Cycle Lanes (Times Letters Page)
View Full Version : Cycle Lanes (Times Letters Page)
I notice a rather uninformed letter in today's times, anyone
fancy a rebuttal?
(second letter) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-
1160688,00.html
Steve
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:50:20 GMT, in
<1ilx9ezodorlu.xn8579fep4xj$.dlg@40tude.net>, Steve Peake
<spam@puppet-head.co.uk> wrote:
>I notice a rather uninformed letter in today's times,
>anyone fancy a rebuttal?
>
>(second letter) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-
>1160688,00.html
>
>Steve
I'm sure I won't be published but:
Mr. Crisp asks if the Transpport Minister should ban
cyclists from the road when a cycle path is available
(Cyclists right of way, June 28).
Will Mr. Crisp be happy to be banned from driving his car on
the road when a bus route is available? I suggest that his
frustration is caused by the more numerous oncoming vehicles
which could be using public transport.
--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which
appears in my inbox is mine to do what I like with. Anything
which is sent to me (whether intended or not) may, if I so
desire, form a legal and binding contract.
Steve Peake wrote:
> I notice a rather uninformed letter in today's times,
> anyone fancy a rebuttal?
>
> (second letter) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-
> 1160688,00.html
>
> Steve
Dear Sir
Dr Crisp suggests the Transport Minister should ban cyclists
from the road when a cyclepath is available. As a cyclist in
Cambridge perhaps I should suggest the Minister ban cars
from cities where a Park and Ride is available? That would
certainly solve Dr Crisps problem with oncoming cars
thwarting his progress.
Yours etc
Tony
Richard Bates <usenet01@artybee.net> wrote in message news:<mm80e0pog9o0l83n7j4q2ej6i8kte4vqsj@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:50:20 GMT, in
> <1ilx9ezodorlu.xn8579fep4xj$.dlg@40tude.net>, Steve Peake
> <spam@puppet-head.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I notice a rather uninformed letter in today's times,
> >anyone fancy a rebuttal?
> >
> >(second letter) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-
> >1160688,00.html
> >
> >Steve
>
>
> I'm sure I won't be published but:
>
> Mr. Crisp asks if the Transpport Minister should ban
> cyclists from the road when a cycle path is available
> (Cyclists right of way, June 28).
>
They do in some towns in the Netherlands. Re the OP, when
they can design cycle lanes that are not full of parked
cars, glass, peds, don't end abruptly at busy sections of
dual carriageway, can be ridden without dismounting every 5
minutes and don't have to negotiate bus stops and lampposts
they may have a reason for expecting cyclists to use them!
Originally posted by Martinm
They do in some towns in the Netherlands. Re the OP, when
they can design cycle lanes that are not full of parked
cars, glass, peds, don't end abruptly at busy sections of
dual carriageway, can be ridden without dismounting every 5
minutes and don't have to negotiate bus stops and lampposts
they may have a reason for expecting cyclists to use them!
Denmark is the same I believe, though the cyling facilities there are streets ahead of ours but they still are slower than the roads.
Richard Bates <usenet01@artybee.net> wrote in message news:<mm80e0pog9o0l83n7j4q2ej6i8kte4vqsj@4ax.com>...
> I'm sure I won't be published but:
>
> Mr. Crisp asks if the Transpport Minister should ban
> cyclists from the road when a cycle path is available
> (Cyclists right of way, June 28).
>
> Will Mr. Crisp be happy to be banned from driving his car
> on the road when a bus route is available? I suggest that
> his frustration is caused by the more numerous oncoming
> vehicles which could be using public transport.
Nice one. But I consider the German law to be a good one on
this matter, given the existance of good quality cycle
paths(*) that have adequete provision for junctions
(seperate traffic lights, driveways do not have priority
over the cyclepath). The law states (if I understand it
correctly) that cyclists must use such cycle paths when
available - except if they believe they would be in danger
by doing so. I have argued this successfully when stopped
(the path wasn't suitable for my trailer at that point), and
my brother also once argued that the cyclepath surface was
in bad repair.
(*) I believe the ECF has defined a standard for cyclepaths
- do those in the Uk meet this standard?
Rory wrote:
>
> Nice one. But I consider the German law to be a good one
> on this matter, given the existance of good quality cycle
> paths(*) that have adequete provision for junctions
> (seperate traffic lights, driveways do not have priority
> over the cyclepath). The law states (if I understand it
> correctly) that cyclists must use such cycle paths when
> available - except if they believe they would be in danger
> by doing so.
IIRC the cyclepaths were constructed to stop cyclists
impeding the flow of traffic and were made mandatory
under the Nazi leadership. I've read the history
somewhere but can't recall the link but its not a pretty
story for cycling.
Tony
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:23:39 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote (more or less):
>Steve Peake wrote:
>> I notice a rather uninformed letter in today's times,
>> anyone fancy a rebuttal?
>>
>> (second letter) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-
>> 1160688,00.html
>>
>> Steve
>
>Dear Sir
>
>Dr Crisp suggests the Transport Minister should ban
>cyclists from the road when a cyclepath is available. As a
>cyclist in Cambridge perhaps I should suggest the Minister
>ban cars from cities where a Park and Ride is available?
>That would certainly solve Dr Crisps problem with oncoming
>cars thwarting his progress.
>
>Yours etc
I like that one!
--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr (http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr/)
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 (http://html.dnsalias.net:1122/) Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
Steve Peake <spam@puppet-head.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1ilx9ezodorlu.xn8579fep4xj$.dlg@40tude.net>...
> I notice a rather uninformed letter in today's times,
> anyone fancy a rebuttal?
He's "squeezed daily ... between cyclists on the road and
oncoming vehicles".
That's a novel way of looking at it. Clearly the cyclists
should be riding further out to prevent Dr. Crisp overtaking
them until it's safe to do so.
--
Dave...
In article <57db8bde.0406290409.82064c@posting.google.com>,
Dave Kahn <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> That's a novel way of looking at it. Clearly the cyclists
> should be riding further out to prevent Dr. Crisp
> overtaking them until it's safe to do so.
I must confess that when there's traffic around in an urban
setting I often ride precisely as I used to ride motorbikes:
at least half way out between the kerb and the centreline
(real or implied), and probably slightly to the right of
there. When turning right I maintain my location in the
centre of the lane. The cars can just wait. I'm probably
cycling at ~20mph, and that's hardly going to slow their
journey significantly. When it's safe to do so, and by the
noise of their slowing I know they've seen me, I may pull
over to the left to ease the passage of people passing me,
but if it's not safe for me, I don't.
I don't have much sympathy for cyclists blocking roads en
masse, but I think it's perfectly right and proper for
cyclists to take as much road as _they_ need so that _they_
are safe. If that slows people down, that's tough. There's a
pragmatic position: if you're riding at 10mph, wobbling, and
every time you signal or turn your head you lurch three feet
to one side, then the righteousness of using the middle of
the lane may conflict with not getting killed. But in twelve
months of regular cycling (yeah, I know, newbie, etc) I've
had no adverse reaction to positive, confident road
positioning.
ian
On 29 Jun 2004 04:19:09 -0700, spacenetus@yahoo.com (Rory) wrote in
message <ab018408.0406290319.4c8c439@posting.google.com>:
>I consider the German law to be a good one on this matter,
>given the existance of good quality cycle paths(*) that
>have adequete provision for junctions (seperate traffic
>lights, driveways do not have priority over the cyclepath).
>The law states (if I understand it correctly) that cyclists
>must use such cycle paths when available - except if they
>believe they would be in danger by doing so.
You need to read up on the history of that particular rule
before you endorse it too freely.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:18:11 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org> wrote in message <cbrmm3$78i$1@news-
out.ftel.co.uk>:
>I must confess that when there's traffic around in an urban
>setting I often ride precisely as I used to ride
>motorbikes: at least half way out between the kerb and the
>centreline (real or implied), and probably slightly to the
>right of there.
Why make it sound like a fault? That is the Primary Riding
Position, after all, and recommended by the closest we have
to an officially endorsed manual of cycling.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> You need to read up on the history of that particular rule
> before you endorse it too freely.
>
Do you have a link - I looked for one but couldn't find it.
Tony
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:45:08 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<2kd6lfFv53mU5@uni-berlin.de>:
>> You need to read up on the history of that particular
>> rule before you endorse it too freely.
>Do you have a link - I looked for one but couldn't find it.
It is discussed in "Murder Most Foul" which I've nicked from
Howard <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/-
Documents/Murder_Most_Foul>
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
> Nice one. But I consider the German law to be a good one
> on this matter, given the existance of good quality cycle
> paths(*) that have adequete provision for junctions
> (seperate traffic lights, driveways do not have priority
> over the cyclepath). The law states (if I understand it
> correctly) that cyclists must use such cycle paths when
> available - except if they believe they would be in danger
> by doing so. I have argued this successfully when stopped
> (the path wasn't suitable for my trailer at that point),
> and my brother also once argued that the cyclepath surface
> was in bad repair.
<shudders> It's not the priority that causes problems, its
the SMIDSY's. Whether or not the cycle path gives priority
has absolutely no bearing on your safety. They are probably
safer when cyclists don't have priority as they won't be
assuming that a car will give way to them.
The other thing is that cyclepaths are very rarely suitable
for riding along at 20mph on. Cycle paths are generally fine
for trundlies but are generally awful for people that use
the bike as a viable alternative to the car, rather than a
faster form of walking.
However, why should we pass yet another restrictive,
draconian law? Is there a need for it? Are cyclists holding
up traffic? If so how much? Are cyclists in danger on the
roads? Yes! But are pedestrians? Yes! And so too are
motorcyclists - they are suicidal by comparison. Unless I am
persuaded of both the need and the effectiveness of a law I
am dead set against introducing it. But I like to keep up
the pretence of being a reasonable person, so convince me
it's needed.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<6is2e05jo3ene42v58uj76821qu5gs49jq@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:45:08 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
> family.com> wrote in message <2kd6lfFv53mU5@uni-
> berlin.de>:
>
> >> You need to read up on the history of that particular
> >> rule before you endorse it too freely.
I'm still far happier cycling around Munich (especially with
two kids in the trailer) on cyclepaths than the other places
I regularly ride (Luxembourg, UK, Ireland). What has the
history of the rule got to do with anything - at least the
Nazis *are* history whereas the regime that gave us the
Concentration Camp and Black & Tans are still going strong.
> It is discussed in "Murder Most Foul" which I've nicked
> from Howard <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/publ-
> ic.nsf/Documents/Murder_Most_Foul>
An excellent read - it could have been written yesterday, if
the stats were updated, and maybe this sentence would need
review: "As these pages are being written the Labour Party
is taking its first steps in responsible Government."
On 30 Jun 2004 05:55:51 -0700, spacenetus@yahoo.com (Rory) wrote in
message <ab018408.0406300455.7fa82bdf@posting.google.com>:
>> >> You need to read up on the history of that particular
>> >> rule before you endorse it too freely.
>What has the history of the rule got to do with anything -
>at least the Nazis *are* history whereas the regime that
>gave us the Concentration Camp and Black & Tans are still
>going strong.
It's not who introduced it, it's why. The rule was
introduced to get cyclists out of the way of the Almighty
Car. No consideration was given to the rights, desires or
safety of cyclists.
>> It is discussed in "Murder Most Foul" which I've nicked
>> from Howard <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/pub-
>> lic.nsf/Documents/Murder_Most_Foul>
>An excellent read - it could have been written yesterday,
Indeed. My favourite quote is probably: "The trouble with
the facts about the law-breaking of the motorists and the
motor interests is that there are too many: it is difficult
even to grasp them. In fact, the position has long since
passed far beyond the limits of ordinary law-breaking and
become an exhibition of national degeneracy."
But you'll have guessed that :-)
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a2p2e0d9gl4upaf0a9nm7gq0ij53q4oi8p@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:18:11 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> <I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org> wrote in message <cbrmm3$78i$1@news-
> out.ftel.co.uk>:
>
> >I must confess that when there's traffic around in an
> >urban setting I often ride precisely as I used to ride
> >motorbikes: at least half way out between the kerb and
> >the centreline (real or implied), and probably slightly
> >to the right of there.
>
> Why make it sound like a fault? That is the Primary Riding
> Position, after all, and recommended by the closest we
> have to an officially endorsed manual of cycling.
You're right that the PRP is sometimes the most sensible
one to adopt when riding, so there's no need to be
apologetic about
it.
However, I think Ian is right to be pragmatic about it -
rule books are designed to with the *intent* to ensure that
we are able to ride safely on the roads, and I think we
should never focus so much on the rules that we lose sight
of the intent.
For example, if you were to try adopting the primary riding
position in downtown Lagos you wouldn't last a second on the
road, I tell ya!
--
Akin
aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
Tony Raven wrote:
> Rory wrote:
>
>>Nice one. But I consider the German law to be a good one
>>on this matter, given the existance of good quality cycle
>>paths(*) that have adequete provision for junctions
>>(seperate traffic lights, driveways do not have priority
>>over the cyclepath). The law states (if I understand it
>>correctly) that cyclists must use such cycle paths when
>>available - except if they believe they would be in danger
>>by doing so.
>
>
> IIRC the cyclepaths were constructed to stop cyclists
> impeding the flow of traffic and were made mandatory under
> the Nazi leadership. I've read the history somewhere but
> can't recall the link but its not a pretty story for
> cycling.
>
> Tony
>
>
I'm sure I've seen a more detailed page somewhere recently,
but I obviously didn't save the reference (more's the pity).
The only link I can come up with at the moment is an
historical time line on John Franklin's site.
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/history.html
--
Terry Duckmanton.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton A website
mostly dedicated to cycling
"Terry D" <name.surname@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:WhGEc.704$P52.52@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Rory wrote:
> >
> >>Nice one. But I consider the German law to be a good one
> >>on this matter, given the existance of good quality
> >>cycle paths(*) that have adequete provision for
> >>junctions (seperate traffic lights, driveways do not
> >>have priority over the cyclepath). The law states (if I
> >>understand it correctly) that cyclists must use such
> >>cycle paths when available - except if they believe they
> >>would be in danger by doing so.
> >
> >
> > IIRC the cyclepaths were constructed to stop cyclists
> > impeding the flow
of
> > traffic and were made mandatory under the Nazi
> > leadership. I've read
the
> > history somewhere but can't recall the link but its not
> > a pretty story
for
> > cycling.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
>
> I'm sure I've seen a more detailed page somewhere
> recently, but I obviously didn't save the reference
> (more's the pity).
...
There's this -
http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/bhorn_abstract.html
which may be of interest
Curious
...
The only link I
> can come up with at the moment is an historical time line
> on John Franklin's site.
>
> http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/history.html
>
> --
> Terry Duckmanton.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton A website
> mostly dedicated to cycling
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
