Transport Minister draws flak after cycling inquiry

bikebot wrote:

Maybe if I ask this question, someone will get the point.

Amongst the people you know, what is the shortest distance you've known someone commute by car?

About 0.4 km, which seemed astonishingly idle for someone with no apparent disability (except bulk). But so what?

bikebot wrote:

Maybe if I ask this question, someone will get the point.

Amongst the people you know, what is the shortest distance you've known someone commute by car?

I girl I used to work with used to commute less than half a kilometer by car.  She was 20 something and healthy.  

P3t3 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

Maybe if I ask this question, someone will get the point.

Amongst the people you know, what is the shortest distance you've known someone commute by car?

 

I girl I used to work with used to commute less than half a kilometer by car.  She was 20 something and healthy.  

You really wanted to say fit didn't you?

vonhelmet wrote:

If I cycled the 11 miles to work and then didn't take a shower my colleagues would lynch me.  That or I'd get sacked for being late on account of cycling at 6mph to avoid breaking a sweat. My average speed would go to pieces as well.

Both those excuses have been taken, please provide some better ones.

I cycle 11 miles each day and am not a pariah at work, where 'washing facilities' are the disabled loo. I use a flannel on the days I get a bit warm but otherwise I just swap into my office garb. Speed in the mornings isn't important, I save the effort for the ride home.

From the quote Mr Goodwill seems to mention his wife's hair, I'm not sure if he assumes she is representative of women in general. But that, and blaming "media coverage of cycling fatalities" suggest he's just really out of touch. Which, sadly, is about right for a Transport Minister.

Simon E wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

If I cycled the 11 miles to work and then didn't take a shower my colleagues would lynch me.  That or I'd get sacked for being late on account of cycling at 6mph to avoid breaking a sweat. My average speed would go to pieces as well.

Both those excuses have been taken, please provide some better ones.

I cycle 11 miles each day and am not a pariah at work, where 'washing facilities' are the disabled loo. I use a flannel on the days I get a bit warm but otherwise I just swap into my office garb. Speed in the mornings isn't important, I save the effort for the ride home.

Good for you.  I get a sweat on as soon as I look at a bike, so I can't get away with it.

vonhelmet wrote:

I get a sweat on as soon as I look at a bike, so I can't get away with it.

That's unfortunate (in this context, anyway).

One way I avoid or reduce overheating on the morning commute is to be 'underdressed' -  today my summer jersey & armwarmers and lycra 3/4 felt a bit chilly at 9 deg C.

I keep clothes at work so most days carry only a bumbag with lunch, tools, keys & cash.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Unfit people sweat alot, for a little or moderate exercise. 

 

 But once fit it is a different journey.  Also having a change of clothes at work would certainly help

Source?

I thought the science was clear that the fitter you were the sooner your body responded to temperature changes and the more efficient it became at that process (sweating sooner and sweating in larger volumes, respectively).

Citizen Wolf wrote:

@Balmybaldwin

Regarding showers, you say you couldn't cycle to work if they weren't there.  What on earth are you doing on your cycle to work? I need no such facilities. My commute is 15km each way. I used to live in the Netherlands for a few years, and similarly there, no-one was rushing off to the shower when they got to work any more than anyone who walked to work, or got there any other way. 

Some people sweat more than others.

Some people have higher standards of personal hygiene than others.

Some people have hillier, windier commutes than others.

Some people are fitter than others.

Some people are more efficient than others.

Some people's jobs require them to be more presentable than others.

Some people care more about their appearance than others.

There is no way I would cycle to work (6 miles) without access to a shower any more than I would go to work straight from the gym / pool without showering and a complete change of clothing.

L.Willo wrote:

Citizen Wolf wrote:

@Balmybaldwin

Regarding showers, you say you couldn't cycle to work if they weren't there.  What on earth are you doing on your cycle to work? I need no such facilities. My commute is 15km each way. I used to live in the Netherlands for a few years, and similarly there, no-one was rushing off to the shower when they got to work any more than anyone who walked to work, or got there any other way. 

Some people sweat more than others.

Some people.....

There is no way I would cycle to work (6 miles) without access to a shower any more than I would go to work straight from the gym / pool without showering and a complete change of clothing

This is falling into the trap of looking at your own circumstances and extrapolating to a population as a whole.  

The goal is to get to a point wehre cycling becomes normalised,e.g. a significant proportion of the population commute by bike, go to the shops by bike etc etc...  The low hanging fruit 25% or so of trips under one mile are where we need to start.  Simply looking at the road environment its obvious why people that could cycle don't bother.  Talking about showers is a simple distraction because at the root of it it simply isn't a problem.   

By virtue of you being on here you are an enthusiast, your cycle commute is admirably long and I imagine you take great pleasure in cycling it as fast as you can because ultimately its a sport.  Nothing wrong wtih that at all.  But don't imagine you are doing a journey that would be first on this list to be converted to a cycle trip, the place to start is with journeys of a mile or less.  In the right environment this doesn't require rubber knickers, sweating or showers.  

P3t3 wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

Citizen Wolf wrote:

@Balmybaldwin

Regarding showers, you say you couldn't cycle to work if they weren't there.  What on earth are you doing on your cycle to work? I need no such facilities. My commute is 15km each way. I used to live in the Netherlands for a few years, and similarly there, no-one was rushing off to the shower when they got to work any more than anyone who walked to work, or got there any other way. 

Some people sweat more than others.

Some people.....

There is no way I would cycle to work (6 miles) without access to a shower any more than I would go to work straight from the gym / pool without showering and a complete change of clothing

This is falling into the trap of looking at your own circumstances and extrapolating to a population as a whole.  

The goal is to get to a point wehre cycling becomes normalised,e.g. a significant proportion of the population commute by bike, go to the shops by bike etc etc...  The low hanging fruit 25% or so of trips under one mile are where we need to start.  Simply looking at the road environment its obvious why people that could cycle don't bother.  Talking about showers is a simple distraction because at the root of it it simply isn't a problem.   

By virtue of you being on here you are an enthusiast, your cycle commute is admirably long and I imagine you take great pleasure in cycling it as fast as you can because ultimately its a sport.  Nothing wrong wtih that at all.  But don't imagine you are doing a journey that would be first on this list to be converted to a cycle trip, the place to start is with journeys of a mile or less.  In the right environment this doesn't require rubber knickers, sweating or showers.  

And this, frankly, is the issue I have with a lot of 'cycle campaigners' - in their enthusiasm to provide subjectively (not necessarily objectively) safe routes for people to cycle short distances, they seem to lose sight of the difficulties these generally rather useless paths inflict on those of us who cycle, quite happily, rather further.

oldstrath wrote:

 

And this, frankly, is the issue I have with a lot of 'cycle campaigners' - in their enthusiasm to provide subjectively (not necessarily objectively) safe routes for people to cycle short distances, they seem to lose sight of the difficulties these generally rather useless paths inflict on those of us who cycle, quite happily, rather further.

Selfish bastards.

[/quote]

And this, frankly, is the issue I have with a lot of 'cycle campaigners' - in their enthusiasm to provide subjectively (not necessarily objectively) safe routes for people to cycle short distances, they seem to lose sight of the difficulties these generally rather useless paths inflict on those of us who cycle, quite happily, rather further.

[/quote]

You are saying "don't build it because it doesn't suit me".  Which is a false dichotomy in its self.  Good quality infrastructure could work for you too.  If it doesn't, it isn't good enough.  

I'm suggesting is that showers are fairly far down the list of things to fix in order to encourage cycling.  If prospective cycle commuters need to shower then the battle has already been lost, they won't cycle for the reasons that get them in a sweat.  

P3t3 wrote:

Quote:

And this, frankly, is the issue I have with a lot of 'cycle campaigners' - in their enthusiasm to provide subjectively (not necessarily objectively) safe routes for people to cycle short distances, they seem to lose sight of the difficulties these generally rather useless paths inflict on those of us who cycle, quite happily, rather further.

 

You are saying "don't build it because it doesn't suit me".  Which is a false dichotomy in its self.  Good quality infrastructure could work for you too.  If it doesn't, it isn't good enough.  

I'm suggesting is that showers are fairly far down the list of things to fix in order to encourage cycling.  If prospective cycle commuters need to shower then the battle has already been lost, they won't cycle for the reasons that get them in a sweat.  

I'm saying don't build stuff that is of similar quality and utility to what has been built to date. The paths constructed near us are neither convenient nor, in reality, especially safe; they are significantly slower and less well maintained than the roads; and their existence encourages motorists to expect my absence from 'their road'.  

I know you believe that campaigning for 'proper infrastructure' would fix the issues - having cycled in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands I sympathise with this view, but my experienced reality in this country is that campaigns for segregated facilities are simply seen as validating the provision of rubbish, whatever the intent of the campaigners.

My personal experience is that the provision of showers, bike parking and a drying room do indeed help encourage cycling., maybe because all of us who cycle to my workplace have journeys of at least 6 miles and tend not to cycle slowly.

oldstrath wrote:

My personal experience is that the provision of showers, bike parking and a drying room do indeed help encourage cycling., maybe because all of us who cycle to my workplace have journeys of at least 6 miles and tend not to cycle slowly.

And that, right there, is the problem. This is your experience because that subset - the fit young (and mostly male) - go far and fast and don't see segregated infrastructure as helping them. As evidenced by your comments. What you're listing there (with the exception of bike parking) caters exclusively to that rather small subset of people.

But that subset isn't likely going to increase very much. They already brave the roads, no matter how little investment active travel gets. But if we ever want to exceed our pitiful modal share of 1-2% we somehow have to get a wider subset of people on bikes.

People who won't cycle as far. Or as fast. People who would indeed prefer sub-optimal paths as long as they're not on the roads. There are a lot of people like that who would cycle if those needs were met, and their number far exceeds our fit and young 'velo elite'.

That's exactly the core of the problem with active travel in Britain. Cycling is seen as a sport, not as a mode of transport. A hobby for the indulgent middle class, not a viable alternative to the motor car for some journeys for normal people.

And people like you and me, we're not helping, we're reinforcing the stereotype if we only look at our needs and not at the needs of others. Others who are too scared, and - in their mind, because they only have us to look at - too unfit.

userfriendly wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

My personal experience is that the provision of showers, bike parking and a drying room do indeed help encourage cycling., maybe because all of us who cycle to my workplace have journeys of at least 6 miles and tend not to cycle slowly.

And that, right there, is the problem. This is your experience because that subset - the fit young (and mostly male) - go far and fast and don't see segregated infrastructure as helping them. As evidenced by your comments. What you're listing there (with the exception of bike parking) caters exclusively to that rather small subset of people.

But that subset isn't likely going to increase very much. They already brave the roads, no matter how little investment active travel gets. But if we ever want to exceed our pitiful modal share of 1-2% we somehow have to get a wider subset of people on bikes.

People who won't cycle as far. Or as fast. People who would indeed prefer sub-optimal paths as long as they're not on the roads. There are a lot of people like that who would cycle if those needs were met, and their number far exceeds our fit and young 'velo elite'.

That's exactly the core of the problem with active travel in Britain. Cycling is seen as a sport, not as a mode of transport. A hobby for the indulgent middle class, not a viable alternative to the motor car for some journeys for normal people.

And people like you and me, we're not helping, we're reinforcing the stereotype if we only look at our needs and not at the needs of others. Others who are too scared, and - in their mind, because they only have us to look at - too unfit.

Young? Cheers, but I'm not sure 57 counts as young. 

Fit? Well, depends on your point of view.

Male? Well yes I am, but at least half the bikes have a female rider.

Far? Not convinced that my 12 miles each way counts as far - my father would have seen that as a bit of a warm-up.

As for braving the road - the only bit of my journey where I ever get serious hassle is the section where I "should be on" the dysfunctional facility. And yes, the bike is indeed for me a viable alternative to the car, for almost all my journeys, and I feel fairly normal. 

oldstrath wrote:

Young? Cheers, but I'm not sure 57 counts as young. 

Fit? Well, depends on your point of view.

Male? Well yes I am, but at least half the bikes have a female rider.

Far? Not convinced that my 12 miles each way counts as far - my father would have seen that as a bit of a warm-up.

As for braving the road - the only bit of my journey where I ever get serious hassle is the section where I "should be on" the dysfunctional facility. And yes, the bike is indeed for me a viable alternative to the car, for almost all my journeys, and I feel fairly normal. 

*sigh* fine, you're a bit older. So what? Are you saying the typical British road cyclist isn't young, fit and male? Are you saying we are a representative cross section of society? Come on. Of course you're not. You know exactly what I mean, don't be deliberately obtuse.

And yes, 12 miles - to people who don't cycle - is far. Not to you or me. Thanks for making my point.

And again, yes, you're largely fine on the road. So am I. Doesn't change the fact that people who don't cycle perceive the roads a dangerous place to be for someone on a bike. Possibly because of the way they themselves tend to drive ...