Cyclists, motorways and pseudomotorways

Steph Peters

David Martin <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>MSeries wrote:
>> JLB wrote:
>
>>> I once needed to get from the middle of Dublin to Dublin Airport early
>>> on a Sunday morning. Could I hell find that alternative non-motorway
>>> route (it does exist, but for some reason it was particularly well
>>> hidden on this occasion).
>
>> I had a similar experience in Belgium.
>>
>Similar experience in Turin. Fortunately I only had to ride a few km on
>the motorway before hitting the more rural roads but it was decidedly
>interesting.

The only way to Singapore airport is a motorway; there simply isn't an
alternative route (or wasn't 10 years ago). So forbidden traffic, including
bikes, had to use the motorway from the last junction to the airport. Being
Singapore there were signs explaining all this. Riding the motorway wasn't
a problem, but it was the early hours of the morning when I did it.
--
Reference Manual: Object that raises the monitor to eye level.
Also used to compensate for that short table leg.
Steph Peters delete invalid from incm@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> Really.

Yes. You downplay quite strongly what is actually a pretty good service
(By all appearances!).

> Sounds rather like being "picked up elsewhere" to me.
>
> A to B refer to the "press pack" which they were provided with.
> Undoubtedly following their coverage of the trip Eurotunnel did
> something about their instructions. A to B Magazine issue 43,
> August/September 2004.

I will report back after Easter with details of the service as I will
probably be using it to get to France, rather than trying to squeeze in
with my folks!

Jon

David Hansen

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:15:03 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>Yes. You downplay quite strongly what is actually a pretty good service
>(By all appearances!).

I simply reported the reported experiences of A to B.

My "really" was in response to the following two assertions, which I
have added my responses to:

1) May or may not have been true at some past event,

Given the date of the A to B Magazine, the past event was presumably
sometime in the summer of 2004. Thus it appears to not be in the
(distant) past as is implied above.

2) a misrepresentation of the service offered to cycling passengers
by Eurotunnel.

The service was offered to journalists by Eurotunnel, presumably as
a means of boosting usage when they wrote articles about it.
Therefore it would have been useful for them to clarify where to go
with the journalists, before they could write, "Those wishing to
take advantage of the Eurotunnel Cycle Service might wish to note
that the closest railway station is Folkstone West, not Central as
printed in the press-pack, and that the cyclist's rendezvous point
is not the terminal at all, but south of the M20 near the Folkstone
branch of Tesco's. One trusts this information will spare other
cyclists the ordeal of joining the M20 motorway for the final
approach to the terminal and being apprehended by security guards on
the premises. Eurotunnel, it seems, has procedures to keep cyclists
out of the tunnel."


I note that nobody has contradicted the point I made originally,
"Being an example of Thatcherism the Eurotunnel terminal is not
accessible by the public, except via a motorway.", which is the main
fact that one should consider.

I'll add one last thought from A to B. "In the event, the riding
through part turned out to mean putting one's bicycle onboard a
trailer and travelling by minibus within a train, which sounds like
rather more hardware than is strictly necessary, but there we are."
It is a sentiment which I agree with. The Channel Tunnel was not
designed with the needs of cyclists and pedestrians in mind, a
common failing in past decades.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Mark Tranchant

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Tim
> Woodall <devnull@woodall.me.uk> wrote this:-

>>For example, you will NEVER find a slip-lane to turn right from the
>>right hand lane of a motorway (somebody is now going to tell me there is
>>some motorway in Scotland that does :-)

> Correct. The M8 in Glasgow has a number of "features" that motorways
> supposedly do not feature.

Yah, I found that out when a bizarre junction dumped me in the outside
lane of the M8 whilst towing a caravan, rendering me instantly illegal...

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

>A lot of TTists have died in recent years. I understand CTT may be
>looking at phasing out courses where "spear point" slip roads have to be
>crossed, although given the proliferation of these (and traffic lights)
>the number of potential courses is dwindling.

No, you are wrong. There have been a *few* deaths - all sad and tragic, but
there have *not* been *a lot* of TT'ers dying in recent years. Indeed in 2004
*no riders have been killed on dual carriageway courses* and no fatalities -
period. There were 57 accidents reported to the CTT national secretary - the
lowest number since 1994. In 2004, there were around 180,000 rides, so I think
you are overstating the dangers of time trialling considerably.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Dave Larrington

Epetruk wrote:

> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway
> roads where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often
> exceeded - examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

Some bits of the A406 are thus already.

> Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them
> use their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside
> fast moving cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such
> roads even without a ban.

Works in some parts of the USA where there /are/ no alternative roads. I
spotted a group of three heading east on I-70 near Grand Junction CO last
year. They require cyclists to leave the freeway at junctions and to go
through towns rather than bypassing them on the main road. How many people
actually do this is another matter entirely.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Arthur Clune

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers <wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom> wrote:
: No, you are wrong. There have been a *few* deaths - all sad and tragic, but
: there have *not* been *a lot* of TT'ers dying in recent years. Indeed in 2004
: *no riders have been killed on dual carriageway courses* and no fatalities -

4 in 2003? Or was it 5? Too many for what should be a pretty safe sport.

Are you really defending running TT's on the A1 and the like?

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness

JohnB

Arthur Clune wrote:
>
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers <wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom> wrote:
> : No, you are wrong. There have been a *few* deaths - all sad and tragic, but
> : there have *not* been *a lot* of TT'ers dying in recent years. Indeed in 2004
> : *no riders have been killed on dual carriageway courses* and no fatalities -
>
> 4 in 2003? Or was it 5? Too many for what should be a pretty safe sport.

ISTR it was six.

> Are you really defending running TT's on the A1 and the like?

Quite.
And the sport allows children as young at 12 to ride too.

John B

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> My "really" was in response to the following two assertions, which I
> have added my responses to:

Take care... you'll get a reputation! ;-)

> 1) May or may not have been true at some past event,
>
> Given the date of the A to B Magazine, the past event was presumably
> sometime in the summer of 2004. Thus it appears to not be in the
> (distant) past as is implied above.

I don't know when the service went "online", but it'd be interesting to
know whether the journalists did any research outside of the press pack.
While it'd be nice to know that the information in the pack was valid,
it'd be more interesting to see how they'd have got on with the
information that a "normal" user would have.

> 2) a misrepresentation of the service offered to cycling passengers
> by Eurotunnel.
>
> The service was offered to journalists by Eurotunnel, presumably as
> a means of boosting usage when they wrote articles about it.
> Therefore it would have been useful for them to clarify where to go
> with the journalists, before they could write, "Those wishing to
> take advantage of the Eurotunnel Cycle Service might wish to note
> that the closest railway station is Folkstone West, not Central as
> printed in the press-pack, and that the cyclist's rendezvous point
> is not the terminal at all, but south of the M20 near the Folkstone
> branch of Tesco's. One trusts this information will spare other
> cyclists the ordeal of joining the M20 motorway for the final
> approach to the terminal and being apprehended by security guards on
> the premises. Eurotunnel, it seems, has procedures to keep cyclists
> out of the tunnel."

I have no personal experience of this but have used the tunnel on a
number of occasions and have been generally very impressed with the service.

http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcMain/u...g/ukpBoardCycle

Is their own page detailing the process for boarding by bike along with
travel times and costs. It gives directions from Folkestone West. As the
journalists were presumably aware that cycling is prohibited on
motorways it would have seemed logical for them to have queried it
before attempting the journey.

> I note that nobody has contradicted the point I made originally,
> "Being an example of Thatcherism the Eurotunnel terminal is not
> accessible by the public, except via a motorway.", which is the main
> fact that one should consider.

There are undoubtably reasons for this, although both you and I would
dislike them. The original designs for the tunnel (IIRC) were to provide
a rail based system for motorised passengers and freight. As the other
user of the tunnel, I would place far more blame onto Eurostar since
they make it difficult (if not impossible) to carry ordinary bikes on a
passenger service which is far better suited to cyclists anyway!

There is room in the Le Shuttle trains for bikes. They could very easily
be put into the ramp sections at either end of the train (Motorbikes are
currently housed here IIRC) or a single car space could be given over to
bikes for some journeys. There is a problem in that there would be no
stands for the bikes, so they would have to be lain on the floor or
supported by the riders but this is not insurmountable. Given the
intended purpose of the system and the relative numbers of bikes / cars
making the journey by boat before opening, it could be considered
unreasonable to expect a dedicated cycle storage area.

> I'll add one last thought from A to B. "In the event, the riding
> through part turned out to mean putting one's bicycle onboard a
> trailer and travelling by minibus within a train, which sounds like
> rather more hardware than is strictly necessary, but there we are."
> It is a sentiment which I agree with. The Channel Tunnel was not
> designed with the needs of cyclists and pedestrians in mind, a
> common failing in past decades.

A cycle on, cycle off system would be preferable, but you are right in
saying that cyclists and pedestrians were not catered for. This is
because the pedestrian (And possibly cycle, I don't know the history of
this one) was catered for by the Eurostar service, not by the tunnel /
motor service. If the Eurostar trains would carry bikes in some space
akin to the guard's van on GNER trains then I would be much happier than
if I could cycle onto the Shuttle. I can catch a Eurostar to many
parts of Europe, but I have to make far more complex arrangements to get
a bike around from Calais!

Jon

David Hansen

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:28:35 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>Take care... you'll get a reputation! ;-)

I hope I already have one:-)

Of course the most amusing thing is to puncture that reputation,
when those who believe they can read my mind meet me in person:-)

>I don't know when the service went "online", but it'd be interesting to
>know whether the journalists did any research outside of the press pack.

Although I have often been known to criticise journalists, usually
to their face, or in public, as current and former journalists may
confirm, in this case I am firmly on the side of David and Jane (one
or both of whom was presumably the journalist(s) concerned). I have
been supplied with information by railway companies' PR departments
for publicity "stunts" and I do not expect to double-check this. I
expect them to know more than I do, especially as some of the
information has involved special stops by express trains to allow
participants to take part in the special event. I will add that in
every instance the information in the press pack was correct.

>As the
>journalists were presumably aware that cycling is prohibited on
>motorways it would have seemed logical for them to have queried it
>before attempting the journey.

This makes a number of assumptions about the press pack. I have not
seen it, but knowing the probable journalists concerned (not very
well, but well enough) I am happy to stick with their views unless
shown evidence that they made a stupid mistake.

>The original designs for the tunnel (IIRC) were to provide
>a rail based system for motorised passengers and freight.

Not quite. The (1960-70s) designs for the Channel Tunnel were to
provide a railway tunnel between England and France. This would
convey passenger and goods trains (hauled by class 86 locomotives in
the models). As an addition road vehicles would be conveyed, as used
to be done in the Severn Tunnel and is still done in the Alps. Sadly
the party politicians pulled the plug on this project.

Then we come to the era of the Mad Woman of Finchley. For reasons
still to be explained this woman decided to build a Fixed Channel
Crossing. She wanted a motorway and had one incorporated into the
Channel Tunnel Act. However, she was persuaded to adopt a rolling
motorway to begin with and that is what we have. "Ordinary" trains
are a something of a nuisance to the rolling motorway operation.

Due to the lobbying of companies that donated large amounts of money
to her political party, the Channel Tunnel has a load of so-called
security claptrap, intended to prevent it being too successful and
so competing too much with the donor's business. This claptrap would
not exist had party politicians not pulled the plug in the 1970s.
One example is that if one wanted to send goods from an "insecure"
railway siding on a wagon to the mainland then one had to tell the
so-called security bods at least three days before departure, but if
one wanted to send the same goods on a lorry then one had to give
the so-called security bods precisely no notice at all and the goods
simply turned up on a lorry at the terminal and were driven onto a
train using precisely the same tunnel as would be used by the wagon.
This particular anti-rail discrimination by the Department of/for
Roads no longer exists, but is indicative of the slope of the
playing field.

>If the Eurostar trains would carry bikes in some space
>akin to the guard's van on GNER trains then I would be much happier than
>if I could cycle onto the Shuttle.

I have pointed out the various nonsenses to those concerned. Reading
between the lines of their replies it seems that they claim to only
be obeying orders. I cannot comment any more.

I will only use the Channel Tunnel when all this bollocks is removed
and a railway service is provided. This probably means I will never
use this tunnel. If you ever wish to meet the unacceptable face of
the Civil Service I suggest that the so-called security bods of the
Department for Roads and the Customs perverts are a good place to
start.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

mark

"Dave Larrington" wrote ...
> Epetruk wrote:
>
> > Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them
> > use their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside
> > fast moving cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such
> > roads even without a ban.
>
> Works in some parts of the USA where there /are/ no alternative roads. I
> spotted a group of three heading east on I-70 near Grand Junction CO last
> year. They require cyclists to leave the freeway at junctions and to go
> through towns rather than bypassing them on the main road. How many
people
> actually do this is another matter entirely.
>
> --
>
> Dave Larrington -

There is actually a signposted bicycle route from Denver west across the
mountains to at least as far as Glenwood Springs. Some of it is frontage
roads, some is bicycle path alongside the freeway or in the center strip
(east side of Vail Pass), and in places the freeway itself is signposted as
a bicycle route. MSeries has made several references to cycling through this
area on his ride across the US.

When the Colorado Department of Transportation decided to put rumble strips
between the shoulder/breakdown lane and the right hand traffic lane, they
put a fair bit of effort into finding a bicycle friendly rumble strip
design. I'm told that cyclists with a wide variety of tire types were
descending Vail Pass at fairly high speeds and riding across a variety of
rumble strip patterns to see which design would produce enough noise when a
motorist drifted onto it, but not cause a cyclist to lose control.

I've never heard of a requirement that cyclists leave the freeway at
junctions and go through towns. I-70 has a junction at either end of my
(rather small) town, and another junction for the next town, and cyclists
are allowed to use the entire stretch. It is considered good practice to
exit and re-enter at each junction, though.

As Epetruk pointed out, most cyclists are happy to stay off these roads, but
there are times when these roads are the most practical option.
--
mark

Dave Larrington

mark wrote:

> I've never heard of a requirement that cyclists leave the freeway at
> junctions and go through towns. I-70 has a junction at either end of
> my (rather small) town, and another junction for the next town, and
> cyclists are allowed to use the entire stretch. It is considered good
> practice to exit and re-enter at each junction, though.

I've seen signs telling cyclists to leave the freeway and go through town on
I-80 in Nevada; I haven't been looking for them anywhere else...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Tony Raven

Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> I've seen signs telling cyclists to leave the freeway and go through town on
> I-80 in Nevada; I haven't been looking for them anywhere else...
>

There's a number of states have that requirement, New Mexico, Colorado
and Nevada amongst them. Situations vary from state to state. IIRC you
can cycle on the NJ Freeways but only if you have a permit from the NJDOT.

Tony

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:35:01 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
<aarkt0thjujujlo00tn3ng070tc1l7q5m3@4ax.com>:

>"In the event, the riding
>through part turned out to mean putting one's bicycle onboard a
>trailer and travelling by minibus within a train, which sounds like
>rather more hardware than is strictly necessary, but there we are."

LOL! A masterpiece of understatement!

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales