Cycle lanes ..



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:14:00 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

>IMO good cycle lanes are a bit like Dark Matter. There's plenty of theorising about how they might
>exist somewhere out there, but they are bloody hard to spot in practice!
>

James

Make that a bit more brief and I think it'd make a damn good sig.

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:05:49 +0000, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

> I prefer "Steel tube 50mm or more in diameter, emerges vertically from the ground to a height of
> 80 cm or so, bends 90 degrees and travels horizontally a variable length up to about a metre,
> bends 90 degrees and heads back underground." Far more succinct.

Silly, twisted boy :) Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
>But, of course, masy cycle lanes are not built as you describe. Also, I'm not entirely sure about
>that twin sided ramp. It could well be a little slippery in wet and cold weather.

The sort of ramp I mean is just a shallow hump along the road so the cycle lane is more clearly
defined than just a painted line, shallow enough for a bike to safely pass over it and road sweepers
to gain access to the cycle lane to clean it. Such lanes exist in Bruges.
--
remove remove to reply
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:09:40 +0000, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

>>But, of course, masy cycle lanes are not built as you describe. Also, I'm not entirely sure about
>>that twin sided ramp. It could well be a little slippery in wet and cold weather.
>
>The sort of ramp I mean is just a shallow hump along the road so the cycle lane is more clearly
>defined than just a painted line, shallow enough for a bike to safely pass over it and road
>sweepers to gain access to the cycle lane to clean it. Such lanes exist in Bruges.

Gonzales

Do Bruges' rampy, humpy lanes work OK? IE are they slippery when wet?

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:21:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Silly, twisted boy :)
>

Correct. Twisted by 90 degrees etc.

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.
 
>Do Bruges' rampy, humpy lanes work OK? IE are they slippery when wet?

No more slippery than the humps you find in 20 MPH zone roads, and certainly not as large.
--
remove remove to reply
 
david hansen says:

> Sustrans' guidance has many faults, but if the bods did things to that minimum the "facilities"
> would have been a lot better. Edinburgh has had a very good guide for years, but it is often
> ignored.
>
> Any ignorance is self-inflicted, there is plenty of good information for road builders to educate
> themselves with.
>
The Edinburgh guide says in 12 pages what London's "London Cycle Network Design Manual" takes 170
pages to say. My criticisms of what's wrong with London's manual, see my web site at
<www.jfparker.demon.co.uk/bikepapers.html>, are nearly twice as long as the entire Edinburgh manual.

The cry now in London is for "quality bike facilities". Presumably the manual defines what quality
means. Certainly I have heard the claim that facilities would be even worse without it.

Regarding ignorance, there are three kinds of ignorance.

Type 1 ignorance is when you are ignorant, and know it. That doesn't matter much, because when you
need the facts you will look them up, or ask an expert, or something

Type 2 ignorance is when you are ignorant, and don't even realise that there is a field of knowledge
of which you are unaware.

Type 3 ignorance is when you believe something that isn't true.

Bike facilities illustrate this all too well

Jeremy Parker
 
> I am not convinced that properly constructed cycle paths have to be a dangerous thing. Consider a
> 3'6" cycle path, ...

The minimum width for a bike path (as oppposed to a lane) is generally reckoned to be about 6' for a
1 way path, or 8' for a 2 way path. In most cases it is necesary to assume that bikes will in fact
use the path in both directions, even if one direction is illegal.

>painted green,

I'm not sure that colour makes much difference. It certainly makes no difference to the legal
postion. Standard paving colours include red, green, blue, brown, and lavender. If the path is
legally a cycle track or path, pedestrians are still allowed to use it, even if they have
their own path.

separated
> from motor vehicles by a twin sided ramp, about 9" wide, rising to 2" high.

It's the general assumption that cycle paths or tracks have grass on each side. Allow another 6
inches if the edging is different, and more clearance to walls, lampposts, pedestrian sheep fences,
etc.. A raised barrier or kerb makes it impossible to swerve away from danger, and is dangerous if
people swerve instinctively, likely hurling cyclists under the wheels of cars in the adjacent lane.
However, the proposed design might be slightly less dangerous (let somebody else try it), and less
dangerous still if it had a sinusoidal cross section.

>This path can is swept daily by vehicular road sweepers.

And pigs might fly. You will be telling us next that they clear the snow off, and arrest the people
who put down broken glass to make it easier to mug cyclists.

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

This will put bikes going straight on, when the lights are green for all traffic, or about to turn
green for all traffic, on the inside of left turning motor vehicles, with no opportunity to weave
right to avoid that turning traffic In London the most frequent cause of cyclists'deaths, accounting
for nearly a quarter of those deaths, is bikes getting on the inside of left turning lorries. The
last thing we want to do is to encourage that behaviour.

In countries with intersections like this, it is generally necessary to keep the lights red against
cyclists most of the time, so that they are not around when any other vehicles are moving. That
probably would not work in Britain, because cyclists would not accept the delay/safety tradeoff, and
would ride even when it was illegal

Right turning cyclists will want to avoid the approach lane on the left, and approach on the right,
weaving rightward as gaps in the traffic permit. That barrier will be a damn nuisance for that.

> 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.

They've got those at Stevenage and Hatfield, Herts. There the road rises 2 metres, and the path
drops 1 metre, giving a headroom of 2.25 metres. Personally I use the road. It avoids the sharp
corners and visibility obstructions, not to mention that they haven't quite got round to that daily
sweeping yet.

Jeremy Parker
 
Guy says:

> provided you remember to be far enough from the kerb that Mr Cager sees you when he comes round
> the corner.
>
Don't talk about Cagers. The correct word is "cardine"

If you talk about cagers you create visions of ravening beasts, man the hunter looking for its prey.
Talking about cagers is a good way to make yourself as inferior as some motorists think you are.

In reality a car is a prosthetic device, a sort of alternative to the zimmer frame for the
terminally unfit. Think as drivers as rather like goldfish, the poor things unable to exist outside
their aquarium.

Most solutions are bicyle bantustans for the inferior. Stop thinking of yourself as such. The
correct word is cardine, cardine, cardine.

Jeremy Parker
 
Jeremy Parker wrote:

> Don't talk about Cagers. The correct word is "cardine"

Why cardine in particular? Or do you mean cardines?

I like cagers, because it works on several levels: they are surrounded by their safety cages so
don't give a toss what they run into, their minds are caged and unable to consider any form of
transport other than the car, and they will probably escape any time in the cage if they kill
someone through negligence.

> If you talk about cagers you create visions of ravening beasts, man the hunter looking for its
> prey. Talking about cagers is a good way to make yourself as inferior as some motorists think
> you are.

Not me, guv.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
> I don't live in MK but until recently I cycled (fairly) regularly from Leicester to the south side
> of Milton Keynes.

The January 2003 issue of the Cycle Campaign Network's "CCN News" reports that Milton Keynes has
been told by the gov't that none of the gov't's road maintenance grant can be spent on the MK redway
bike network, because the redways are not transport.

Jeremy Parker
 
James Hodson wrote:
> Do Bruges' rampy, humpy lanes work OK? IE are they slippery when wet?

Yes, because if they are, that might be a sign that they're bad medicine for the problem at hand.
 
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Do you mostly ride in a city then ?
>
> It doesn't possess a cathedral, but I mostly ride in busy urban areas, yes.

No, it takes a royal charter to make a city: viz. Wolverhampton is a city without having a
cathedral, and Kirkwall isn't a city whilst having one.

A
 
James Annan wrote:

>IMO good cycle lanes are a bit like Dark Matter. There's plenty of theorising about how they might
>exist somewhere out there, but they are bloody hard to spot in practice!

A good cycle lane:

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=412

For the lazy on the hills:

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=247

A cycle path / road junction:

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=242

Bike lane crossroads:

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=227

Cycle lane T-Junction crossing a road:

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=58

Roundabout junction:

http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=45

All these cycle lanes seem about as safe as you can get without banning motor traffic altogether.
--
remove remove to reply
 
"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> A cycle path / road junction:

Death-trap. Beware sideswipe from dozy driver.

> http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=242
>
>
> Cycle lane T-Junction crossing a road:

ditto

> http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=58
>
> Roundabout junction:

Ditto with bells

> http://findpictures.trafficlinq.nl/details.php?image_id=45
>
> All these cycle lanes seem about as safe as you can get without banning motor traffic altogether.

Sadly, no. The main danger with cycle lanes/paths is those points where traffic crosses. By being
off the road you are out of the cager's mind. Hence strawberry jam. Likewise, all the pink surfacing
lulls the unwary cyclist into a false sense of security.

Give me a nice bit of road with cagers to intimidate any time.

T

PS -- Dutch & German traffic rules and practice do seem to make their junctions safer than ours
where the car is always presumed to have priority.

PP -- like the escalator though!!
 
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Paul - *** <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ian Smith deftly scribbled:
>>
>>>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 ?

> It doesn't possess a cathedral,

An interesting (and very christian religious) definition of a city... :)

> but I mostly ride in busy urban areas, yes. Certainly, teh vast majority of my interactions with
> moron cagers occur in urban areas.

>>>Much better if all teh moneyt spent painting inappropriate bits of tarmac red had been spent
>>>putting sheffield stands all over the place,

Around here the pretty bicycle lanes/lines/target symbols are either yellow or white.

>> 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 .. ;)

> Steel tube 50mm or more in diameter, emerges vertically from the ground to a height of 80 cm or
> so, bends 90 degrees and travels horizontally a variable length up to about a metre, bends 90
> degrees and heads back underground.
>
> The best sort of bike-rack there is - as good a stand as a set of decent railings (though beware
> that a lump hammer can break cast-iron railings - traffic sign posts are more secure than
> ornamental railings, so long as the sign is big enough and high enough).

Be careful though!

Traffic signs are often attached to a single pole, and if you look at the base of the pole, a lot of
them have a quick release pin so that when idiot in small van drives into the sign, council people
can quickly remove the ruined sign and put in a new one. Of course this is particularly useful to
bike thieves as well.

Adrian

---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Tritschler mailto:[email protected] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E,
Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
---------------------------------------------------------------
 
In article <[email protected]>, Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Do you mostly ride in a city then ?
> >
> > It doesn't possess a cathedral, but I mostly ride in busy urban areas, yes.

> No, it takes a royal charter to make a city: viz. Wolverhampton is a city without having a
> cathedral, and Kirkwall isn't a city whilst having one.

Millport has a cathedral and has a population of 1600 - I wouldn't really like to live in
Wolverhampton although Kirkwall is quite attractive.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village http://www.sandymillport.fsnet.co.uk
 
Gonzalez wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
>
>
>>IMO good cycle lanes are a bit like Dark Matter. There's plenty of theorising about how they might
>>exist somewhere out there, but they are bloody hard to spot in practice!
>
>
> A good cycle lane:

Foreign! Not fair!

James
 
"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Personally, it would not worry me if cycle lanes were abolished -- cycle paths are somewhat
> different but most of them could go too.
>
> However, I appreciate that to encourage new or returning cyclists they do offer a psychological
> fig leaf without which the newbie may not get started.

You could argue that the profusion of cycle lanes we have now leads non-cyclists to think that
cycling must be very dangerous. Why else would they need all those cycle lanes? They also encourage
a poor riding style.

I had a discussion with a TfL bod who'd been sent along to man a display at our office. He
eventually conceded that the only real reason for cycle lanes was to encourage non-cyclists to take
up cycling by providing the illusion that they provided some protection from traffic. Is it really a
good idea to encourage novice cyclists to ride dangerously while encouraging them to think that
they're actually safer?

Another strong objection I have to cycle lanes is that they promote aggressive behaviour by cagers
towards cyclists who ride outside them. I'm convinced that many cagers believe that they are
compulsory for cyclists but OK for cars to wander into at will - precisely the wrong way round. On a
number of occasions recently I've seen driving school cars in a mandatory cycle lane. If qualified
instructors can't get it right what chance does the ordinary clueless cager have?

--
Dave...
 
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:56:30 -0000, Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:

> PS -- Dutch & German traffic rules and practice do seem to make their junctions safer than ours
> where the car is always presumed to have priority.
>

I think we need to drop this slightly messianic idea that German cycling infrastructure is amazing,
or indeed acceptable. I've cycled across Germany whilst on a European tour and I've lived there
too*, and frankly the cycling infrastructre is dreadful. Yes, almost every city has cycle provision,
but this is usually shared-use paths of the worst sort (half the pavement, with endless stops for
side-roads). The cycle paths seem good at first sight, but they tend to be in poor nick and are so
appallingly signposted that they're useless unless you have the dedicated map. Half the time they
just take you out of town and then end in a field. So given that these are too poor for serious use,
what about the roads? Large numbers of 'car only' routes; Crazed drivers of the VAG who think it's
OK to intimidate you because you should be on the pavement; and, at least in Leipzig where I lived,
slippery tramlines that must be crossed over and over leading to falls aplenty. No, having cycled a
lot in both countries I really think it's better here. Amazingly.

Ian

*yes, and cycled extensively, until someone stole my bike. If in East Germany, look for a green
Raleigh touring bike and throw bricks at the rider.

--
Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.