On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:35:45 +0100, allanbonnetracy
wrote:
Aren’t the vast majority of car journeys less than three miles or
something like that?

For journeys of such short length, cycling is an entirely viable
alternative.

Yet, like so many, I continue to use my car because of the safety
implications of cycling on busy roads.

It really isn't all that dangerous, even when it's frightening. I doubt
Ireland (if you're there) is much different from the UK, where government
figures show cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.

Until, this issue is addressed, with far better segregation available
for cyclists, I fear we are missing a golden opportunity for an easy
but considerable positive on the environment and our nation’s health.

Segregation doesn't work, for the same reason that annoys you about white
paint. It reduces the chances of rare collisions (being hit from behind
between junctions) but greatly increases the chance of being hit at
junctions, which is much more likely to start with. This is because to be
seen by drivers you need to be where they're looking, which is on the main
carriageway.

Arguably, such provision, on that basis, would even pay for itself.

A recent report says that it is worth spending up to £10,000 to turn just
one person into a regular cyclist.

Sufficient training to overcome the fear you describe would cost at most a
couple of hundred pounds, and would radically reduce both actual and
perceived danger.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.