People would rather be in a car than on a bike. Even in traffic. Wonks can dream of mountain-fresh air and torrents of 'active' travellers. But it may not be possible to persuade people into that Utopia, which needs at least as much scrutiny as resistance to it does.
https://twitter.com/HGinnett/status/1377602719410716672
What if 'active travel' is not a good thing? What if greater dependence on the motor car is a good thing? What if public transport and walking/cycling are limiting of people's preferences and ambitions, and have no realistic hope of achieving what their advocates claim?
My preference is for the car. I do cycle, sometimes even for leisure. But never if it's raining or cold. But I don't pretend these preferences are the model for all of society.
That seems to be the difference between active transport Utopians and those of us for whom *mode* of transport is largely a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, such that once the entire country was made of cycle lanes, there would be world peace.
I do not joke. I once interviewed a cycling campaigner at a town hall climate event. I asked him what was so good about cycling. He listed its virtues: health, community... blah blah blah.
The two things he didn't say were:
1. Getting from A to B.
2. I enjoy it.
Weird.
The two things he didn't say were:
1. Getting from A to B.
2. I enjoy it.
Weird.
Wouldn't it be great if the cycling lobby were just a club, in the tradition of enthusiasts' clubs, which said 'hurrah, we love cycling', and offered ideas about how to share the road space safely.
Instead it seems founded on an intention to provoke antagonism. Permanent, institutionalised road rage, the politics of which seem to be analogous to right-of-way guidance in the Highway Code... Don't you dare cut me up!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
