Yup. If we can build a $1bn road or $10m cycleway and have the same impact on congestion... maybe try to get people on bikes.

sir1963:

Batman: 

I don't think we are a capitalist country. More socialist. Capitalist - you pay for everything. Socialist - Some will pay for others and some will receive, for the benefit of the whole.

Reminds me of university days. The stupid Union was not happy that everybody paid 100 bucks a year. For that 100 bucks everybody gets free Internet free social club activities free gym free everything. Then the union said but I don't use Internet. Make it user pay what they want. You want Internet you pay you don't want Internet you don't pay. So the following year : Internet fees 120 bucks. Gym 120. Clubs and societies 80 bucks etc etc etc. Yet we could have just paid the 100 bucks and get everything.

 

Sure, problem is cycleways are for cyclists , they are additional.

Cyclists also use roads, also use footpaths.

Most pedestrians and motorists do not use cycle paths.

motorists contribute about $4Billion extra towards roads, cyclists contribute $0 Extra.

 

alasta:

 

Out of interest, how does this work for people who can't ride a bicycle? I imagine the alternative is to walk, but as a pedestrian I would feel quite intimidated by large mobs of cyclist shooting past me at high speed. Are the cycleways well separated from pedestrian paths?

 

With very few exceptions, there aren't many people in Holland who "can't" ride a bicycle. Even the very elderly do. So do very young children. The exceptions would mainly be the disabled and just as here, they have electric mobility runabouts. 

Some choose not to cycle. Unobstructed walking is easy since there are separated pathways for that. I used to do it all the time. But there is also an outstanding public transport system made up of frequent trams as well as busses connecting all points of the inner city. It just shows what some intelligent advance planning can achieve. 

sir1963:

tdgeek:

I guess we need to visit taxing footpaths as they are provided free and should be paid for. And obviously EV's need to be paying RUC. And charge cyclists. 

Why don't we? Because its either stupid or its a means to drive behaviour to a cleaner environment and a healthier population. 

 

Take away footpaths and watch the economic activity drop in that area. This leads to :

Drop in GST

Drop in property values/rates.

 

Rates include costs for footpaths because practically everyone uses them, pedestrians, cyclists, motorists , even if they only walk from shop to shop, or to a bus.

The same argument goes for roads.

And EVs are also non polluting.

 

Calling Stockholm a 'new city' is an interesting level of cognitive dissonance I haven't seen before.

My understanding is that's simply not considered wide enough on arterial routes given that bikes do 30km/h+. You mow down pedestrians too much.

ermat: They were denied permission, they did it anyway, they broke the law, and the police stood back.
I'm suggesting the police were told to stand back and this protest was orchestrated to fuel the govt announcement on the bridge.

I think it's fair to assume that being a police officer is a lot more difficult than armchair critics would like to believe. These things can turn violent very quickly if law enforcement reacts too strongly, I think our police do a good job of maintaining public order and safety without unnecessarily escalating situations like this. 

Eva888: Holland is the flattest country in Europe so lends itself to cycling. Wellington as an example has steep hills with very little flat area. Cycling here is suitable for the fit and youthful with a small smattering of middle aged and above participating.

Roads and cycleways should be proportional to the demographic health and geography of each place. Why spend millions on cycleways that will be used by a small overall proportion of a city’s population to benefit a minority and not the majority. Why not spend money to suit some of the other demographics. In Europe and even in poorer countries you see parks with gym equipment available to everyone free.

No amount of extolling the virtues of cycling or building cycleways will entice the elderly, the handicapped, the chronically ill, the obese, the blind, the weak, the unlicensed etc, etc to use a facility that they are unable to. Therefore health and age demographics plus geography are important considerations before spending millions that could be more equitably used to favour all groups of society and not just the fittest.

Another factor not often talked about are the possible negative health effects of cycling on males as there is an association of low sperm count and poor sperm motility among those cycling over five hours a week and an increased potential for Prostate Cancer because of the pressure on the area.

I think cyclists over 18 should be licensed and pay a levy.

Even Holland has some hills. And guess what? Cycling improves fitness!

And as someone has pointed out here, electric bikes can also make a big difference. You are mainly just looking for excuses.

"No amount of extolling the virtues of cycling or building cycleways will entice the elderly, the handicapped, the chronically ill, the obese, the blind, the weak, the unlicensed etc, etc to use a facility that they are unable to."

Really? There are a lot of elderly people on bikes in Holland, so it clearly cannot be beyond their capabilities. But there are also suitable bikes especially designed for many disabilities, and mobility scooters for the rest who gladly make use of the bike lanes. These are also suitable for the obese and weak, and licenses are not required (unlike for cars). The most famous blind person I know of who loves to cycle is Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli, who uses a two-person bike to take in the wonderful sounds and smells of the Tuscany countryside. I think it is pretty damned arrogant to make assumptions about what the elderly, the handicapped, the chronically ill, the obese, the blind, and the weak, might be capable of or choose to do.

I can't speak to the sperm issue, though there seem to be plenty of fathers in the Tour de France, but this sounds suspiciously like another excuse to me. And there is plenty of prostate cancer in men who have never gone near a bicycle. That really is reaching.

I think cyclists of all ages, especially older ones, should be encouraged in every way possible to pedal away wherever and however they choose to free of charge and certainly free of silly licenses.

Eva888: 
You can’t implement such ideas into an old city that wasn’t planned this way. You can however use paint to split footpaths many of which are barely used by pedestrians. You could fly a Cessna down most suburban footpaths and not hit a pedestrian 95% of the time. Even extending a footpath by half a meter would be enough to give both parties ample room and cost a lot less. It would also give scooters a safer place to ride on.

If you think a line of paint is adequate to protect pedestrians from bicycles then you really need to try walking around the Wellington waterfront at peak commuting times. As a pedestrian I have near misses on a regular basis, with the most recent one being yesterday. 

This may be a stupid question, but what on earth are you actually trying to achieve?

Intrinsic sense of fairness even if everyone ends up worse off, but at least it's "fair"?

Lower costs for car users?

You're sick of watching bikes pass you in traffic and want revenge?

SomeoneSomewhere:

This may be a stupid question, but what on earth are you actually trying to achieve?

Intrinsic sense of fairness even if everyone ends up worse off, but at least it's "fair"?

Lower costs for car users?

You're sick of watching bikes pass you in traffic and want revenge?

alasta:

Eva888: 
You can’t implement such ideas into an old city that wasn’t planned this way. You can however use paint to split footpaths many of which are barely used by pedestrians. You could fly a Cessna down most suburban footpaths and not hit a pedestrian 95% of the time. Even extending a footpath by half a meter would be enough to give both parties ample room and cost a lot less. It would also give scooters a safer place to ride on.

If you think a line of paint is adequate to protect pedestrians from bicycles then you really need to try walking around the Wellington waterfront at peak commuting times. As a pedestrian I have near misses on a regular basis, with the most recent one being yesterday. 

SomeoneSomewhere:

Calling Stockholm a 'new city' is an interesting level of cognitive dissonance I haven't seen before.

 

My understanding is that's simply not considered wide enough on arterial routes given that bikes do 30km/h+. You mow down pedestrians too much.

Batman:

SomeoneSomewhere:

 

This may be a stupid question, but what on earth are you actually trying to achieve?

 

 

 

Intrinsic sense of fairness even if everyone ends up worse off, but at least it's "fair"?

 

 

 

Lower costs for car users?

 

 

 

You're sick of watching bikes pass you in traffic and want revenge?

 

He thinks cyclists pay no tax. Some pay no tax sone pay more tax than him.

But I think he mainly disagrees with the clip on harbour bridge for 1 billion dollars (650mil x blowout costs).

I disagree with that stupid clip on too. But not because cyclists supposedly pay no tax. That's a generalization which is inaccurate.

ALL motorists pay additional taxes to help pay for the roads (to the tune of about $4 Billion a year)

NO cyclist pays any additional taxes to pay for cycleways.

The additional taxes are on TOP of income taxes, Rates etc, the fact you pay these is 100% irrelevant.