Why we need roads we can cycle on

Mark T

I have heard all the arguments for bike paths.

"They make cycling more pleasant". "They are there to serve beginner or
unskilled cyclists". "They can provide shortcuts". etc.

The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms are irrelevant.

This country needs roads that are pleasant and safe for vulnerable road
users for one reason only: Because they will get people to cycle and save
lives, all in one hit. Sweet. All else is secondary.

You see, it doesn't really matter that cycling on the road is as safe as
walking. What matters is that roads are *perceived* to be safe, that they
*feel* safe. If safe and pleasant roads get the masses to cycle, the need
for expensive and unsatisfactory cycle paths is removed. Benefits to
society will be immense - fewer deaths and fewer injuries to cyclists and
pedestrians, a more pleasant environment and massive financial savings.

And of course because I'm asking for something that is easily doable I
don't have to call for these semi-mythical *good* paths that simply cannot
eliminate the danger of the junction or inadequate sightlines in most urban
areas.

Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or force
the cyclist to ride out of the field of view of the rest of the traffic.
The network is already out there, we just need to tame the terror of the
car.

Your opinion?

Steve C

Mark T wrote:

> we just need to tame the terror of the car.

No real point to the following, more just an observation.

Does society really want to tame the car?

Hundreds of people are slaughtered on the roads every year across this
country. So many that most only make a few lines in the local news
because it just isn't considered news worthy. Most of the time you'll
only hear nationally if a large number of individuals or celebities are
involved. I'm not saying that most deaths are caused intentional, but
culturally we seem to accept road fatalities as a fact of life, and
therefore unavoidable.

We need a cultural shift where it is no longer seem to be acceptable to
kill someone with a car (or other vehicle) intentionally or otherwise.
For the individuals concerned I imagine it's hell, but collectively it
seems to be almost socially acceptable.

vernon

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:Xns9AB6E9BC5631Dwibbled@130.133.1.4...
>I have heard all the arguments for bike paths.
>
> "They make cycling more pleasant". "They are there to serve beginner or
> unskilled cyclists". "They can provide shortcuts". etc.
>
> The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms are irrelevant.
>
> This country needs roads that are pleasant and safe for vulnerable road
> users for one reason only: Because they will get people to cycle and save
> lives, all in one hit. Sweet. All else is secondary.
>
> You see, it doesn't really matter that cycling on the road is as safe as
> walking. What matters is that roads are *perceived* to be safe, that they
> *feel* safe. If safe and pleasant roads get the masses to cycle, the need
> for expensive and unsatisfactory cycle paths is removed. Benefits to
> society will be immense - fewer deaths and fewer injuries to cyclists and
> pedestrians, a more pleasant environment and massive financial savings.
>
> And of course because I'm asking for something that is easily doable I
> don't have to call for these semi-mythical *good* paths that simply cannot
> eliminate the danger of the junction or inadequate sightlines in most
> urban
> areas.
>
> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
> safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or force
> the cyclist to ride out of the field of view of the rest of the traffic.
> The network is already out there, we just need to tame the terror of the
> car.
>
> Your opinion?

I think Mastuna's having a second bite at the cherry.....

I'm happy enough with the roads thank you very much.

Mark T

vernon writtificated

>> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
>> safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or
>> force the cyclist to ride out of the field of view of the rest of the
>> traffic. The network is already out there, we just need to tame the
>> terror of the car.

> I think Mastuna's having a second bite at the cherry.....
>
> I'm happy enough with the roads thank you very much.

Read the above paragraph again but after "the network is already out
there" add "it's the roads, stupid".

vernon

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:Xns9AB787DD0D684wibbled@130.133.1.4...
> vernon writtificated
>
>>> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
>>> safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or
>>> force the cyclist to ride out of the field of view of the rest of the
>>> traffic. The network is already out there, we just need to tame the
>>> terror of the car.
>
>> I think Mastuna's having a second bite at the cherry.....
>>
>> I'm happy enough with the roads thank you very much.
>
> Read the above paragraph again but after "the network is already out
> there" add "it's the roads, stupid".

And if you look at the final paragraph you seem to stupidly include the same
sequence of words.....

Wide, continuous, straight and easy-to-use bike networks yada yada yada.

And you don't appear to deny the accusation .....

The activity that I was hinting at was trolling....

vernon

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:Xns9AB787DD0D684wibbled@130.133.1.4...
> vernon writtificated
>
>>> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
>>> safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or
>>> force the cyclist to ride out of the field of view of the rest of the
>>> traffic. The network is already out there, we just need to tame the
>>> terror of the car.
>
Strangley enough there's a great network already in existence and I used it
in all of it's guises apart from motorways for 100km today. I never felt
threatened by the motorists, in fact I found them most courteous and
accommodating.

I'll restate. I'm happy with the road network as it is without the need to
make changes. The huge increase in the numbers of cycling commuters using
very busy roads in the Leeds/Bradford connurbation that I see every day
suggests that things can't be that bad.

Robin Johnson

Mark T wrote:
>
> Your opinion?

Excuse me, I have something I want to whine about this and it seems to
fit in this thread.

I went to Doncaster this weekend. I took the Brompton on the train for
scooting about when I got there.

In the hour it took me to get to the hotel on Friday afternoon, I got
the worst treatment from drivers that I've ever experienced. Almost
every car, and one lorry, passed with a smaller amount of room than I'm
comfortable with, and of every few car drivers that passed me, even on
wide roads with an empty overtaking lane, one would honk or be having a
visible tantrum at me from inside the car. One teenage boy wound the
passenger side window down and started a swearing contest. Every few
minutes, an incident of the sort that I'm used to happening in
Edinburgh about once a week.

I could easily be convinced this is linked to the fact that there seems
to be a lot of Magic White Paint about there, despite that all weekend I
only saw about half-a-dozen cyclists.

In fact, I was so scared of the roads that I tried to get back into town
along the 'facilities' this morning - and spent much of my time
trundling the bike around trying to understand where I was supposed to
be among the forest of blue "shared use" signs and red "no cycling"
signs, often close together on the same length of pathway.

Of course we need to be able to use the roads.
--
Robin Johnson
http://rdouglasjohnson.blogspot.com

Martin

Robin Johnson wrote:
> Mark T wrote:
> >
>> Your opinion?
>
> Excuse me, I have something I want to whine about this and it seems to
> fit in this thread.
>
> I went to Doncaster this weekend. I took the Brompton on the train for
> scooting about when I got there.
>
> In the hour it took me to get to the hotel on Friday afternoon, I got
> the worst treatment from drivers that I've ever experienced. Almost
> every car, and one lorry, passed with a smaller amount of room than I'm
> comfortable with, and of every few car drivers that passed me, even on
> wide roads with an empty overtaking lane, one would honk or be having a
> visible tantrum at me from inside the car. One teenage boy wound the
> passenger side window down and started a swearing contest. Every few
> minutes, an incident of the sort that I'm used to happening in
> Edinburgh about once a week.

That is because they think cycling in the road is dangerous, forgetting
that they are the ones making it dangerous by honking and passing close etc


> I could easily be convinced this is linked to the fact that there seems
> to be a lot of Magic White Paint about there, despite that all weekend I
> only saw about half-a-dozen cyclists.

So what you are saying is that all this Magic White Paint did not
encourage cycling. Strange, it is not what my council seem to think.

Mark T

vernon writtificated

>>>> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
>>>> safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or
>>>> force the cyclist to ride out of the field of view of the rest of
>>>> the traffic. The network is already out there, we just need to tame
>>>> the terror of the car.
>>
>>> I think Mastuna's having a second bite at the cherry.....
>>>
>>> I'm happy enough with the roads thank you very much.
>>
>> Read the above paragraph again but after "the network is already out
>> there" add "it's the roads, stupid".
>
> And if you look at the final paragraph you seem to stupidly include
> the same sequence of words.....
>
> Wide, continuous, straight and easy-to-use bike networks yada yada
> yada.
>
> And you don't appear to deny the accusation .....
>
> The activity that I was hinting at was trolling....

Oh FFS <headbutts wall>

Just to clarify, I'm not Mastuna.

The first post in this thread was a *parody* of Mastuna's naive and
impossible vision for cycle paths, hence the similarities in the text.
In my final paragraph I referred to:

<"wide, continuous, straight, easy to use bike networks, designed for
<safety and high throughput, that don't add unecessary junctions or
<force the cyclist to ride out of the field of view to the rest of the
<traffic. The network is already out there..."

This is a description of roads, and I should have made that obvious,
explicitly stating the fact in big flashing lights. I attempted to do so
in my second post "the network is already out - it's the roads..." but
this failed. Apologies for not making it obvious I was talking about
roads (I had thought the title made it so, but was most definately
wrong).

Mark.

Rob Morley

On 8 Jun 2008 20:04:47 GMT
Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Oh FFS <headbutts wall>
>
IKWYM :-(