It's almost certainly unwise of me to publish my original compositions in French: the inevitable clunkiness of my style in that language probably frightens off potential clients, and it is unlikely to be the most useful contribution to debate further afield. Nevertheless, such was my burning desire to express myself during this discussion of the effect of the implementation of cycle lanes on traffic more generally (on the CarFree France site) that I broke the rule. And now, no less a personage than Carlton Reid, author of the excellent (and beautifully illustrated) book 'Roads Were Not Built For Cars,' has asked me to translate my comment there. Happy to oblige! Here it is:
Like Benchaouche Yassin, I live in
Nantes, and I agree with him that the arrival of cycle paths does not
necessarily mean there has been an improvement in life for the
cyclist. There have certainly been good intentions to make policy
that encourages cycling here. And the town hall spends a fair amount
of cash on the streetscape dedicated to cyclists. Unfortunately, a
"gymkhana effect" has been created: an obstacle course of
kerbs, bollards, deviations, unnecessary curves, contradictory
traffic signals two metres apart etc—which may make the keen
mountain biker happy, but hardly seems the right thing for a humble
worker who just wants to get to work with a minimum of effort. And
what's more, the sensible cyclist who avoids this traffic engineering
bullshit by riding on the road alongside now gets given a lesson—by
the medium of the car horn—by drivers. It must remain an absolute
principle that the cyclist must always retain his or her right to
ride on the road. The new lanes are for the new cyclists, the old,
the disabled, and children. Of course, it's always good to have a
choice. But often, that choice will be direct and quick, on a smooth
road.
"Mummy, why is the cycle lane compulsory?"
"Because it's rubbish."
"Mummy, why is the cycle lane compulsory?"
"Because it's rubbish."
Articles
