square kilometres, for a population density of 1010.52 per square kilometre. That's a comparable population density to Bangladesh!
The population of the UK is quite dense and is extremely heavily urbanised, so providing saturation public transport to a large fraction of the population would require serving only a small portion of the total land area.
90% of that population (>60.327 million) lived in 317 of those local government areas (ending between North Kesteven and South Holland), which is around 105,663 square kilometres. That's a population density of 571.83 per square kilometre. That's a higher population density than the average for the Netherlands, and is towards the top end of large population groupings.
75% of that population (>50.273 million) lived in 251 of those local governemnt areas (ending between Cherwell and South Staffordshire), which is around 49,778 square kilometres, for a population density of 1010.52 per square kilometre. That's a comparable population density to Bangladesh!
The population of the UK is quite dense and is extremely heavily urbanised, so providing saturation public transport to a large fraction of the population would require serving only a small portion of the total land area.
Last edited:
Look, you're just going to have to accept that you're wrong here. The point being made was that the land isn't so hilly that active travel is going to be caused a problem by it. You've got no arguments against that so please stop wasting our time with links to hills. Thanks.Bit in bold Hmmm..... Daventry ? Oh, wait a minute......
Borough Hill - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Llanigraham
On Moderation
We have a car club here. In fact until recently I was one of it's Directors, however the car, a full EV, has to be kept at the location where it's charger is, which is in the town, so any member living out of town still has the problem of getting in to collect it (See #85 above)
- Status