People going to work on bikes.

[Voice of reason]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You could, but walking on pavements is a necessity, driving cars is a necessity (in many cases), whereas cycling is optional. Cycle lanes help cyclists stay safe on the roads but they are more suited to roads than pavements.

Maybe, but its also a thread about cycling to work. A big factor for people not doing it is the danger. So roads being safer for them and the ability to cycles (sensibly) on paths just seems common sense to me.

[Cyclone]

57 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I disagree. It's not safe for pedestrians because some cyclists go far too fast. Separate lanes for cycles on pavements is fine, but not on the same area that's for pedestrians.

Well, we already have shared spaces, and they seem to improve safety, not decrease it.  I've just realised that all I'm really suggesting is that all pavements by default are made into shared spaces, rather than the opposite.

32 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You could, but walking on pavements is a necessity, driving cars is a necessity (in many cases), whereas cycling is optional. Cycle lanes help cyclists stay safe on the roads but they are more suited to roads than pavements.

Cycling is just as necessary as walking or driving.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Cyclone

[WiseOwl182]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

 

Cycling is just as necessary as walking or driving.

No it isn't.

[Voice of reason]

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No it isn't.

Popcorn, anybody? 😉

[Cyclone]

2 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No it isn't.

I need to get to work right, so why is it more necessary that I drive or walk than cycle?  That literally makes no sense.

If the journey is necessary then whatever means I choose is equally "necessary".

[WiseOwl182]

27 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I need to get to work right, so why is it more necessary that I drive or walk than cycle?  That literally makes no sense.

If the journey is necessary then whatever means I choose is equally "necessary".

Cars are necessary because many people have to travel too far to work for walking, cycling or public transport. Walking is necessary because we're human beings. Cycling provides an overlap between the two as an additional option, rather than a necessity.

[altus]

26 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Cars are necessary because many people have to travel too far to work for walking, cycling or public transport. Walking is necessary because we're human beings. Cycling provides an overlap between the two as an additional option, rather than a necessity.

That's not necessary though - living far away from work is optional.

[RootsBooster]

5 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You could, but walking on pavements is a necessity, driving cars is a necessity (in many cases), whereas cycling is optional. Cycle lanes help cyclists stay safe on the roads but they are more suited to roads than pavements.

I don't think that the thousands (likely millions) of people, who own a bicycle but not a car, will agree with you on that.

Edited June 8, 2019 by RootsBooster

[WiseOwl182]

3 hours ago, RootsBooster said:

I don't think that the thousands (likely millions) of people, who own a bicycle but not a car, will agree with you on that.

Maybe not, but as a society and economy, both cars and walking are necessities, whereas cycling isn't.

[RootsBooster]

54 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Maybe not, but as a society and economy, both cars and walking are necessities, whereas cycling isn't.

... Except for those in society who have a bike but no car