> You don't count the number of people swimming
> across the river before you decide whether or not
> to build a bridge over it - it's fairly self
> evident that building a bridge will lead to more
> people crossing the river.
Totally irrelevant comparison. Cycle lanes are not about building new roads instead of unused land. They are about diverting existing roads away from buses (remember, many bus lanes were removed!) and other road users to make way for bicycles.
> As a rough general rule, efficient transport
> systems often look empty.
Even at traffic lights?
> Cycle lanes often look empty compared to a road
> becasue cyclists are smaller than cars and because
> they move far more efficiently, they just flow
> Therefore the system looks quieter.
I can tell the difference between heavily used cycle lanes during rush hour, and mostly deserted cycle lanes outside of rush hour.
How many passengers fit on a double decker bus? 80 to 90? How much space is occupied by a double decker bus vs by 90 pushbikes? Removing bus lanes to make way for cycle lanes means more congestion and more pollution. That's idiotic!
> about 70% of the people movements (note PEOPLE,
> not VEHICLES) is pedestrian and cyclist at peak
> times yet the pavements and bike lanes don't look
> as busy as the carriageway.
Another totally irrelevant comparison. Start by taking pedestrians out of the equation. They have nothing to do with this. The point is: what is the best use of the limited road space we have? Is it cycle lanes or not?
You see, I am not saying that I know for certain that cycle lanes are a bad use of that space. I get that impression, but I don't know for certain. My point is that, before rolling out more and more cycle lanes, this should have been measured, both during and outside rush hour. It wouldn't have been hard to do, yet it wasn't done. Why???
> And in terms of cost benefit - cycle lanes are Ł
> for Ł the most efficient and best value thing a
> city can build:
What a load of unsubstantiated nonsense... Have you read that link? Strenghtening local economies, supporting property values, enabling disadvantaged groups to gain skills and access employment opportunities... Anything else? Will cycling beat cancer, too? Most of all, where's the proof? Some data, something, anything?
I skimmed through the PDF linked on that page. You cannot comapre Copenaghen to London. London has more people than the whole of Denmark!!
These cycle lobbies were also the same that told us that 20mph is safer. Guess what, the DfT report doesn't say that, it says the data is inconclusive! These lobbies were also the same that complained heavily against the use of the stickers "cyclists and motorcyclists stay back" because they were deemed offensive, so you will forgive me if I don't deem them particularly sensible nor reliable. Disclaimer: as a motorcyclist, "stay back" is what I do out of self-preservation!
I repeat, the Transport Watchdog expressed big reservations against cycle lanes because it was worried on the impact it would have had on public transport. Of course the cycle lobbies totally ignore this point.
Cycle lobbies forget a couple of key, crucial points. I am all for disincentivising private car use. But, honestly, between congestion charge fees and the cost of parking, how many people drive to work into central London? The point is that there are a number of vechicles which are simply necessary: buses delivery vans construction vehicles tradesmen's vans etc. Even in the greenest city ever, these cannot be replaced by bikes. Also, London is so huge that a number of east to west or north to south routes MUST pass by the centre - a problem which smaller, more cycle friendly cities like Amsterdam or Valencia do not have.