Cycle path sign - compulsory?

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:01:57 +0000, Pyromancer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as ian henden
><[email protected]> gently breathed:
>>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 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)
>
>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?

And worse than that, tractors obscured from your view, had
right-of-way over you.
--
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)

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:31:47 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> 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)

But is there a perfectly good road running alongside which you are not
expected to use. It would be a bit like being expected to drive (in
you car) up the B7076/7078 from Carlisle to Glasgow instead of using
the A74(M)/M74. More pleasant, perhaps, but slower and more
dangerous.

>> 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 have. The number of cars passing on orange or just red vastly
exceeds the number of cyclists.

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

Absolutely. I never justified the actions of a minority of cyclists.
However, it needs to be put into context. Try comparing the number of
traffic light juction fatalities caused by cyclists with those caused
by motor vehicles. The first is close to zero, the latter many
hundreds per year.

>>>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".

You will find many people in this newsgroup well-informed and mostly
polite. I for one have learnt a great deal here over the years and
had my eyes opened to some unexpected conclusions.
--
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)

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:13:58 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

In most cases the road network is perfectly adequate

>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".

For some leisure cyclists and inexperienced cyclists, cycle lanes can
help boost confidence - but for those using their bicycles as a means
of transport the road is usually the fastest and safest means to
travel.
--
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)

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:13:58 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Which I interpret as "There should be MUCH better cycling facilities".
>
> In most cases the road network is perfectly adequate
>
What we're really missing is the cycle route equivalent of the
motorway. Fast, well surfaced roads, no stopping, no U turns, no
pedestrians, no motorvehicles, 20+ miles between junctions etc.

Admittedly, hardly anyone would use them other than pedestrians and
motorbikes but I'd love one alongside the west coast line from Watford
to Euston. I could do home to work in an hour instead of the 90+ mins
it currently takes due to all the cars holding me up. The cars should
all, of course, all be on the purpose built M1, or even the A41 which
is now pretty much a motorway in all but name.

Tim.

 

[chris harrison]

ian henden wrote:
> Which I interpret as "There should be MUCH better cycling facilities".

Seems to me that the existing road network, if designed with all users
in mind, could fit that bill.

Many of the pinch points that we - as cyclists - complain about, e.g.
junctions, one way streets, roundabouts, even many traffic lights, are
functions introduced because of the car and the quantity of them on the
road. They are not introduced to promote safety for all road users.

Only this morning one set of lights on my commute was out - and the
system was working all the more efficiently for it. Two inter-connected
junctions, normally absolutely gridlocked with long queues, was flowing
relatively freely because people were being allowed to follow their
noses through the system - and it was working well.

I ride a reasonably expensive road bike at an above average cruising
speed. Too many of the cycle facilities I am expected to consider using
are both time consuming and ineffective; not to mention badly
constructed and likely to damage my machine.

Why should I want to hop up and down kerbs from roads to shared
pavements from reasonably paved roads to badly maintained, frequently
blocked paths? Just so the motorists can have the "cyclists are not like
us" separationist views rammed home even harder?

We don't need better cycle facilities, we need a better all-around
understanding that there is plenty of road for all who want to use it.
We are, as the advert said, all just trying to get somewhere.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:13:58 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Which I interpret as "There should be MUCH better cycling
>>> facilities".
>>
>> In most cases the road network is perfectly adequate
>>
> What we're really missing is the cycle route equivalent of the
> motorway. Fast, well surfaced roads, no stopping, no U turns, no
> pedestrians, no motorvehicles, 20+ miles between junctions etc.
>
> Admittedly, hardly anyone would use them other than pedestrians and
> motorbikes but I'd love one alongside the west coast line from Watford
> to Euston. I could do home to work in an hour instead of the 90+ mins
> it currently takes due to all the cars holding me up. The cars should
> all, of course, all be on the purpose built M1, or even the A41 which
> is now pretty much a motorway in all but name.

I've just put my anorak on to tell you that your timescale is actually
wrong, and it _used_ to be a motorway (in part)

http://pathetic.org.uk/motorways/a41m.shtml
--
Ambrose

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

ian henden wrote:
> "Simon Proven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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.

The vast majority of cyclists who post to u.r.c don't pick and choose, as
you have heard us claim.

> 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. )

Or that of the vast majority of the choir you're preaching to.
--
Ambrose

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:25:11 GMT, ian henden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Simon Proven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Part of responsibility is being able to determine when a particular
> > rule or piece of advice is inappropriate for your own circumstances,
>
> In other words, you decide to pick and choose just which rules -
> standards - apply to you. Perhaps I should do the same?

Absolutely, yes you should.

It is a critical part of the proper development and evolution of
society that you consider the advice offered to you, and pick and
choose which of the advice you choose to follow.

I'm surprised you seem to think this is a bad idea, but since it is
apparent that you unerringly follow the advice offered to you:

Ian, don't post here again, there's a good chap.

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

 

[Chris Eilbeck]

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

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

And these statistics about who is in which group were gathered how
exactly? Or is it just your prejudices that are showing?

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:33:54 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

Careful, Simon. How many cyclists do you know who have *never* ridden
on a pavement?

I guess both the percentage of mororists who have never exceeded the
speed limit and cyclists who have never ridden on a pavement are close
to 0%.
--
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)

 

[ian henden]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ian henden wrote:
>> "Simon Proven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > 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. )
>
> 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.

The disobedient motorist gets prosecuted (sooner or later) or gatsoed. The
disobedient cyclist gets away with it every time. (unless Darwin's Law kicks
in).

>
> 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.

Does it say that in the HC? whereas
Note: "49: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be
broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 119). Keep within the lane wherever
possible.

Note the "Keep within the lane wherever possible."




>
> 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,

Whyever not? You yourself have just said "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." .... which I agree
with!!



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.
>
As I have said previously, a significant number (unfortunately, still a
minority) of cyclists DO act properly. It's the vast majority that are a
problem.

 

[ian henden]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, David
> Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>
>> ian henden wrote:
>>> "Simon Proven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> > 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. )
>>
>> 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?

Please read again the OP. In particular, "Two wrongs do not make a right".

Also: stand at a city centre traffic light junction, count the number of
cycles a) going straight through a red traffic light and b) riding onto the
pavement just short of such a traffic light, then around to a PEDESTRIAN
crossing with a green man showing, riding across said crossing weaving in
and around pedestrians, then on the pavement the other side until leaving
the pavement to return to the road the other side of the junction. Express
that as a % of all cyclists seen at such a junction.... very, very few wait
at all at the red light. This seems to apply to all types of cyclist ....
granny with a shopping basket on the front, lout with a "kiddies" bike (do
they not know how ridiculous they look?!!!), studend types on a "grid", even
the lycra-clad Serious Cyclists with very expensive bikes. (the last group,
maybe not QUITE such a high percentage, but there are a number who do
redlight jump, all the same.)

Now count the cars doing the same thing. Yes: you will see the ocassional
redlight jumper, but certainly nowhere near the number of cyclists red light
jumping!

Why? car drivers are traceable, cyclists are not, for a start.

Regards

===
IanH

 

[ian henden]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:13:58 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Which I interpret as "There should be MUCH better cycling facilities".
>>
>> In most cases the road network is perfectly adequate
>>
> What we're really missing is the cycle route equivalent of the
> motorway. Fast, well surfaced roads, no stopping, no U turns, no
> pedestrians, no motorvehicles, 20+ miles between junctions etc.
>
> Admittedly, hardly anyone would use them other than pedestrians and
> motorbikes but I'd love one alongside the west coast line from Watford
> to Euston. I could do home to work in an hour instead of the 90+ mins
> it currently takes due to all the cars holding me up. The cars should
> all, of course, all be on the purpose built M1, or even the A41 which
> is now pretty much a motorway in all but name.
>

But A.N. Other (ICBA to look up who it was) was saying, in another post on
this thread, that maybe cars should NOT be on motorways for short
journeys!!!

==
IanH

 

[ian henden]

"chris harrison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ian henden wrote:
>> Which I interpret as "There should be MUCH better cycling facilities".
>
> Seems to me that the existing road network, if designed with all users in
> mind, could fit that bill.
>
> Many of the pinch points that we - as cyclists - complain about, e.g.
> junctions, one way streets, roundabouts, even many traffic lights, are
> functions introduced because of the car and the quantity of them on the
> road. They are not introduced to promote safety for all road users.

It is absolutely true that they are introduced for safety reasons, many,
however, do cause short (and seemingly un-necessary) holdups for all road
users from time to time. But, be honest, the highest proportion of those
who ignore certain of these safety features hail from the ranks of Cyclists!
>
> Only this morning one set of lights on my commute was out - and the system
> was working all the more efficiently for it. Two inter-connected
> junctions, normally absolutely gridlocked with long queues, was flowing
> relatively freely because people were being allowed to follow their noses
> through the system - and it was working well.

Very probably was - for general traffic, and also for cyclists going "with
the flow". But what of peds, and cyclists, on the "minor" roads associated
with the junction? Most car drivers (incorrectly, IMVHO) see a "main" and a
"side" road.... but where there are inoperative traffic lights, there are
STOP lines... on ALL the approach roads. Common sense would say that the
junction should be treated as a mini-roundabout.

>
> I ride a reasonably expensive road bike at an above average cruising
> speed. Too many of the cycle facilities I am expected to consider using
> are both time consuming and ineffective; not to mention badly constructed
> and likely to damage my machine.
>
> Why should I want to hop up and down kerbs

You shouldn't. There should be suitable dropped kerbs.

from roads to shared
> pavements from reasonably paved roads to badly maintained, frequently
> blocked paths?

IOW, the cycling routes should be better maintained!

Just so the motorists can have the "cyclists are not like
> us" separationist views rammed home even harder?

It is a fact of life that cycles are NOT like other traffic. The greatest
part of a cycle and rider is vulnerable and squashy. The users of most
other traffic is well protected in a steel box with safety belts. Cycles
travel at 10, 15, maybe 20 mph. Other traffic may travel at 30, 40, 50
mph. It is not good practice to mix two totally different forms of
transport on the same path. (and yes, peds and cyclists should ALSO be kept
apart!)

Why don't we tarmac the area between and to the sides of railway tracks, so
trains can still run, and ordinary motor traffic can also use their routes
on "shared use"? Because it's bloody dangerous!!

>
> We don't need better cycle facilities,

Disagree.

we need a better all-around
> understanding that there is plenty of road for all who want to use it
Would add "safely" to that...
..
> We are, as the advert said, all just trying to get somewhere.
That is true. That is why a decent cycle network needs to be developed.
And for cyclists to use it.

 

[MartinM]

ian henden wrote:

> 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...

no I don't , would you willingly drive your (whatever it is) motorised
vehicle down an narrow road with severe width restrictions, speed humps
and diversions when there was a dual carriageway nearby that would get
you to the same place? that's what cycling facilities are like in this
country to most cyclists (plus the added dangers of pedestrians who are
expected to share them with us and inadequate interface with existing
roads). That's why we don't use them. You claim motorised traffic and
cyclists don't mix; that's not our fault, we were there, if not first,
certainly a long time ago and we are not going to give up our right to
ride on the road without a considerable fight. Remember that the vast
vast majority of roads in the UK have no pavement, no cycle facility,
just a strip of tarmac. That's what we all have to share. Live with it,
don't try to force us off.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT, ian henden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Also: stand at a city centre traffic light junction, count the number of
> cycles

The trouble with ian's argument here is that the RAC did just that,
trying to prove ian's point, and singularly failed. Only at one
junction did they manage to find a majority of cyclists jumping red.
Unfortuynately, they also found a rather higher proportion of motor
vehicles jumping red than ian cares to admit.

> Now count the cars doing the same thing.

Why not count cars breaking teh speed limit?

What is your point?

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

 

[David Martin]

ian henden wrote:
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > 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.
>
> The disobedient motorist gets prosecuted (sooner or later) or gatsoed. The
> disobedient cyclist gets away with it every time. (unless Darwin's Law kicks
> in).

And the number of penalty notices issued for cycling infringements last
year was? That's right, a non-zero number. A significantly non-zero
number.
So they do not get away with it every time.

> > 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.
>
> Does it say that in the HC?
No. It was what I was brought up to nderstand, and it is one reason why
there are relatively large distances between junctions on motorways.

> whereas
> Note: "49: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be
> broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 119). Keep within the lane wherever
> possible.
>
> Note the "Keep within the lane wherever possible."

And the legal force of this is? And how does this apply to the stated
case of off road facilities?

Without a TRO banning cycling on a particular road, there is no legal
impediment to a cyclist choosing the most convenient route for them.


> > 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,
>
> Whyever not?
Because that way lies madness. If a cyclist has a right to use a
particular right of way, removing that right is fraught with difficulty
and is the thin end of the wedge. It raises all manner of problems.

> You yourself have just said "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.
Yes, and that is perfectly possible for a cyclist to achieve. How many
other people do cyclists kill/injure on the carriageway and how many on
dedicated cycling facilities? The roads are safer for cyclists to use
and other road(in the broadest sense) users are safest if cyclists stay
on the road.

> Road useres should similarly aim to reasonably minimise the
> inconvenience their presence causes to other road users." .... which I agree
> with!!

'aim to reasonably minimise' is the key phrase. If your 'get out of the
way of all cars and busses' scenario was going to take me twice as long
as staying on the road, then it would be unreasonable to expect me to
refrain from using the road. After all, the converse case could also be
put that you should not expect me to put myself out just to save you a
few seconds on your journey.

> 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.
> >
> As I have said previously, a significant number (unfortunately, still a
> minority) of cyclists DO act properly. It's the vast majority that are a
> problem.

I don't believe it is a 'vast majority'. You only notice those you
don't like.

...d

 

[Pyromancer]

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

>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".

By that logic, there is no point building motorways because no-one is
driving fast on the existing dirt roads.

>If you see what I mean...

I can understand where you are coming from but I disagree with your
conclusions. The way to get better cycle facilities is not to use the
appalling ones currently in existence (I assume you have seen the thread
with the link to the picture of the brand new cycle path which actually
goes through the seating area of a bus shelter?) - but to boycott them
and vigorously campaign against their use and for shared use of the
roads.

What the UK needs, from both a fitness and a less-congestion POV, is far
more people on bikes for local journeys. Lots of people all doing 12mph
on practical bikes, getting around their own towns and cities in safety
and with minimal pollution. You won't get that with painted-on obstacle
courses filled with broken glass, nor on death-trap "farcilities" that
turn what should be a quick cycle into a slower-than-a-pedestrian joke.

We don't need cycle lanes. We do need lots of cyclists on the road,
being the majority of the traffic. Perhaps motor traffic, in town, will
have to slow down a bit. Good! In congested areas slower traffic means
safer roads for all.

--
- 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]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Daniel
Barlow <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Pyromancer <[email protected]> writes:

>> 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.

London is a special case in the UK and should not be confused with the
rest of the country. London has a comprehensive Underground railway,
dense suburban rail network, tramway, 24 hour bus services, and a whold
host of other things that few other places have, and no-where else has
all of.

London is one of the very few places in the UK where a non-negligible
percentage of the ABC income group choose not to own their own car
because they genuinely don't need one.

>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.

Exactly. To understand the rest of the country's transport problems,
try living in a provincial city for a few years. World of difference!

--
- 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>

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:59:24 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Why don't we tarmac the area between and to the sides of railway tracks, so
>trains can still run, and ordinary motor traffic can also use their routes
>on "shared use"? Because it's bloody dangerous!!

I see you've 'invented' the tram, one of the safest forms of road
transport.
--
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)