Cycle path sign - compulsory?

Chris Eilbeck said:

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set
>aside for them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!

Why are you here, Ian?

I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.

Funny, you never seem to post anything positive about cyclists,
cycling or cycles themselves.

It is very odd, isn't it, speshully as he drives a bus and bike trailer
in the summer too.

Ian... how much cycling do you actually do?

tt

PD said:

Ian Smith said:

Eh? The OP referred to a "divided pavement". If you think it was a
cycles-only path, what, exactly, was it divided into or for?

Uh, perhaps worth re-reading the OP carefully - the sign he is
referring to relates to the first bit of his path which he explicitly
says is not shared.

I referred EXPLICITLY to teh bit I QUOTED:

"It becomes a wide divided pavement but pedestrians ignore the cycle
markings"

I say again - if it's not a shared path, in what way is it "divided".
Perhaps it's divided into a bit for cyclists and a bit for no users
whatsoever? A bit for cyclists and a bit for space aliens? A bit for
cyclists and a bit for weeds to grow untroubled by passing traffic?

What do you think it's divided for?

I made no comment on signs. I made comment on teh wherabouts of
pedestrians on a "divided pavement" (quote).

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

Ian Smith said:

I say again - if it's not a shared path, in what way is it "divided".
Perhaps it's divided into a bit for cyclists and a bit for no users
whatsoever? A bit for cyclists and a bit for space aliens? A bit for
cyclists and a bit for weeds to grow untroubled by passing traffic?

It is divided into a bit cyclists may use and a bit they may not. The
use by pedestrians is irrelevant in this case.

...d

David Martin said:

Ian Smith said:

I say again - if it's not a shared path, in what way is it "divided".
Perhaps it's divided into a bit for cyclists and a bit for no users
whatsoever? A bit for cyclists and a bit for space aliens? A bit for
cyclists and a bit for weeds to grow untroubled by passing traffic?

It is divided into a bit cyclists may use and a bit they may not. The
use by pedestrians is irrelevant in this case.

It is not irrelevnat - I'm being harangued for claiming it's a path
other than one for the exclusive use of cyclists.

If it's for the exclusive use of cyclists, why is it divided?

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

"triddletree" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chris Eilbeck said:

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set
>>aside for them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>
>Why are you here, Ian?
>

I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.

Funny, you never seem to post anything positive about cyclists,
cycling or cycles themselves.

It is very odd, isn't it, speshully as he drives a bus and bike trailer in
the summer too.

Ian... how much cycling do you actually do?

Not as much as I ought to, I know!

But I wasn't aware of a Minimum Cycling Requirement to subscribe to
uk.r.c....

ian henden said:

"triddletree" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chris Eilbeck said:

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

>>>Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set
>>>aside for them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>>
>>Why are you here, Ian?
>>
>
>I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.

Funny, you never seem to post anything positive about cyclists,
cycling or cycles themselves.

It is very odd, isn't it, speshully as he drives a bus and bike trailer in
the summer too.

Ian... how much cycling do you actually do?

Not as much as I ought to, I know!

But I wasn't aware of a Minimum Cycling Requirement to subscribe to
uk.r.c....

There isn't, though given your posting history you cannot but expect to
have your motives queried.
Letting us know any positive interests you have in cycling would help
dispel doubts about your reason to post here.

Your repeated complaints about cyclists using the roads puts you firmly
into the uk.tosspot camp.

tt

"triddletree" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"triddletree" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chris Eilbeck wrote:

>"ian henden" <[email hidden]> writes:

>>>>Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set
>>>>aside for them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>>>
>>>Why are you here, Ian?
>>>
>>
>>I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.
>
>
>Funny, you never seem to post anything positive about cyclists,
>cycling or cycles themselves.

It is very odd, isn't it, speshully as he drives a bus and bike trailer
in the summer too.

Ian... how much cycling do you actually do?

Not as much as I ought to, I know!

But I wasn't aware of a Minimum Cycling Requirement to subscribe to
uk.r.c....

There isn't, though given your posting history you cannot but expect to
have your motives queried.
Letting us know any positive interests you have in cycling would help
dispel doubts about your reason to post here.

Your repeated complaints about cyclists using the roads puts you firmly
into the uk.tosspot camp.

I don't complain about cyclists using roads. I do complain about
cyclists not using cycle routes/paths which are provided, for several
reasons - their own safety, and allowing other (equally legitimate) traffic
to make progress at a proper rate.

I do complain about the myriad of cyclists (around 90%) who seem to think
that traffic laws do not apply to them, and also that the recommendations
for safe cycling as laid down in HC do not apply to them. It is true that a
significant - but lesser - number of motor vehicle drivers also seem to
think that the HC and the law does not apply to them (and, unfortunately,
that number does seem to be increasing). But two wrongs do not make a
right.

The HC is a Code of Practice (effectively) for *all* those who use our
roads. It would be rather more effective - i.e. safer! - if everybody
followed the same rules. As well as saying what a particular road user
(cyclist or anyone else) should/ shouldn't do, in any particular
circumstance, if *all* road users are abiding by the HC, then *other* road
users are better equipped to reasonably know what that particular road user
is likely to do.

The standard of conduct on our roads is abysmal.... and ISTM that cyclists
(in general, and, yes I know there are exceptions) do have further to
improve than most other groups.

Now: if my wanting a safer environment for everybody makes me a tosspot,
then I am proud to be one! I do not intend to enter further discussion on
this, because it is likely to degenerate into a flame war.

---
IanH (IAM member, PCV driver of many years standing, and occasional
cyclist)

ian henden said:

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Ian Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside for
them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!

Why are you here, Ian?

I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.

Part of responsibility is being able to determine when a particular
rule or piece of advice is inappropriate for your own circumstances,
and adjusting your behaviour accordingly. One of the biggest
problems is that the rules about sticking in cycle lanes are not
appropriate for cycling at speed. One of the problems with
jobsworths is that they usually have no responsibility and thus
cannot make a judgement call.

Simon

Quoted message said:

I do not intend to enter further
discussion on this, because it is likely to degenerate into a flame
war.

Or possibly because some of what you said was incorrect?

Quoted message said:

I do complain about
cyclists not using cycle routes/paths which are provided, for several
reasons - their own safety

Much as I'd like to significantly increase my journey time, too often with
a safety _dis_benefit...

Quoted message said:

and allowing other (equally legitimate) traffic to make progress at a
proper rate.

Ah, the _real_ reason. Add up the delays caused by cyclists each day. Add
up the delays caused by other traffic. Which one is the non-issue?

The problem you have with being delayed by bikes is largely in your head.

Quoted message said:

IanH (IAM member, PCV driver of many years standing, and occasional
cyclist)

Ooh, get you.

p.s. Why do you stand when driving your bus?

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:59:56 GMT, "ian henden" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't complain about cyclists using roads. I do complain about
cyclists not using cycle routes/paths which are provided, for several
reasons - their own safety, and allowing other (equally legitimate) traffic
to make progress at a proper rate.

I rode along a cycle path on Sunday alongside the A1020. At every
point where a road crossed the cycle path I had to stop and look,
straining to see beyond the line of bushes which segregated the cycle
lane from the main traffic lanes and left turning vehicles. Progress
was very slow, and this sort of lane is the most dangerous for
cyclists.

Quoted message said:

I do complain about the myriad of cyclists (around 90%) who seem to think
that traffic laws do not apply to them, and also that the recommendations
for safe cycling as laid down in HC do not apply to them. It is true that a
significant - but lesser - number of motor vehicle drivers also seem to
think that the HC and the law does not apply to them (and, unfortunately,
that number does seem to be increasing). But two wrongs do not make a
right.

I don't know where you get your figures from. I find that most
drivers freely admit to speeding, a fewer number going through lights
on orange or red soon after they have changed, and a great many who
have driven on the pavement as part of standard parking practise.

Quoted message said:

Now: if my wanting a safer environment for everybody makes me a tosspot,
then I am proud to be one! I do not intend to enter further discussion on
this, because it is likely to degenerate into a flame war.

I see. You are to bury your head in the sand to avoid reasoned
argument.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

"Simon Proven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> writes:

> "PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> Ian Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

>
> Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside
> for
> them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!

Why are you here, Ian?

I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.

Part of responsibility is being able to determine when a particular
rule or piece of advice is inappropriate for your own circumstances,
and adjusting your behaviour accordingly. One of the biggest
problems is that the rules about sticking in cycle lanes are not
appropriate for cycling at speed. One of the problems with
jobsworths is that they usually have no responsibility and thus
cannot make a judgement call.

Simon

In other words, you decide to pick and choose just which rules -
standards - apply to you. Perhaps I should do the same? I don't like the
rule about giving way to traffic from my right on a roundabout, if it's
"only" a cycle. But I obey it.

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:59:56 GMT, "ian henden" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't complain about cyclists using roads. I do complain about
cyclists not using cycle routes/paths which are provided, for several
reasons - their own safety, and allowing other (equally legitimate)
traffic
to make progress at a proper rate.

I rode along a cycle path on Sunday alongside the A1020. At every
point where a road crossed the cycle path I had to stop and look,
straining to see beyond the line of bushes which segregated the cycle
lane from the main traffic lanes and left turning vehicles. Progress
was very slow, and this sort of lane is the most dangerous for
cyclists.

I often drive a car along country lanes. Potholes, bends, poor sight lines,
progress is slow. That's part of life. I drive the car at an appropriate
speed for the conditions (which do include the consideration of the fact
that there might be bikes coming the other way just round the bend)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do complain about the myriad of cyclists (around 90%) who seem to think
that traffic laws do not apply to them, and also that the recommendations
for safe cycling as laid down in HC do not apply to them. It is true that
a
significant - but lesser - number of motor vehicle drivers also seem to
think that the HC and the law does not apply to them (and, unfortunately,
that number does seem to be increasing). But two wrongs do not make a
right.

I don't know where you get your figures from.

Never said they were accurate - general observation in town at any set of
traffic lights. Try it.

I find that most

Quoted message said:

drivers freely admit to speeding, a fewer number going through lights
on orange or red soon after they have changed, and a great many who
have driven on the pavement as part of standard parking practise.

As I said, observance of standards *generally* is low, and two wrongs do not
make a right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now: if my wanting a safer environment for everybody makes me a tosspot,
then I am proud to be one! I do not intend to enter further discussion
on
this, because it is likely to degenerate into a flame war.

I see. You are to bury your head in the sand to avoid reasoned
argument.

Trouble is, it doesn't become "reasoned argument".

Regards

===
Ian H

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as ian henden
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I rode along a cycle path on Sunday alongside the A1020. At every
point where a road crossed the cycle path I had to stop and look,
straining to see beyond the line of bushes which segregated the cycle
lane from the main traffic lanes and left turning vehicles. Progress
was very slow, and this sort of lane is the most dangerous for
cyclists.

Quoted message said:

I often drive a car along country lanes. Potholes, bends, poor sight lines,
progress is slow. That's part of life. I drive the car at an appropriate
speed for the conditions (which do include the consideration of the fact
that there might be bikes coming the other way just round the bend)

You've missed the point. What Tom was pointing out was that the cycle
lane on the A1020 requires cyclists to give way at every side road
turning, where motor traffic on the actual road does not.

Imagine that when driving down your country lane you suddenly found that
you had to give way (and actually stop) at every driveway, field-gate,
and footpath, when other traffic did not?

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as ian henden
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I don't complain about cyclists using roads. I do complain about
cyclists not using cycle routes/paths which are provided, for several
reasons - their own safety, and allowing other (equally legitimate) traffic
to make progress at a proper rate.

Which basically translates as "cycles don't go as fast as motor traffic
and should therefore keep / be kept out of the way. There are several
problems with this view:

1. The public highway is available for all forms of transport. People
are quite within their rights to walk animals, ride horses, use
handcarts, horse or dog-powered carts, ride bicycles, etc. The 30mph
speed limit is a maximum, not a target. It is polite for slower traffic
to let faster vehicles past where safe to do so, but it is not
compulsory for slow vehicles to get off the road just to let motors
travel faster.

2. Many cycle lanes actively decrease safety. This has been discussed
loads of times on this group, but the two biggest problems are:

2a) Cycle lanes that force anyone using them to give way at every
side-road junction. These make cycling *much* slower as a means of
transport, and all the giving way and crossing roads greatly increases
the risk of an accident.

2b) Cycle lanes at the extreme edge of the road which place cyclists
outside motor vehicle drivers' field of vision, increasing the risk of
cyclists being run into by drivers who haven't noticed them due to their
enforced poor road positioning.

The problem with lot of cycle lanes and other facilities provided by
councils is that many of them treat cyclists as a kind of "pedestrian
with wheels". Only once cycle facilities are designed from the POV that
cyclists are legitimate wheeled road traffic will the problems be sorted
out.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

"Pyromancer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as ian henden
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I don't complain about cyclists using roads. I do complain about
cyclists not using cycle routes/paths which are provided, for several
reasons - their own safety, and allowing other (equally legitimate)
traffic
to make progress at a proper rate.

Which basically translates as "cycles don't go as fast as motor traffic
and should therefore keep / be kept out of the way. There are several
problems with this view:

1. The public highway is available for all forms of transport. People
are quite within their rights to walk animals, ride horses, use
handcarts, horse or dog-powered carts, ride bicycles, etc. The 30mph
speed limit is a maximum, not a target. It is polite for slower traffic
to let faster vehicles past where safe to do so, but it is not
compulsory for slow vehicles to get off the road just to let motors
travel faster.

2. Many cycle lanes actively decrease safety. This has been discussed
loads of times on this group, but the two biggest problems are:

2a) Cycle lanes that force anyone using them to give way at every
side-road junction. These make cycling *much* slower as a means of
transport, and all the giving way and crossing roads greatly increases
the risk of an accident.

2b) Cycle lanes at the extreme edge of the road which place cyclists
outside motor vehicle drivers' field of vision, increasing the risk of
cyclists being run into by drivers who haven't noticed them due to their
enforced poor road positioning.

The problem with lot of cycle lanes and other facilities provided by
councils is that many of them treat cyclists as a kind of "pedestrian
with wheels". Only once cycle facilities are designed from the POV that
cyclists are legitimate wheeled road traffic will the problems be sorted
out.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Which I interpret as "There should be MUCH better cycling facilities".

I would agree with that. But to justify them, they have to be used... and
the local PTB can point to existing ones and say "Why should we provide any
better? Cyclists don't use the ones we have provided so far".

If you see what I mean...

Pyromancer said:

Which basically translates as "cycles don't go as fast as motor traffic
and should therefore keep / be kept out of the way. There are several
problems with this view:

[snip]

3) on the roads I cycle on (and skate on) it's simply not true. I get
held up by motor traffic all the time when travelling in London.

I don't think it's just me either: other people have commented on it
too. Apparently there's even some kind of special charge levied on
car drivers in London to discourage them from driving into the centre
of the city and holding up other traffic.

-dan

--
http://coruskate.blogspot.com/

ian henden said:

In other words, you decide to pick and choose just which rules -
standards - apply to you. Perhaps I should do the same? I don't like the
rule about giving way to traffic from my right on a roundabout, if it's
"only" a cycle. But I obey it.

As do I. Try to find one I break, that you do not. Then we'll discuss
the merits of it.

"Simon Proven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

In other words, you decide to pick and choose just which rules -
standards - apply to you. Perhaps I should do the same? I don't like
the
rule about giving way to traffic from my right on a roundabout, if it's
"only" a cycle. But I obey it.

As do I. Try to find one I break, that you do not. Then we'll discuss
the merits of it.

As I intimated earlier, the vast majority of cyclists *do* pick and choose.
many jump lights, ignore peds etc when they ought to give them priority on
crossings, etc, etc - you know the litany.

A significant minority do not, and "behave".

You claim to be a member of that minority, and I personally am in no
position to argue with your claim. :o)

Regards

---
IanH.

ian henden said:

"Simon Proven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

In other words, you decide to pick and choose just which rules -
standards - apply to you. Perhaps I should do the same? I don't like
the
rule about giving way to traffic from my right on a roundabout, if it's
"only" a cycle. But I obey it.

As do I. Try to find one I break, that you do not. Then we'll discuss
the merits of it.

As I intimated earlier, the vast majority of cyclists *do* pick and choose.
many jump lights, ignore peds etc when they ought to give them priority on
crossings, etc, etc - you know the litany.

A significant minority do not, and "behave".

You claim to be a member of that minority, and I personally am in no
position to argue with your claim. :o)

But the proportion of cyclists who 'disobey' is no greater than the
proportion of motorists who also 'disobey', it is just the nature of
the disobedience that is what you note.

You seem to be saying that where there is a more convenient and legal
route, cyclists should choose not to use it out of some 'duty' to other
traffic? Try that one for size on motorists. In principle one is not
supposed to use main roads (eg motorways) for local journeys (ie on at
one junction off at the next) to avoid blocking through traffic, but
that is not observed at all where it is more convenient for the
motorist.

It is my view that road users should present as small a danger as
possible to others who may legally want to use the road. Road useres
should similarly aim to reasonably minimise the inconvenience their
presence causes to other road users. That means being aware of
cyclists/horse riders etc, and also for slower road users to not
unreasonably delay faster ones.

This does not extend to insisting that cyclists use off road
facilities, irrespective of their convenience or safety in preference
to large road features (the sort of which we don't have in Dundee but
which I am quite comfortable riding around.) It also does not give
cyclists carte blanche to hold up a long queue of traffic for miles
along a twisty road where there are opportunities to safely let the
traffic past.

It extends to respecting speed limits in small villages so that
pedestrians can cross the road safely, and moderating behaviour
appropriately in all situations, irrespective of whether I am driving,
cycling, a pedestrian or otherwise.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

ian henden said:

"Simon Proven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden wrote:

> In other words, you decide to pick and choose just which rules -
> standards - apply to you. Perhaps I should do the same? I don't
> like the
> rule about giving way to traffic from my right on a roundabout, if
> it's
> "only" a cycle. But I obey it.

As do I. Try to find one I break, that you do not. Then we'll
discuss the merits of it.

As I intimated earlier, the vast majority of cyclists *do* pick and
choose. many jump lights, ignore peds etc when they ought to give them
priority on crossings, etc, etc - you know the litany.

A significant minority do not, and "behave".

You claim to be a member of that minority, and I personally am in no
position to argue with your claim. :o)

But the proportion of cyclists who 'disobey' is no greater than the
proportion of motorists who also 'disobey', it is just the nature of
the disobedience that is what you note.

Au contraire, a far higher proportion of cyclists are law abiding than
motorists. How many motorists do you know of who have _never_ broken a
speed limit?

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

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.