"In Edinburgh working-class accents they were complaining that it was a load of posh folk who cycled who wanted this, and cyclists were a menace anyway, getting off roads and onto pavements."
Some truth in all of that.
It's partly about geography and historical (in)actions.
Edinburgh has Marchmont, Morningside, the New Town etc.
Full of University staff and students and other current (or potential) cyclists. They exist there partly because Edinburgh was too slow/conservative to get round to building its inner ring roads.
It's impossible to know if "a load of posh folk" mean 'people more middle class and/or richer than us'.
It's a pity that some people think that 'cycling's not for us' for artificial reasons. It's possible to spend vast amounts on bikes (as it is for cars), but few can genuinely not afford to own/run a bike.
Whether they have secure storage space or travel requirements that a bike would fit are clearly genuine issues.
There have been discussions within CEC over many years about 'should we spend cycling money on areas where people cycle or where they don't'.
The pragmatic and practical answer has always been (mostly) the former.
The current Edinburgh 'fuss' is about Leith Walk to Roseburn - very much City Centre/where people cycle.
It's only very recently that the idea of 'extending to the Gyle' has been a thing.
Maybe 2017 - before and after the election - should be used to have serious thoughts about where people live/work/could cycle.
Obviously a lot of it is in the ATAP, but maybe time for a wider (outside the 'cycle community') debate?
posts
