.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Radio Scotland talking about cycling now...
(12 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
And... Ermmmm.... What's being said?
Posted 13 years ago # -
TEXT them people!!!
Ian maxwell on for spokes. lots of the usual guff.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"lots of the usual guff"
Glad I can't tune in then - that sort of stuff just depresses me now.
Posted 13 years ago # -
As SRD said, usual 'They should pay road tax' guff, and people saying they feel safest on the pavement - which I take to mean separate infrastructure.
At the mo they're just asking what peoples thoughts on the 10% of all journeys target.
Others now talking about not enough room for both, and all roads need re worked.
Posted 13 years ago # -
they did just retweet my tweet though!
Posted 13 years ago # -
Caller says less than 1p in the pound spent on cycling, and argued that Keith Brown said x amount was spent over the last y years but if one calculates that as a percentage of the total spent in Scotland, its less than 1%.
Kim Harding now talking about how safe people feel.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"caller" = a certain 'dave' of linlithgow (one of our many daves...)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ian Maxwell was good.
Neil Grieg IAM was on to speak for other/all road users.
A girl came on first to extoll the virtues of pavement cycling.... so a 'bad' start.
Kirsty Wark (yes - Kay was not taking show) asked what would it be like if more people did that. The caller didn't really care 'as she had to cycle on pavement or not at all'. Massed remarks of 'typical cyclist'.
The guy with three bike shops in Dundee was back on - hey I would have plugged my own business but was too slow off the mark and lines jammed up.
Good call from a new bike trainer in Castlemilk.
Thought the BBC might have got hold of Sally or Dave B from POP?
Posted 13 years ago # -
We were just discussing that on the email group - they didn't try to get in touch with PoP, which is a little disappointing given they mentioned it. From what I can gather DdF and Kim did us proud though.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I heard little bits of this, this morning.
One statement I did pick up on was that 'cycle paths' don't go anywhere useful as they tended to follow old railway lines etc. Who ever was mentioning this then went on to say that any new cycle paths are mostly built because of a new road being built. So I'm assuming that the cycle path is an after thought! Why is it that the motor-vehicles get the direct route where as the human powered means of transport, both walking and cycling get the longer more complex route and have to stop and "be allowed" to cross the path of the motorised transport.
The other point I noted was that (I think it was Kirsty) stated that cyclist should wear helmets, (working in a brain-injury unit, I agree with that!) and also wear hi-viz vests. I don't agree with hi-viz vest and the like. They don't work when the car driver (or bus/lorry driver, even pedestrian!) is too busy talking/texting on their mobile phones (or any other distraction you could name) I don't choose to wear hi-viz clothing or use strobe lighting at all times. But if I want to stay safe and only go into my place of work as a nurse then I need to look like a christmas tree.
The priorities are all wrong, I've friends in Holland and always amazed (and envious) at the Dutch road system. This is what we should have, where the bike and pedestrian are king, not the car!
Posted 13 years ago # -
Happily, I've managed to resist replying to most of that ;-)
Does seem like the cycle lobby is punching above its weight for now. Will be interesting to see how it continues.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
