Cycle lanes ..



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Pulling out and turning right is dangerous on a bike (and in a car) at any time, why is it more so
> on a cycle lane ?
>
> I take it you're against cycle lanes then ?

Because you are leaving the place the motorist expects you to be (because he can see it has been
marked off specially for cyclists) into the zone he now thinks of as 'his' (as it has not been
marked off for cyclists so what the f*ck right has a bike to be there -- splat).

Just one more example of how a cycle lane can increase the risks to cyclists!!
 
Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:49:12 -0000, "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bearing the above in mind then, do you actually like cycle lanes ? Do any other cyclists like and
>> use cycle lanes ?
>
> An interesting question. I like the /idea/ of cycle lanes, but not the way they are almost
> invariably put into practice. The fatal flaw in the concept seems to me to be that if the lane is
> actually wide enough to cycle in, the cagers park in it- and if it's not wide enough to cycle in
> the poor old dears on their wicker basket specials feel compelled to try to keep in the Green
> Kleptonite and end up being scared half to death. The rest of us just ignore them and ride
> according to best practice - and get shouted at for not staying inside the cycle lane.

That's the impression I get actually, now I've thought about it. Cycle Lanes, great idea, why
couldn't a cyclist have been consulted when they were implemented .. Cycle paths, reasonable idea
(it seems to me) in reduced space, but why couldn't a cyclist or two have been employed in their
implementation. I never really noticed before, but a couple of shared cycle/pedestrian paths I use
regularly actually have the street lamps and almost all the street furniture, signs etc, in the
cyclists lane .. I wonder why ?

> Obviously there are places where cycle lanes are a Good Thing - in crowded town centres, for
> example, where the roads are wide enough in the first place and they can be used to let bikes get
> past nasty junctions without playing dodgems with people who are too distracted by their phone
> conversation and being late for work to pay any attention to cyclists. Advanced stop lines are the
> most valuable use of Green Kleptonite, although you tend to find that motorcyclists think that the
> omission of the engine in the bicycle pictured on the green bit is an oversight, so you can end up
> being left-hooked by Mr Matching Leathers on his Yamahonduki Firebom 125.

Heheheh, and so long as the cyclists using them don't decide to have a snapped chain, just as
they're setting off. I actually saw this happen once, he was missed by the cars, but it was touch
and go .. Not one car stopped to help, but then, neither did any of the other cyclists .. I was a
pedestrian on the other side so couldn't help ..

> But in most cases the best solution is for the road to be wide enough to allow a car to overtake
> without coming into conflict with me or an oncoming car. This is becoming an accepted policy in
> some parts of the US, reportedly, specifically as an alternative to Kleptonite.

I think we'd still get 'granny smith' in her Micra driving within 6" of the kerbside,
regardless .. ;)

> The only good thing which cycle lanes do is alert the dozy twats to the fact that bicycles exist
> (which works the first three times they drive along the road).

I dunno, I think if they are correctly implemented they are of use, I certainly use them, but again,
as I said, most of my cycling is outside of Nottingham, and the roads with cycle lanes / paths are
generally wide and free flowing. Which I guess makes a real difference .. ;)

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:17:54 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul - *** wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So are you actually against the provision of cycle paths then ?
>
>Yes, they are almost always worse than useless and the money could be much better spent elsewhere.
>
Like education and enforecement. Regards,

John
 
"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> personally I like cycle lanes, I don't mind shared path lanes etc etc. That may be because I live
> outside a city though.
>

And maybe because the cycle route you described sounds like a HUGE cut above the **** that
masquerades for the rest of Nottinghams cycle lanes, have you had the pleasure of the joke one on
Castle Boulevard? I ask you, who in their right mind designs one with 14 trees in the middle? And to
avoid said trees, of mature size? A tiny bypass of about 2m radius round each one. Perhaps their
conscience was touched on slightly, so they put in a special cycle crossing (crossing a main road)
in the route complete with under lane weight sensors, just like cars get. Ooooh novel, we are so
impressed!
Mmmmm.

No I never use them either. All the points given are valid.

15. (or whatever we're up to). When its drying out after rain, cars dry out a bit of road faster
than anywhere else. I especially like this bit then.

--
Mike W.
 
"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> personally I like cycle lanes, I don't mind shared path lanes etc etc. That may be because I live
> outside a city though.
>

And maybe because the cycle route you described sounds like a HUGE cut above the **** that
masquerades for the rest of Nottinghams cycle lanes, have you had the pleasure of the joke one on
Castle Boulevard? I ask you, who in their right mind designs one with 14 trees in the middle? And to
avoid said trees, of mature size? A tiny bypass of about 2m radius round each one. Perhaps their
conscience was touched on slightly, so they put in a special cycle crossing (crossing a main road)
in the route complete with under lane weight sensors, just like cars get. Ooooh novel, we are so
impressed!
Mmmmm.

No I never use them either. All the points given are valid.

15. (or whatever we're up to). When its drying out after rain, cars dry out a bit of road faster
than anywhere else. I especially like this bit then.

--
Mike W.
 
Ian Smith deftly scribbled:

> Because you have to exit it at some point, and merging with streams of moron cagers is a
> relatively dangerous manouvber.

OK, point taken.

> Because moron cagers think that a bicycle in a cycle lane is a piece of static street furniture
> and pay no attention to any signals it might be giving.

Heheheh, yeas, I've come across that myself ...

> I am. Overall (on average) they are a waste of money that makes cycling more dangerous -
> dramatically so for the people conned into using them, and slightly so for the people that
> sensibly avoid them.

Do you mostly ride in a city then ?

> Much better if all teh moneyt spent painting inappropriate bits of tarmac red had been spent
> putting sheffield stands all over the place, or enforcing traffic law on motor vehicles, or
> prosecuting the lunatics who get hundred-pound fines for murder, so long as their chosen weapon
> is a car.

I dunno what a 'Sheffield Stand' is .. a bike park ? Must admit that's my biggest gripe when I do
cycle to Nottingham, there's some parking for bikes, but the railings often seem safer .. ;)

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
> > People who campaign for and design cycle ways don't normally ride bikes so that they have not
> > got a clue.
>
> Do you know anyone who does this ?

All the members of the Road Safety (sic) department of the London Borough of Barnet, including their
Cycling (sic) Officer.

Jeremy Parker
 
VisionSet deftly scribbled:

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> personally I like cycle lanes, I don't mind shared path lanes etc etc. That may be because I live
>> outside a city though.
>>
>
> And maybe because the cycle route you described sounds like a HUGE cut above the **** that
> masquerades for the rest of Nottinghams cycle lanes, have you had the pleasure of the joke one on
> Castle Boulevard? I ask you, who in their right mind designs one with 14 trees in the middle? And
> to avoid said trees, of mature size? A tiny bypass of about 2m radius round each one.

Heheheh, nope, never used it .. but it sounds fscking terrible ..

> Perhaps their conscience was touched on slightly, so they put in a special cycle crossing
> (crossing a main road) in the route complete with under lane weight sensors, just like cars get.
> Ooooh novel, we are so impressed! Mmmmm.

Heheheh, sounds like a waste of mony .. It seems to me that a cyclist would have mostly stopped and
gone before anything meaningful could occur that needs a 'weighbridge' .. ;)

> No I never use them either. All the points given are valid.
>
> 15. (or whatever we're up to). When its drying out after rain, cars dry out a bit of road faster
> than anywhere else. I especially like this bit then.

OK, I'm getting a picture .. ;)

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
> So are you actually against the provision of cycle paths then ?

I am only against them alongside roads. They have been known to be dangerous there ever since the
first accident study was done in Lancashire sixty five years ago.

Away from roads, a good rule is to look out for graffiti. Where there is graffiti, there will likely
be broken glass, quite likely deliberately spread by muggers as a means to ambush cyclists.

One would expect that bike paths away from roads would be less dangerous thanthose alongside,
although data from Milton Keynes indicates that the bike path system there is more dangerous than
using the roads.

However, the Department for Transport has just decided that the Milton Keynes bike path sysem is not
"transport"

Jeremy Parker
 
> > 2. Those that are provided are mostly ****
>
> This particular one is really rather good.

Implausible as it may seem, I think the designers of most bicycle facilities thought they were
"really rather good". I don't think it was malice that caused the terrible quality of bike
failities. I don't think it was even stupidity, although everyone says bike facilities are always
built "by idiots, for idiots"

No, bike facilities are not bad because of malice, not even bad because of stupidity, merely bad
through ignorance.

Of course, if you do not know the hazards of bike facilities, how will you avoid them, until you
learn the hard way.

There was a study done here in the London borough of Barnet. Those who don't like bike lanes have,
on average, been cycling for seven years longer than those who don't. Experience is the best
teacher, but there are quicker ways to learn.

Jeremy Parker
 
> I dunno what a 'Sheffield Stand' is .

Its what the Americans call a "Philadelphia rack"

Jeremy Parker
 
> Obviously there are places where cycle lanes are a Good Thing

That's not obvious to me.

- in
> crowded town centres, for example, where the roads are wide enough

But being crowded is a definition of the roads **not** being wide enough. Putting paint on the road
never makes it wider. in
> the first place and they can be used to let bikes get past nasty junctions

Bike lanes can't be used to get past junctions. The very point of junctions, the reason why they are
called "intersections", is that people's paths intersect there. Inserting bikes into an intersection
in some weird non standard way invariably makes the intersection more dangerous for cyclists. The
usual solution to this is to force cyclists to wait, or even dismount, until such time as all motor
vehicles have temporarily left the area, so that it is safe for cyclists to cross.

Traffic engineers are perfectly aware of the dangers of such intersections. They are so spooked by
those dangers that I have seen bike sidepaths, and even lanes, given a "give way" sign even when the
intersection led to nothing but a locked gate

> .. without playing dodgems with people who are too distracted by their phone conversation and
> being late for work to pay any attention to cyclists.

The secret to being seen by a motorist is to be where they look. A cyclist is, afer all, a six foot
tall two hundred pound object in the road, right in front of them. Any motorist who can't see such a
thing will likely have run into another motorist, or a tree, or a hedge, long before they reach a
cyclist. On the other hand, it is fatal (almost literally) to place yourself where the motorists
don't look. You may have given yourself an example of this, visiting the continent, and crossing the
street. Perhaps you have automatically looked the wrong way for traffic, stepped out into the road
on not seeing any, and been met by a screeching of brakes and cursing from the direction in which
you didn't look. Motorists, like you, only look in some directions, and the rules of the road,
except when messed up by bike facilities, are arranged to put you in the direction where people
look. Be there.

Jeremy Parker
 
Jeremy Parker wrote:

> No, bike facilities are not bad because of malice, not even bad because of stupidity, merely bad
> through ignorance.

I'm sure you are broadly correct, but it takes a pretty generous interpretation of 'ignorance' to
excuse a narrow lane with a big fat tree right in the middle!

James
 
Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:

> So why is it that the two cyclists I passed were in the middle of the road way, meaning I
> effectively undertook them, and the one who passed me was also in the roadway, ie not using the
> cycle lane, and didn't use the cycle lane after passing me.

Cycle facilities, lanes and tracks both, are usually based on the theory that cars never turn left,
and bikes never turn right. That's not always true.

If you saw any other vehicle move towards the middle of the road, what would you think it was
about to do?

Because vehicles with motors (mostly) keep out of bike lanes, debris always gets swept into them,
never swept out. Were you able to get a cyclists' eye view of the broken glass situation.

You should be glad that the cyclists were experienced enough to keep out of the bike lane, not
beginners who might well hastily swerve under your wheels on seeing some broken glass.

Jeremy Parker
 
Jeremy Parker deftly scribbled:

> Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So why is it that the two cyclists I passed were in the middle of the road way, meaning I
>> effectively undertook them, and the one who passed me was also in the roadway, ie not using the
>> cycle lane, and didn't use the cycle lane after passing me.
>
> Cycle facilities, lanes and tracks both, are usually based on the theory that cars never turn
> left, and bikes never turn right. That's not always true.
>
> If you saw any other vehicle move towards the middle of the road, what would you think it was
> about to do?

They weren't 'moving out' they were together, cycling in the middle of the roadway, car
track, whatever you want to call it. There was no right turn anywhere near them .. either
behind or in front.

> Because vehicles with motors (mostly) keep out of bike lanes, debris always gets swept into them,
> never swept out. Were you able to get a cyclists' eye view of the broken glass situation.

I _was_ cycling, if you care to actually read what I posted ...

> You should be glad that the cyclists were experienced enough to keep out of the bike lane, not
> beginners who might well hastily swerve under your wheels on seeing some broken glass.

I was cycling and there wasn't any broken glass ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
 
[email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) writed in
news:[email protected]:

>>Bearing the above in mind then, do you actually like cycle lanes ?
>
> No. Certainly none of the ones in the area I live in.
>
> Had to go to Milton Keynes once and perhaps there there seems to be more thought gone into the
> design of the lanes - cutting across parks, etc., giving good routes through a very sprawling
> urban area. Anyone from MK here that can enlighten?
>
I don't live in MK but until recently I cycled (fairly) regularly from Leicester to the south side
of Milton Keynes. There's quite a lot of 'literature' on the MK redway system, much of it written by
John Franklin, and a lot of it on the web. In general, for daytime leisure cyclists, who know where
they are going it's fine, but if you are in a hurry, in the dark, or lost it's generally a pain. The
older paths have Stevenage style underpasses under the major road junctions, and the odd bridge over
main roads, with reasonable gradients, but the newer incarnations have 'give way' type level
crossings over roads. The paths have a lot of greenery which is nice, it sheilds you from the roads,
and houses, and other people, and lights, and provides cover for the hoolies. The signposting is
next to non-existent (I still haven't found the best way from Wolverton to Eaglestone - I end up
going a diferent way each time - and I *still* get dumped in Fishermead, know what I mean...)

I have often given up and gone on the roads - the cagers don't like it but the roads are more
direct, better signed, and feel safer.#
#
Mike, Leicester
 
"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> writed in news:b2letu$1c5g1i$2 @ID-137265.news.dfncis.de:

> Jeremy Parker deftly scribbled:
>
>>> I dunno what a 'Sheffield Stand' is .
>>
>> Its what the Americans call a "Philadelphia rack"
>
> Which isn't too helpful really ..
>
Upturned U shaped (perhaps sideways D shaped) stand to lock your bike to. Common enough in many
cities and at enlightened workplaces.

Mike Leicester
 
>Bike lanes can't be used to get past junctions. The very point of junctions, the reason why
>they are called "intersections", is that people's paths intersect there. Inserting bikes into
>an intersection in some weird non standard way invariably makes the intersection more dangerous
>for cyclists. The usual solution to this is to force cyclists to wait, or even dismount, until
>such time as all motor vehicles have temporarily left the area, so that it is safe for cyclists
>to cross.
>
>Traffic engineers are perfectly aware of the dangers of such intersections. They are so spooked by
>those dangers that I have seen bike sidepaths, and even lanes, given a "give way" sign even when
>the intersection led to nothing but a locked gate.

I am not convinced that properly constructed cycle paths have to be a dangerous thing. Consider a
3'6" cycle path, painted green, separated from motor vehicles by a twin sided ramp, about 9" wide,
rising to 2" high. This path can is swept daily by vehicular road sweepers. At traffic lights there
is a left turning cycle path and a 6' deep cycle bay the full width of the road, and a bike filter
light comes on for a full 10 seconds before the lights turn green for all traffic. At roundabouts,
the traffic carriageway is raised by 4' and the cycle carriageway is dropped by 4', so that under
the road junction there is a cycle junction.

Cycle paths can be made safe. It just takes a little imagination and a splash of cash.
--
remove remove to reply
 
Status
Not open for further replies.