Petitions and psychle farcilities

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On 10 Jul 2007, Diana Galletly <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
>> >(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
>> >simply absurd.
>>
>> Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
>> reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.
>
> Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational. I consider that it
> would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility, and
> that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a claims
> this is impossible. Hence, I consider you irrational, and cannot
> conclude anything else from the evidence presented.

Any facility which removes one cyclist from the correct position on the
road is by definition reducing the number of cyclists on the road and
therefore reducing the safety of all cyclists on the road; the safety of
cyclists on the roads scales very clearly with their numbers.

Hence, even a perfect dedicated cycle facility is undesirable.

> Do you really consider it completely physically impossible to build a
> useful cycle facility?

If a cycle facility diverts cyclists from the public road, by definition it
is not useful. If it doesn't divert cyclists from the public road, by
definition it is not useful. Therefore, by dilemma, cycle facilities are
not useful.

There are very rare cases where a cycle facility represents a very
significant short cut, and can be ridden fast enough to also represent a
saving in time. There, there is a balance of utility. By moving cyclists
off the road, the safety of all cyclists is adversely affected; but those
particular cyclists may get to their destination quicker.

> It is clearly (in my opinion) irrational to say that every cycle
> facility ever built must be bad.

Then I suggest to you you have not given enough thought to the problem.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
|> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
|> On 10 Jul 2007, Diana Galletly <[email protected]> wrote:
|> > In article <[email protected]>,
|> > Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
|> > >
|> > >The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
|> > >(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
|> > >simply absurd.
|> >
|> > Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
|> > reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.
|>
|> Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational. I consider that it
|> would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility, and
|> that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a claims
|> this is impossible. Hence, I consider you irrational, and cannot
|> conclude anything else from the evidence presented.

Please reread what I said. (a) did not say that they were necessarily
bad, but that they were undesirable, and explained why. That is a
rational position, whether or not you regard it as right.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> However, (a) looks like the only remotely sensible position to me. Any
>> solution which gets cyclists off the road reduces the critical mass of
>> cyclists on the road, and it is precisely that critical mass that makes
>> cycling safer. Facilities also give credence to the motorists belief
>> that cyclists somehow shouldn't be on the road.
>
>
> So, given a choice between a wide, safe, short route and a long detour
> with a number of specific hazards, if cars are obliged to go the long
> way round, you consider it irrational to use a shorter, safer route?
> But if cars could use the short route, then it might become good?
>
> I think I'm glad my rationality isn't calibrated the same as yours.
>
> It cannot be rational to claim that every cycle facility must by
> definition be bad. You're claiming that it is inherent to cycle
> facilities that they must by definition be bad. It seems odd to me to
> claim that this is rational.

I am claiming that, yes; and I'm giving reasons. This is a sorites[1]. Some
individual cycling facilities provide some utility to some individual
cyclists. But by nibbling away at the number of cyclists using the public
road, it's decreasing the safety - and thus the utility - for all
cyclists, of the public road network. So every cycling facility, even
(perhaps particularly) the best ones, represent a net cost in utility to
cyclists. So all should rationally be opposed.

If, however, your short-cut were opened up to all traffic and became part
of the public road network, then it would, as you say, become good.

[1] Known to politicians as 'a slippery slope'.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

 

[Robin Stevens]

In cam.transport Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

> Contra-flow lanes, for example, often introduce unnecessary danger
> when the road isn't wide enough and there is a fair amount of oncoming
> traffic (remember, buses need more width than cars), especially at any
> speed above 20 MPH.

If the road's that narrow then maybe a 30mph limit is too high. I
find such lanes useful primarily because the alternative may require a
lengthy detour - some of those in Oxford certainly do. I apply common
sense if something large is coming the other way - if there's not room
to pass safely, I give way to it and wait at a wider point on the road.

--
Robin Stevens <[email protected]>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

 

[Ian Smith]

On 10 Jul 2007 15:05:47 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> |> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> |> On 10 Jul 2007, Diana Galletly <[email protected]> wrote:
> |> > In article <[email protected]>,
> |> > Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
> |> > >
> |> > >The problem with this is that any rational person will choose
> |> > >position (b), as you've described them - your wording makes
> |> > >both (a) and (c) simply absurd.
> |> >
> |> > Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a
> |> > perfectly reasonable position for any halfway competent
> |> > cyclist to hold.
> |>
> |> Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational. I consider that
> |> it would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility,
> |> and that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a
> |> claims this is impossible. Hence, I consider you irrational, and
> |> cannot conclude anything else from the evidence presented.
>
> Please reread what I said. (a) did not say that they were
> necessarily bad, but that they were undesirable, and explained why.
> That is a rational position, whether or not you regard it as right.

You said "even the best are less safe than the roads". That is not a
rational claim - it requires either that it is not physically possible
to design and construct a cycle facility that is as safe as a road, or
that you have accurately surveyed every cycle facility in the world.
I don't believe either of these claims to be true. I don't believe
the position claimed is rational.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> You said "even the best are less safe than the roads". That is not a
|> rational claim - it requires either that it is not physically possible
|> to design and construct a cycle facility that is as safe as a road, or
|> that you have accurately surveyed every cycle facility in the world.
|> I don't believe either of these claims to be true. I don't believe
|> the position claimed is rational.

"Even the best computer cannot interpret writing as well as a human."

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say that I was talking
about the theoretically best cycle facility, built in the land of
Cockaigne. Any relevant route in the UK is going to have to contend
with the fact that the country is already densely covered with a network
of roads, and that almost every person wanting to use it is going to
want to use some of that network at one or both ends. There will
therefore necessarily be intersections, almost certainly in the middle
as well as at the ends, and it is there that the danger arises. That
is what has been found in Holland.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Other useful facilities include paths on motorway bridges,
|> e.g. the M5 over the Avon, the old Severn crossing, The M2
|> over the Medway etc.

That was included by my clause about avoiding particularly dangerous
roads. I am not claiming that my wording was perfect.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, [email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> Given the success of the petition in getting an alleviation of the
> anti-cycling wording in the Highway Code, would we get any support
> for one against psychle farcilities?

Maybe not on its own because the CTC say they did a lot of persuading
the government and a lot of cyclists hassled their MPs about it as
well.

> I don't think that there is a hope in hell of getting support for
> position (a), but there would once have been for position (b), and it
> could be done by petitioning for mandatory minimum standards. Let's
> ignore the details for now.

People on this newsgroup have mentioned various minimum standards for
cycle facilities but in many cases they seem to be ignored by those
building them. Decent standards and guidelines should be produced and
made compulsory - for that reason it might be best if they're not
completely prescriptive but make it easy to design something well.
The stuff TfL produced seemed a good start as it frequently seemed to
say "It's almost impossible to design a safe and useful cycle lane for
this situation therefore you should consider not putting one here". I
think most of the time it would be much better to do nothing or use
the space used for a cycle lane to widen the road.

I'm tending towards viewpoint (b) but I also see some sense with (a).
I find a lot of sustrans routes on old railway lines quit good
although I don't think they're significantly safer than using a road.

pete

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:01:35 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational. I consider that it
> > would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility, and
> > that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a claims
> > this is impossible. Hence, I consider you irrational, and cannot
> > conclude anything else from the evidence presented.
>
> Any facility which removes one cyclist from the correct position on the
> road is by definition reducing the number of cyclists on the road

But no facility necessarily removes any cyclists from the road. Since
step one of your argument is false, the rest is irrelevant. A cycle
facility might increase cyclists, both in a particular stretch of road
and overall - for example, bypassing what is perceived as a dangerous
junction may cause an increase in cycles in a town or on a key route
(to a school or large employer).

> therefore reducing the safety of all cyclists on the road;

Also not necessarily. There is no evidence either way that the
correlation seen between cycling levels and the rate of cyclist
casualties is dependant purely on the number of cyclists on the road.
It could be that car drivers are more considerate of cyclists when
they see lots of them about regardless of the cyclists actual
location within the street scene. You are extrapolating without
evidence.

> the safety of cyclists on the roads scales very clearly with their
> numbers.

Scales very clearly with the number of cyclists, not with the number
of cyclists not on cycle facilities.

> Hence, even a perfect dedicated cycle facility is undesirable.

Hence, your hence is fallacious.

> > Do you really consider it completely physically impossible to
> > build a useful cycle facility?
>
> If a cycle facility diverts cyclists from the public road, by
> definition it is not useful.

If a cycle facility increases the number of cyclists on the public
road, it may be beneficial. My 'if' is no more baseless than your
'if'.

You may as well say "if a facility is useless it is not useful'. I
agree with that, but I don't know why you'd bother saying it.

> If it doesn't divert cyclists from the public road, by
> definition it is not useful.

I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. I know a facility that
bypasses a large roundabout on a main route into a school. By
bypassing the roundabout, it encourages parents to allow cycling to
school which they would otherwise forbid on safety grounds. 100 yards
or so of off-road path has greatly increased the numbers cycling from
an adjacent town to the school, INCREASING the number of bicycles on
the road between the town, and presumably also within the towns. I
doubt it has reduced the cyclists on the roundabout, not least because
I very rarely see anyone not in school uniform using the facility.

> There are very rare cases where a cycle facility represents a very
> significant short cut, and can be ridden fast enough to also
> represent a saving in time.

I know one in my town, which is short and direct, and avoids much
doubling back (you can simply ride north along the west side of the
railway, the alternative being riding south along the railway to the
first crossing, riding north along the road on the other side of the
railway to the crossing beyond, crossing back and then riding south
again to where you want to be). The path is wide, straight, lit and
has one junction with good sight-lines. It links a school to the
railway station. It also avoids the roundabout referred to above.

> There, there is a balance of utility. By moving cyclists
> off the road, the safety of all cyclists is adversely affected;

Only if you assume (without evidence) it will be so, and assume (also
without evidence) that it will reduce the numbers of cyclists on
roads.

> > It is clearly (in my opinion) irrational to say that every cycle
> > facility ever built must be bad.
>
> Then I suggest to you you have not given enough thought to the
> problem.

You've surveyed and assessed them all (worldwide) then? What is wrong
with the bypassing of the roundabout I noted above - no reduction in
cyclists on the roundabout, significant increase in cyclists in two
towns. That's bad, is it? Better the schoolkids were driven to
school than that they did 100yds on a off-road path?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:10:47 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > It cannot be rational to claim that every cycle facility must by
> > definition be bad. You're claiming that it is inherent to cycle
> > facilities that they must by definition be bad. It seems odd to
> > me to claim that this is rational.
>
> I am claiming that, yes; and I'm giving reasons. This is a
> sorites[1]. Some individual cycling facilities provide some utility
> to some individual cyclists. But by nibbling away at the number of
> cyclists using the public road,

There you go again - your taking as a given something that isn't
necesarily so. It would be possible for a facility to INCREASE teh
number of cylist miles done. I've given an example in my other
response. That would be good. It could even be safer than teh
alternative by road and tehn it is increasing teh utility for some and
increasing teh safety of all and you say that it's rational to regard
this as being bad.

> it's decreasing the safety - and thus the utility - for all

1: You're depending on something that isn't necesarily so.

2: You're assuming the something that isn't necesarily so has an
effect that you can't actually demonstrate - you're relying on an
extrapolation of an observation.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On 10 Jul 2007 17:54:38 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> You said "even the best are less safe than the roads". That is not a
> |> rational claim - it requires either that it is not physically possible
> |> to design and construct a cycle facility that is as safe as a road, or
> |> that you have accurately surveyed every cycle facility in the world.
> |> I don't believe either of these claims to be true. I don't believe
> |> the position claimed is rational.
>
> You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say that I was
> talking about the theoretically best cycle facility, built in the
> land of Cockaigne.

You said (direct exact precise quote) "even the best are less safe
than the roads". I am not putting any words in your mouth. You typed
it. You said the best cycle facility is less safe than the roads.

Unless you have surveyed and assessed every cycle facility in the
world, you cannot rationally claim that the best is less safe than the
roads.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> You said (direct exact precise quote) "even the best are less safe
|> than the roads". I am not putting any words in your mouth. You typed
|> it. You said the best cycle facility is less safe than the roads.

Yes, you are. "Even the best" can mean "even theoretically perfect",
"even the best of the existing ones" and many other things. English
is an imprecise language. As we were talking practicabilities, I was
not talking about what could be done in the land of Cockaigne, or by
summoning up a djinn, or by moving to an alternative universe where
the population of the UK is 1,000,000.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
|> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:01:35 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|> > Any facility which removes one cyclist from the correct position on the
|> > road is by definition reducing the number of cyclists on the road
|>
|> But no facility necessarily removes any cyclists from the road.

However, the fact of the matter is that most do, and the Highway Code
is such that any plausible facility will remove at least some.

|> Since step one of your argument is false, the rest is irrelevant.

No, it isn't.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:10:47 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> > It cannot be rational to claim that every cycle facility must by
>> > definition be bad. You're claiming that it is inherent to cycle
>> > facilities that they must by definition be bad. It seems odd to
>> > me to claim that this is rational.
>>
>> I am claiming that, yes; and I'm giving reasons. This is a
>> sorites[1]. Some individual cycling facilities provide some utility
>> to some individual cyclists. But by nibbling away at the number of
>> cyclists using the public road,
>
> There you go again - your taking as a given something that isn't
> necesarily so. It would be possible for a facility to INCREASE teh
> number of cylist miles done.

It would, yes. But if the increase is on the cycle path, it isn't on the
road. Therefore, it's not helping. If you move those cyclists from the
cycle path to the road, they would help. So however much cycling increases
(or decreases) it doesn't alter the fact that if some cyclists sometimes
use cyclepaths, it makes all cyclists less safe than they otherwise would
be.

Next?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:01:35 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> > Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational. I consider that it
>> > would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility, and
>> > that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a claims
>> > this is impossible. Hence, I consider you irrational, and cannot
>> > conclude anything else from the evidence presented.
>>
>> Any facility which removes one cyclist from the correct position on the
>> road is by definition reducing the number of cyclists on the road
>
> But no facility necessarily removes any cyclists from the road.

A single cyclist can't be in two places at the same time. If he's on a
cycle path, he isn't on the road. If you can't understand that, rational
discussion is impossible.

> Since
> step one of your argument is false, the rest is irrelevant.

How true.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:10:47 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> It cannot be rational to claim that every cycle facility must by
>>> definition be bad. You're claiming that it is inherent to cycle
>>> facilities that they must by definition be bad. It seems odd to
>>> me to claim that this is rational.
>>
>> I am claiming that, yes; and I'm giving reasons. This is a
>> sorites[1]. Some individual cycling facilities provide some utility
>> to some individual cyclists. But by nibbling away at the number of
>> cyclists using the public road,
>
> There you go again - your taking as a given something that isn't
> necesarily so. It would be possible for a facility to INCREASE teh
> number of cylist miles done. I've given an example in my other
> response. That would be good. It could even be safer than teh
> alternative by road and tehn it is increasing teh utility for some and
> increasing teh safety of all and you say that it's rational to regard
> this as being bad.

How about some statistics to back up Ian:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainab...ties/schooltravelstrategiesandpla5746?page=29

I don't think that most of those children would be using cycles to get to
school if the facilities didn't exist. The main catchment for the school is
an afluent area, so families have multiple cars available (4 bed executive
detached and two professional incomes being the norm).

Its on my route to work when I cycle. The school is the "wrong" side of the
main road through Kesgrave into Ipswich, and as such has near nose-tail
traffic at school opening hours heading in both directions. (The school is
on the north, the houses are nearly all on the south). The existance of an
under-road tunnel allows safe crosssing to the school. There are cycle
tracks into and around the adjacent housing estates. The design of roads on
the newer housing estates means that one has to drive around the outside
rather than rat-run across (not unlike some Dutch settlements).




- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Mark Goodge]

On 10 Jul 2007 11:53:53 +0100 (BST), Diana Galletly put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
>>(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
>>simply absurd.
>
>Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
>reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.

(a) isn't reasonable, as worded by the OP, because it makes the
entirely unjustifiable claim that all cycle facilities are
"intrinsically undesirable". It may be the case that many (or even
most) of those which run alongside roads are inherently poor, but not
all of them do - and those which don't are often very useful indeed,
especially if they provide a shortcut or an alternative route to the
increasingly restricted roads. If (a) was adopted, and cyclists were
expected to use the roads at all times, that would mean that cyclists
would be banned from the bridge over the A14 at Milton and sent around
the roundabout with the cars, for example, excluded from the towpaths
along the river, banned from crossing Parker's Piece diagonally and
prevented from travelling "against the flow" in Downing Street[1]. I
really don't believe that anyone would seriously adopt such a policy
(except, maybe, militant pedestrian groups who hate cyclists). And, if
you don't, then you're in position (b) as described by the OP - you're
just disagreeing about its definition.

If you want to argue that there should be a presumption against cycle
paths which run alongside roads and against on-road cycle lanes,
unless they are clearly justified by the specific local circumstances,
then that's not at all unreasonable - I think a lot of regular
cyclists (as well as motorists and pedestrians, for that matter) would
agree with you. But that's not position (a) as described in the
original article.

> I only
>give credence to (b) because there are a lot of people who don't have
>the confidence to support (a). I still think it's a half-hearted
>wishy-washy cop-out, though.
>
>On the other hand, we already established else-net that I'm a mystic
>rather than a rationalist (and this distinction is something that I think
>has far wider validity and context than that in which you originally
>expounded it -- thanks again for that!)



[1] For the benefit of readers in urc, the Downing Street referred to
here is the one in Cambridge, not the other one.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it, you better never let it go"

 

[Ian Smith]

On 10 Jul 2007 18:39:52 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> You said (direct exact precise quote) "even the best are less safe
> |> than the roads". I am not putting any words in your mouth. You typed
> |> it. You said the best cycle facility is less safe than the roads.
>
> Yes, you are. "Even the best" can mean "even theoretically perfect",
> "even the best of the existing ones" and many other things. English
> is an imprecise language. As we were talking practicabilities, I was
> not talking about what could be done in the land of Cockaigne, or by
> summoning up a djinn, or by moving to an alternative universe where
> the population of the UK is 1,000,000.

Nor am I. You can only state what you did if you know that every
EXISTING in the real world facility is more dangerous than teh roads.
I don't believe you know that. The stated position is therefore not
rational.

If there's even one existing facility that is NOt less safe than the
roads, your statement, regardless of your many possible meanings, is
not valid. I'm assuming the least onerous credible meaning of your
imprecise statement.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On 10 Jul 2007, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> |> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> |>
> |> > Any facility which removes one cyclist from the correct
> |> > position on the road is by definition reducing the number of
> |> > cyclists on the road
> |>
> |> But no facility necessarily removes any cyclists from the road.
>
> However, the fact of the matter is that most do,

No doubt, but I'm discussing what was said, not things that weren't
said. Unfortunately, not being telepathic, I can only base my
responses on what is written, not what you think you might have
written in differnet circumstances.

"Most" is not "all", even when you weasel about how precise English
is. For example, that most are less safe than the roads is a
dramatically different claim from the claim made - that "even the best
are less safe than the roads".

If you want to redefine your position 'a' to talk about 'most' or even
'almost all' facilities, then it becomes potentially rational.
However, the point is that your stated position 'a' is not rational,
and appears deliberately phrased to be so. The repeated claim is that
position 'a' as stated is rational.

Change 'a' to say 'most', 'many', 'generally' and so on and it could
be rational. As written, I do not believe it is.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > There you go again - your taking as a given something that isn't
> > necesarily so. It would be possible for a facility to INCREASE teh
> > number of cylist miles done.
>
> It would, yes. But if the increase is on the cycle path, it isn't on the
> road. Therefore, it's not helping.

I gave you the example that DOES increase cycle use on the roads of
two towns, and has not reduced the cycle use on one roundabout where
the facility itself is located.

You've ignored that. Presumably because only by ignoring it can you
continue to maintain that every cycle facility is intrinsically bad.
Very rational, oh yes.

> (or decreases) it doesn't alter the fact that if some cyclists
> sometimes use cyclepaths, it makes all cyclists less safe than they
> otherwise would be.

You're still stating that and it's not proven. We can observe that
more cyclists means greater safety for cyclists. You cannot show that
the cyclists in question must be between the kerbs of a roadway also
used by cars and not equipped with a cycle facility for the effect to
be observed.

> Next?

Next you could address what I said, rather than what you wish I said.

It is possible for a cycle facility to INCREASE the number of cycles
on ROADS. This can be demonstrated in the real world, not just a
theoretical possibility. Why is that intrinsically bad?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|