Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper

[Stephen \]

Russell Fulker wrote:
> Stephen (aka steford) wrote:
>
>> Not illegal to cycle on pavement I believe although there are various minor laws which could be
>> brought into play although not specifically for that. I got told by a copper to get off and push
>> on Acton High St the other day with one half of it dug up and not a sole in sight on the
>> pavement. I very, very nearly ignored him but thought better of it as there were cops everywhere.
>> It was very petty on his part I thought.
>
> Er...
>
> from http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml
>
> "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct
> road users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities where
> provided. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129"

I stand corrected. I must tell my 4 year old he has to cycle on the road then.

 

[Daniel Wilcox]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
> Ah yes I remember that classic well. It was Balkan rules in the Tito Golden Jubilee variant played
> IIRC in 1995. Mornington Crescent it is then.
>
> Tony
>

Hooray!

 

[Elyob]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Hg%[email protected]...
> . Near me
> > there are at least two sets of traffic lights that don't respond to my approach. I have to go
> > through the red light.
> >
>
> In your car?
>

Nah, on my bike.

 

[Tony Raven]

<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I personally cycle on the pavement when going to work ( and a few side roads ), I wouldn't dare
> risk the main road.
>

Then you are fooling yourself because all the evidence and research shows the pavement is far more
dangerous a place to cycle than even main roads. Go to John Franklin's (author of Cyclecraft) site
and peruse the research and studies he has listed there -
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

To quote the conclusions from just one example, the purpose built Milton Keynes Redway cycle
facilities:

"From the traditional viewpoint, Milton Keynes has the ultimate 'worst' and 'best' for cyclists. On
the one hand is a high-speed grid road network, designed solely around the needs of motor vehicles
and with large roundabouts at all principal junctions. On the other an extensive, purpose-built
cycle path network, segregated for the greater part from fast traffic and constructed with few
limitations of space or finance. If this is not the most perfect scenario for demonstrating how
cycle facilities can remove the deterrents to cycling and achieve big gains in safety then what is?

<snip> Indeed, the most alarming experience of the Redways is their accident record. Far from
realising gains in safety, they have proved over many years to be consistently less safe than even
the 'worst case' grid roads for adult cyclists of average competence. This is not an accolade for
the grid roads, for their safety performance is not good in relation to lower speed roads of more
traditional design. But the segregated Redways have proved to be worse."

So get back on the road where its safer.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

 

[Simon Brooke]

"<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used side
> roads and such.

I don't agree at all. If we go this way, we'll end up with poorly maintained, virtually unusable
'cycle roads' (examples already abound) and will be banned from the most sensible routes to most
places. So cycling will be further reduced.

The solution is for higher standards of consideration and courtesy to be required of _all_ road
users, and that, of course includes cyclists.

> Safe from private cab drivers and white van man. If this country's government really wants people
> to get out of their cars and onto bicycles (cos' public transport sucks) then the danger must be
> taken out of cycling.

Well, your suggestion will, in my opinion, do the opposite. Unless there is a complete duplicate
road network, most places would be completely inaccessible to cyclists and so people who now cycle
would be forced to use other forms of transport - probably cars.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Our modern industrial
economy takes a mountain covered with trees, ;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a
mountain of junk, ;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

 

[Stephen \]

snip

>> Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used
>> side roads and such. Safe from private cab drivers and white van man. If this country's
>> government really wants people to get out of their cars and onto bicycles (cos' public transport
>> sucks) then the danger must be taken out of cycling.
>
> Total Bollox (tm).
>
> Back under the bridge please.
>
Are you suggesting then that cycling is very safe, that we have full respect from all car users and
that cycling is given the support and funding that is given to motor transport? Sure there are steps
you can take to make it safer but to describe the above statement as bollox is quite amazing - I
don't know where you cycle but it sounds great if you are that happy with it.

 

[Stephen \]

Tony Raven wrote:
> <-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I personally cycle on the pavement when going to work ( and a few side roads ), I wouldn't dare
>> risk the main road.
>>
>
> Then you are fooling yourself because all the evidence and research shows the pavement is far more
> dangerous a place to cycle than even main roads. Go to John Franklin's (author of Cyclecraft) site
> and peruse the research and studies he has listed there -
> http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html
>
snip

I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be deemed more dangerous than the
road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians, self etc. But 5mph on the
pavement has got to be safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies or
stats would convince me otherwise.

 

[Stephen \]

Tony W wrote:
> "Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But why should someone behind me at a red say, when I go through it, be annoyed.
>
> He can deplore your lousy road sence and lack of respect for the traffic laws. I don't get annoyed
> if a Merc zooms past me doing 120 on the Motorway -- but I smile broadly if he's been pulled by
> the fuzz a few miles down the road!!
>
>> Have you never been hooted or shouted at for going too "slow" and holding them up - only to
>> overtake them again 100m further on as they hit traffic? Happens to me maybe once a week.
>
> That is one rude, inconsiderate, terminally stupid driver in how many? Yes -- so its a tiny %
>
>>> The same could be said of NG contributors.
>>
>> I don't think so as we know posts here have no effect. Writer's to local papers think they can
>> change the world and that the world cares.
>
> It could be argued that we just complain in a friendly environment. If you want agro go post pro
> cycling thoughts to uk.tosspot -- but, for god's sake don't x-post it back here.
>
>> Not illegal to cycle on pavement I believe although there are various minor laws which could be
>> brought into play although not specifically for that. I got told by a copper to get off and push
>> on Acton High St the other day with one half of it dug up and not a sole in sight on the
>> pavement. I very, very nearly ignored him but thought better of it as there were cops everywhere.
>> It was very petty on his part I thought.
>
> See http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml para 54
>
> You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct road
> users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities where
> provided. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129
>
> It is illegal to cycle on the pavement unless it is specifically designated as a cycle path.
>
> That's the problem -- people do not read their HC.

Fair enough.

 

[Tony Raven]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:
>
> I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be deemed more dangerous than the
> road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians, self etc. But 5mph on the
> pavement has got to be safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies or
> stats would convince me otherwise.

No we are talking purely danger to cyclists. This is spread over all types of cyclists and across a
wide range of countries and facilities. The answer is virtually unanimous. You are deceiving
yourself if you think you are safer on the pavement at any speed.

Tony

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:16:24 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-

>This probably won't go down too well, but I personally don't think cyclists should use main roads.
>They can cause quite a queue behind them of traffic waiting to get past which understandably
>infuriates drivers.

I think you mean other traffic. Never forget that cycles are part of the traffic.

I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been caused
by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.

>Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used side
>roads and such.

It has been tried. It is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.

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

 

[Pk]

2LAP wrote:
> I like to think of cyclists as two discrete groups.
>
> 1. Cyclists.
> 2. Padestrians on bikes.

snip

> This is really disapointing for two reasons, firstly most can drive cars so have no excuse for
> poor riding and secondly, cyclists like me get marked with the same brush!

Glad to hear some ones else singing from the same hymn sheet!

pk

 

[Pk]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

>>
> No it is anti-cyclist based on the writer's observations of "pillock cyclists".

You make my point well: The pillocks give us all a bad name

pk

 

[W K]

"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be deemed more dangerous than the
> road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians, self etc. But 5mph on the
> pavement has got to be safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies
or
> stats would convince me otherwise.

I don't think there are studies based on people who do the few yards possible on a pavement.

The point is that you are at greater risk from cars crossing pavements, and at a hugely elevated
risk when crossing roads at junctions.

 

[Brunswick_kate]

Originally posted by David Hansen
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:16:24 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-

>Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used side
>roads and such.

It has been tried. It is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.

--

David -- where has a completely seperate system been tried? I'd like to read up on that.

Thanks for the info

Kate

 

[<-- Wide Load -]

> I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been caused
> by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.

I can't believe that. I frequently drive with bike on back to the forests North of here (Queen
Elizabeth forest park and such) to cycle (offroad), and almost every time I go, there are roadies
cycling on the main road. These are busy A class roads which are the NSL, with loads of tight
(blind) bends and not very many places to overtake safely (tall roadside hedges). What the hell are
these guys thinking? Cars, vans, trucks and huge German tourist coaches are travelling on these
roads at 40-55 MPH, I cringe when I'm in my car and I see one of those things hurtling round the
corner at me, what must the roadies be thinking?! And there is always a queue of a few vehicles
waiting to get past the cyclist safely. I'm sorry but that just isn't safe, I would never tell them
to get off the road, it's their choice, but it's just so stupid when they DO get splatted.

> >Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used
> >side roads and such.
>
> It has been tried. It is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.

Are you trying to tell me that a cyclist only road is more dangerous than a standard road? EH?! I
would much rather be in an accidental collision with another cyclist than a car/van/truck/bus. Where
has it been tried? I used to live in East Kilbride where they had paths everywhere, paths went under
the roundabouts and major junctions, fantastic place to cycle, unfortunately I don't live there
anymore but I sure miss that.

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:16:24 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
> <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >This probably won't go down too well, but I personally don't think
cyclists
> >should use main roads. They can cause quite a queue behind them of
traffic
> >waiting to get past which understandably infuriates drivers.
>
> I think you mean other traffic. Never forget that cycles are part of the traffic.
>
> I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been caused
> by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.
>
> >Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used
> >side roads and such.
>
> It has been tried. It is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
> keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Andy P]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote

> >Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used
> >side roads and such.
>
> It has been tried. It is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.

Yes, the Bristol/Bath cyclepath is by far the scariest thing I ever ride on. Bloody cyclists.

 

[Toby Sleigh]

"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Roger Barker wrote:
> >
>
> Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going
through
> a red as long as I'm not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)
>
Why on earth can'tyou simply obey the rules of the road. If you want to be treated as a legitimate
road user then act like one.

Toby

 

[Neil]

"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be deemed more dangerous than the
> road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians, self etc. But 5mph on the
> pavement has got to be safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies
or
> stats would convince me otherwise.
>
If you want to imitate a pedestrian do it properly and leave the bike at home.

 

[Neil]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 13:14:15 GMT someone who may be "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >The main point that's being missed in this thread is that you can be 99%
a
> >fantastic cyclist, it's only the bad 1% of the time that other road users see.
>
> I observe the behaviour of cyclists at traffic lights. The majority of the ones I see obey them.
> However, there is a steady stream of letters in the local paper that claim that cyclists never
> obey traffic lights.
>
It's a symptom of the particularly British self loathing suburban mentality.

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:35:34 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048<removespam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-

>> I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been
>> caused by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.
>
>I can't believe that.

Believe what you like, but I don't make things up.

>almost every time I go, there are roadies cycling on the main road.

In groups or on their own?

>what must the roadies be thinking?!

They are probably enjoying riding along most of the time. Main roads are often reasonably safe to
use if ridden along properly.

>And there is always a queue of a few vehicles waiting to get past the cyclist safely.

Ah, so your definition of "quite a queue" is in fact "a few". That's not my definition.

>I'm sorry but that just isn't safe,

So you claim.

>Are you trying to tell me that a cyclist only road is more dangerous than a standard road? EH?!

You have already been referred to some information in this thread. Please read, mark and inwardly
digest the information and then come back to us with your thoughts on that information.

>Where has it been tried?

That is in the information you have already been referred to.

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