This post rings very true. If a route has a utility function then it absolutely must be the highest quality it possibly can. In the UK we seem to think that “urbanisation” is a curse while we watch nature from the inside of a car. If we want people to get out of their cars, then the routes must be high quality and useable all year round and cater for everyone in society.
Every time I write something like this, or tweet something like this,
Top – ‘National Cycle Network”. Bottom – ordinary Dutch cycle route. (pic by @HackneyCyclist) pic.twitter.com/pEGw9oF0li
— Mark Treasure (@AsEasyAsRiding) January 27, 2016
… I tend to get replies or responses that fall into the following categories –
- ‘I like mud, mud is fun to cycle on, smooth paths are boring’
- ‘you can’t possibly be arguing that all paths in rural areas should be covered in asphalt’
- ‘not everyone rides road bikes – some of us ride mountain bikes’
I think I covered most of these objections in that previous (long-ish) post, but it’s probably worth clarifying here exactly what types of routes should be surfaced properly, and which ones shouldn’t be, because I obviously don’t think all rural paths should have a smooth tarmac surface, and I also think people should have fun places to ride mountain bikes…
View original post 1,119 more words
