@Morningsider
I'm not sure I see the, largely imagined, state of having no access to any non-walking alternative transport mode as the trump card in transport questions. This is the equivalent of the largely mythical example of the cash-poor pensioner who would be forced into penury by the imposition of a properly progressive property tax. I don't see it as a sensible basis for formulating any kind of policy to pick the most extreme counter-example, however unlikely, and use it as a red line.
"My preference is to argue for proper cycling infrastructure, rather than allowing cyclists to use the pavement."
Me too. I'm totally in favour of proper cycling infrastructure so that no one had to consider the pavements. But in the meantime, while we're waiting, while I imagine that my children will make it through their entire childhoods with still no option to safely and legally cycle to secondary school, I don't think the pavements are such a bad half-measure. In most places, they're mostly empty and fine for shared use as they are. Certainly easier to adapt to dual use than the roads. Certainly less dangerous (shut-in vulnerable pedestrians not withstanding) than dual use on the current roads.
posts
