This autumn I sampled the Paris cycle scheme. I never realised how small and convenient the centre of Paris is. In 10 minutes I had gone from the Gare du Nord to the Louvre. The Paris Metro and bus system is sophisticated, but for sheer convenience, cycling was a joy. Inside the peripherique you're never more than 350 yards from a bike station, so you can leave the bike at one station and pick up another one easily.
But, it's not just about bikes. Over the years Paris has modified a number of boulevards, first by widening pavements to include a cycle lane. This is clearly marked and inhibits cyclists from cycling all over the pavements. Next out there are bus and taxi lanes in either direction. Next comes a high, narrow kerb which prevents cars and vans from sneaking into the bus lanes. Finally, in the centre four lanes you find cars, lorries and buses.
It's not perfect, but as a traffic segregation system it works. It is also a powerful disincentive to car commuters, a number of whom are taking out yearly subscriptions for the cycle system, commuting by train and RER then picking up a bike for the final mile.
Edinburgh has boulevards. Why not get rid of all the parking in George Street, broaden the pavements to include cycle lanes and leave a single lane each way for cars and vans?
We have no boulevards in Glasgow city centre. The current cycle lane system is inadequate and poorly policed. We need a detailed review of all transport in Glasgow which emphasises speed of commuting, maximises the public transport option and discourages commuting by car. Putting in a lot of bike stations might please the tourists but it will do little to persuade the commuter unless they feel they can cycle conveniently and safely.
Norman McCandlish, Knockintober, Ballinluig, Perthshire.
Dr Colin Guthrie suggests making it illegal for cars to park in cycle lanes. Perhaps cyclists should consider the legality of cycling on the pavement, ignoring traffic lights and failing to warn of their approach.
Stuart Neville, 23 Lilac Avenue, Clydebank.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article