de-clutter our roads?

[TripleS]

The wikipedia article linked to points to "shared space". I'm not sure that's the same thing as decluttering. The New Road project in Brighton is claimed to have reduced car journeys by 90% and car road speeds to 10mph. That's not decluttering, that's just moving the traffic somewhere else. Some other road in Brighton is now crammed with nose to tail traffic that used to use this now warm and fuzzy "shared space". Another quote (about a scheme in Seven Dials) says "pedestrians are encouraged to wander across the road". This strikes me as just another word for pedestrianisation. All well and good in city shopping centres, but traffic still has to have somewhere to go. Looks like a way of getting drivers off the road, wrapped up in friendly sounding eco-speak. I'm struggling to find a reason, as a driver, to vote for it. As a pedestrian or a cyclist, it sounds lovely.

I've no time for what sounds like the anti-car policy at Brighton. It seems to me deserving of serious protest by drivers, and I hope they make that protest and give the local authority a bloody nose over it.

What they should be encouraging is a situation whereby the different road user groups understand each other better, and learn to function more harmoniously together, then everybody gets a fair deal.

Favouring certain groups, e.g. pedestrians and cyclists, by being a PITA to drivers is not the way to improve matters.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Well I couldn't agree more as a cyclist and pedestrian as well as a working motorist (a road user) that more understanding is required. You talk of 'favouring' certain groups, I know from a cycling and pedestrian background, it would be argued that the motor car has been the favoured in town planning for the last forty years and what is happening now is more akin to a 're-balancing' towards other road users. This is not an 'eco-babble' argument but about creating safer and fairer places to live and work

I appreciate what you say, and I wouldn't dispute it totally, but I do see it slightly differently.

Providing the infrastructure required to cater for motor vehicles was always going to be a massive exercise, compared with providing reasonable facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, so I don't think the driving community was especially favoured at the expense of Ps and Cs. What seems to have happened in more recent times (IMHO) is that government and local authorities have become more clearly anti-car in their policies. This is shown by the ever increasing range of measures to clamp down on, fine, and penalise the users of vehicles in general, and car drivers in particular. In addition, improved measures are now being implemented to improve facilities for pedestrians, and in the main I've no quarrel with that.

When it comes to cyclists, I'm not totally opposed to them also having better provision and protection, but here a good deal of what is being done is detrimental to the free movement of vehicles, and in many cases it doesn't even look to be helpful to cyclists. From what I've observed, there is a considerable amount of stuff being done, ostensibly for cyclists, in a very piecemeal and haphazard fashion such that the actual benefits to cyclists really don't amount to much. On top of that, in many areas there are simply not enough cyclists around to justify making much special provision for them. If there were more cyclists around I would be fully in support of reasonable measures to cater decently for them.

It is my feeling that a good deal of what is being done (supposedly) for cyclists’ benefit, is at best little more than token gestures, and at worst an excuse for making life more frustrating for drivers. I do believe it is having the latter effect in some areas, and it’s a waste of our money too, so it’s a bad policy all round.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jmaccyd]

When it comes to cyclists, I'm not totally opposed to them also having better provision and protection, but here a good deal of what is being done is detrimental to the free movement of vehicles, and in many cases it doesn't even look to be helpful to cyclists. From what I've observed, there is a considerable amount of stuff being done, ostensibly for cyclists, in a very piecemeal and haphazard fashion such that the actual benefits to cyclists really don't amount to much. On top of that, in many areas there are simply not enough cyclists around to justify making much special provision for them. If there were more cyclists around I would be fully in support of reasonable measures to cater decently for them.

It is my feeling that a good deal of what is being done (supposedly) for cyclists’ benefit, is at best little more than token gestures, and at worst an excuse for making life more frustrating for drivers. I do believe it is having the latter effect in some areas, and it’s a waste of our money too, so it’s a bad policy all round.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Most cyclists would agree that a lot of schemes are tokenistic and are actually either completly unsuitable of just downright dangerous. In this circumstances most cyclists vote with their feet (or pedals maybe) and just don't use the facility. However, and this is the key, when good facilties are provided more cyclists tend to use it and a snowball effect can be created, You say that there are not enough cyclists around, and one of the key fears is the danger many feel they face when taking to the roads. Therefore better facilties tend to lead in an increase in cycling.

The frustrated drivers are highly unlikely to be held up by a cycling or pedestrain scheme, what holds them up is lots of other drivers many of whom are making fairly pointless short journies. I don't blame them for that when we have an urban design and policy that creates the need for such trips (out of town supermarkets, school runs etc) The removal of these shorter trips is something that cycling and pedestrian schemes can help influence and therefore play a significant part in freeing up road space for what I would loosly call 'proper' trips. What I would reject is any notion of any road user having some sort of prime call on a scheme, all three groups (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) need to be included and given equal weight in the design brief of our towns of the future

[PeterE]

The frustrated drivers are highly unlikely to be held up by a cycling or pedestrain scheme, what holds them up is lots of other drivers many of whom are making fairly pointless short journies.

Whenever comments like that are made I always wonder how you feel you are qualified to decide that other people's journeys are pointless. Surely it is up to them, not you, to judge whether there is a point to their journeys - and I don't see large numbers of people driving around local streets just for fun.

[TripleS]

When it comes to cyclists, I'm not totally opposed to them also having better provision and protection, but here a good deal of what is being done is detrimental to the free movement of vehicles, and in many cases it doesn't even look to be helpful to cyclists. From what I've observed, there is a considerable amount of stuff being done, ostensibly for cyclists, in a very piecemeal and haphazard fashion such that the actual benefits to cyclists really don't amount to much. On top of that, in many areas there are simply not enough cyclists around to justify making much special provision for them. If there were more cyclists around I would be fully in support of reasonable measures to cater decently for them.

It is my feeling that a good deal of what is being done (supposedly) for cyclists’ benefit, is at best little more than token gestures, and at worst an excuse for making life more frustrating for drivers. I do believe it is having the latter effect in some areas, and it’s a waste of our money too, so it’s a bad policy all round.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Most cyclists would agree that a lot of schemes are tokenistic and are actually either completly unsuitable of just downright dangerous. In this circumstances most cyclists vote with their feet (or pedals maybe) and just don't use the facility. However, and this is the key, when good facilties are provided more cyclists tend to use it and a snowball effect can be created, You say that there are not enough cyclists around, and one of the key fears is the danger many feel they face when taking to the roads. Therefore better facilties tend to lead in an increase in cycling.

The frustrated drivers are highly unlikely to be held up by a cycling or pedestrain scheme, what holds them up is lots of other drivers many of whom are making fairly pointless short journies. I don't blame them for that when we have an urban design and policy that creates the need for such trips (out of town supermarkets, school runs etc) The removal of these shorter trips is something that cycling and pedestrian schemes can help influence and therefore play a significant part in freeing up road space for what I would loosly call 'proper' trips. What I would reject is any notion of any road user having some sort of prime call on a scheme, all three groups (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) need to be included and given equal weight in the design brief of our towns of the future

Again I largely agree with what you're saying; just a couple of things though:

1. When I talked about drivers being held up by the provisions made for cyclists, I meant that drivers can be delayed, not by the presence of the cyclists themselves, but by not being able to use a particular piece of road because it is marked as a cycle lane.

2. With regard to improved provision for cyclists, do you think that making such improvements really does get people out of their cars and onto two wheels? I have my doubts about that happening to any significant degree, but I honestly don't know, and I would be interested to know what actually happens.

Please understand that although I am mainly a car driver, and of course often a pedestrian, I'm not seeking to benefit one group at the expense of any other group. I can see no sense in applying policies that are likely to lead to conflict, and being seen to clamp down on one group whilst at the same time making silly gestures supposedly aimed at assisting other groups, is likely to do just that. To my mind the only sensible thing to do is to promote a good degree of mutual understanding between the various groups, and get them to work together as far as possible, aided by infrastructure improvements (sparingly) where appropriate. It remains my view that this is the most efficient and cost effective way to minimise our difficulties, and at the same time create a safer and more pleasant environment for us all, whether we're on two wheels, or four wheels, or a lot more - or none at all.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jmaccyd]

The frustrated drivers are highly unlikely to be held up by a cycling or pedestrain scheme, what holds them up is lots of other drivers many of whom are making fairly pointless short journies.

Whenever comments like that are made I always wonder how you feel you are qualified to decide that other people's journeys are pointless. Surely it is up to them, not you, to judge whether there is a point to their journeys - and I don't see large numbers of people driving around local streets just for fun.

Indeed, and that is the nub of the problem -everyone thinks there short journey is important. I suppose the classic example is the school holidays when the reduction in traffic is very noticable. I don't blame motoring for that traffic but a series of government policies that has lead to parents driving to schools that are further away then when me and you went to school. It has also had the sad side effect of noticable fatter and unfit children

No problem with motorists taking the car whenever they want for as many short trips as they want, but lets then be honest what the main cause of congestion and frustration is - lots of other cars!

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I'm a cyclist in the summer months. I have to cycle along part of an A road, across a busy motorway junction, along a suicidal bit of dual carriageway, and eventually hit a cycle path after about 50% of my journey to work (only about 5 miles altogether thankfully ) is complete. To say that it's a relief to get off the main roads onto the cycle path, doesn't even come close to expressing it.

I was brought up when cycling was a much more widespread day to day activity than it is now, and am used to cycling on the road, and am perfectly capable of observing the Highway Code etc. However it does certainly feel more dangerous, nowadays. That still doesn't mean that I think large proportions of the road network should be given over to "sharing schemes". More education of drivers, and insisting that cyclists observe the law like everybody else, is required. The national cycleways initiative is very welcome, though. I thought long and hard about returning to two wheels for many years, and if the cycle path I use wasn't there, I probably still wouldn't - there'd be another 2 miles of fast dual carriageway to negotiate then.

[jmaccyd]

2. With regard to improved provision for cyclists, do you think that making such improvements really does get people out of their cars and onto two wheels? I have my doubts about that happening to any significant degree, but I honestly don't know, and I would be interested to know what actually happens.

Please understand that although I am mainly a car driver, and of course often a pedestrian, I'm not seeking to benefit one group at the expense of any other group. I can see no sense in applying policies that are likely to lead to conflict, and being seen to clamp down on one group whilst at the same time making silly gestures supposedly aimed at assisting other groups, is likely to do just that. To my mind the only sensible thing to do is to promote a good degree of mutual understanding between the various groups, and get them to work together as far as possible, aided by infrastructure improvements (sparingly) where appropriate. It remains my view that this is the most efficient and cost effective way to minimise our difficulties, and at the same time create a safer and more pleasant environment for us all, whether we're on two wheels, or four wheels, or a lot more - or none at all.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Generally I agree where in agreement (if that makes sense!) I am not arguing for a cycling or walking utopia, motoring has had terrific benifits for us all, I just question unrestrained motoring at the cost of everything else is the way to go. Do I use the car to go ten miles to the local John Lewis to pick up shopping - you bet! Do I use the car to go the half a mile to the local supermarket, or a bit further to my GYM - no, I walk or cycle it. Plenty of other people would use the car for the later almost without thinking about it. Thats the change we need to create. I completly agree with your last sentiment which sums up my view on such matters

[OILY PAWS]

More education of drivers, and insisting that cyclists observe the law like everybody else, is required. .

here here, a large proportion of cyclists basically do what they like on the roads...... wrong way in one ways, on the road springs to mind.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I knew there would be a proportion of readers who'd leap on that statement. I only meant there should be give and take on both sides. That doesn't mean drivers shouldn't respect cyclists right to be on the roads, as well.

[OILY PAWS]

I knew there would be a proportion of readers who'd leap on that statement. I only meant there should be give and take on both sides. That doesn't mean drivers shouldn't respect cyclists right to be on the roads, as well.

I use the mountain bike on the road......enough said?