Cycle path sign - compulsory?

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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!

I have explained this to you time and time again. This is simply not
true, yet you continue to present it as fact.

Do a proper survey.
--
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)

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:59:24 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> 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,

Not quite. Most of those things were introduced to speed up motor
traffic.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>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

It is, at worst, 25% of cyclists who do such things in the places I
frequent. I have challenged people who claim otherwise to come with
me and do the same count, but nobody has taken me up on the offer.

>Now count the cars doing the same thing.

Interesting that you chose to talk about cars here, not car drivers.
It is an interesting contrast with your use of the words cyclist and
pedestrian.

>Yes: you will see the ocassional
>redlight jumper, but certainly nowhere near the number of cyclists red light
>jumping!

As has been stated before, it is rather more difficult for a car
driver to pass other car drivers waiting at traffic lights.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Paul]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:22:37 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Well, safe for the *Tram*, certainly.

I really love the idea of trams, but for the life of me, I cannot see any reason
why they are (when on the road) superior to buses.

 

[David Martin]

Paul wrote:
> Well, safe for the *Tram*, certainly.
>
> I really love the idea of trams, but for the life of me, I cannot see any reason
> why they are (when on the road) superior to buses.

Several.. They have to follow the tracks so other vehicles have to
behave around them. Noone expects a tram to 'just pop round' a parked
vehicle in the same way as they might expect a bus.
They can be larger, so carry more passengers per employee (think bendy
bus that doesn't cut up cyclists).

That's two.

...d

 

[Paul]

On 8 Mar 2006 00:42:26 -0800, "David Martin" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Paul wrote:
>> Well, safe for the *Tram*, certainly.
>>
>> I really love the idea of trams, but for the life of me, I cannot see any reason
>> why they are (when on the road) superior to buses.
>
>Several.. They have to follow the tracks so other vehicles have to
>behave around them. Noone expects a tram to 'just pop round' a parked
>vehicle in the same way as they might expect a bus.
>They can be larger, so carry more passengers per employee (think bendy
>bus that doesn't cut up cyclists).

Well, I'd thought of both of those - I actually originally typed that I could
only thing of one reason; the higher passenger/driver ratio, but then I realised
that this is only really an advantage at peak time. Outside peak time, you've
just got a bigger nearly empty vehicle.

As to the idea that it's lack of flexibility will cause motorits to behave
themselves, I suppose it must work, because friends on the Croyden tram route
assure me it's *much* faster than the bus, but given the utterly inconsiderate
way a small minority of drivers behave, I can't belive that something as minor
as holding up a tram would stop them parking, unless there were *really* serious
penalties involved.

Still, they clearly do work, so it's just the cycle unfriendly tracks in the
road to worry about.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT someone who may be
[email protected] (Paul) wrote this:-

>>I see you've 'invented' the tram, one of the safest forms of road
>>transport.
>
>Well, safe for the *Tram*, certainly.

Safer for others too. Trams seldom deviate from the rails and can be
stopped as quickly as a bus. Along with bikes they are suitable for
use in areas of heavy pedestrian movement.

>I really love the idea of trams, but for the life of me, I cannot see any reason
>why they are (when on the road) superior to buses.

Smooth and faster ride are two advantages.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Andrew Price]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:07:37 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>I really love the idea of trams, but for the life of me, I cannot see any reason
>>why they are (when on the road) superior to buses.
>
>Smooth and faster ride are two advantages.

Greater passenger carrying capacity and lower operating costs are two
more.

 

[Richard]

Andrew Price wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:07:37 +0000, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>I really love the idea of trams, but for the life of me, I cannot see any reason
>>>why they are (when on the road) superior to buses.
>>
>>Smooth and faster ride are two advantages.
>
>
> Greater passenger carrying capacity and lower operating costs are two
> more.

Do you have a reference for the former? Whilst I accept that
individual trams can carry more people than individual buses, the
greater enforced separations between (modern) trams would tend to lower
the effective overall capacity. (Of course, in the Olden Days, they'd
just queue up in a row and discharge/charge passengers simultaneously).

R.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> lower operating costs

Not sure about this one - Tram costs from £1.60 to £3.10 which AFAIK is
more than the buses. This suggests that the tram can't compete on price
(tho they might be charging what the market can stand). Happy to be
corrected tho.

A lot of the quickness of the tram seems due to special largely traffic
free routes and treatment at lights - something that we could do for buses.
In addition, the initial costs are _huge_ and the routes are inflexible.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>> lower operating costs
>
> Not sure about this one - Tram costs from £1.60 to £3.10 which AFAIK is
> more than the buses. This suggests that the tram can't compete on price
> (tho they might be charging what the market can stand). Happy to be
> corrected tho.

Difficult to compare like that. Trams have much higher /capital/ costs,
which I guess you'll want to recoup somewhere, but actually running them
is something I can see might be easier.

> A lot of the quickness of the tram seems due to special largely traffic
> free routes and treatment at lights - something that we could do for buses.

Up to a point. A tram needs less space: aside from being
(potentially/usually) narrower to start with it's exact road space
requirements are much easier to predict thanks to the rails, so treating
a tram specially probably has less effect on other traffic than doing
similar with buses.

> In addition, the initial costs are _huge_ and the routes are inflexible.

Certainly, but you pretty much /know/ you'll always want to get from the
station to the town centre, for example, so an inflexible route is often
a moot point, and you can put it through places that are impractical for
buses.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Pyromancer <[email protected]> writes:

> London is a special case in the UK and should not be confused with the
> rest of the country.

Perhaps.

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

But if Oxford counts as "provincial", then yes, I've done that too. I
still got held when by cycling by the (in many cases unnecessarily)
large vehicles that others chose to use. Congestion caused by big tin
boxes is not a problem unique to the capital.


-dan

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

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> lower operating costs
>> Not sure about this one - Tram costs from £1.60 to £3.10 which AFAIK
>> is more than the buses. ...
> Difficult to compare like that. Trams have much higher /capital/ costs,
> which I guess you'll want to recoup somewhere, but actually running them
> is something I can see might be easier.

Fuel, maintenance, labour. They save on the last 2, but trams are big
and heavy, so lose out on the first - though the fuel they use may be
less heavily taxed than road diesel.

>> A lot of the quickness of the tram seems due to special largely
>> traffic free routes and treatment at lights - something that we could
>> do for buses.
>
> Up to a point. A tram needs less space: aside from being
> (potentially/usually) narrower to start with

I don't believe this is true. They can be any width, but the West
London Tram is specified as 2.67m wide. The limit for buses is 2.55.
When we pointed out how much easier it would be to fit in if they went
down to 2.5, they wittered about maximising capacity and having space
for 4-abreast seating.

> it's exact road space
> requirements are much easier to predict thanks to the rails, so treating
> a tram specially probably has less effect on other traffic than doing
> similar with buses.

It is hypothesised that if there is 3' between the tram rail and the
kerb, this is enough space to cycle in (if there isn't a tram around).
But you wouldn't be able to manoeuvre to cross the rail at a steep
angle if you need to get out of this slot.

Between the rails, there's 4'6". I think I'd be safer there.

Colin McKenzie

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Pyromancer wrote:
>
>>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!

Cambridge for example, where bikes are also held up by cars more than
the other way around but at least you can get out of the congested area
by cycling a few miles, and where road charging schemes have been
planned/threatened on and off for years, but not actually happened
yet. Or weren't those the differences you were thinking of?

 

[Daniel Barlow]

"ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:
> It is a fact of life that cycles are NOT like other traffic. The greatest

It is a fact of life that small cars are NOT like other traffic. The
grestest part of a small car is made of easily-crumpled materials that
would stand little or no chance in a collision with one of the 38
tonne trucks they currently share the roads with. It is not good
practice to mix these two totally different forms of traffic on the
same road - and frankly, which is more important, Aunt Edith going to
visit her sister, or the transport links that keep our supermarkets
stocked? There should be a separate road network for all vehicles
less than 7500kg, and they should be forced to use it.


-dan

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

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Yes: you will see the ocassional
>>redlight jumper, but certainly nowhere near the number of cyclists red light
>>jumping!
>
>As has been stated before, it is rather more difficult for a car
>driver to pass other car drivers waiting at traffic lights.

If you measure absolute numbers rather than proportions, ian is right
in saying the numbers are nowhere near close: there are far more red
light jumping motorists than red light jumping cyclists, because there
are far more motorists than cyclists.

His use of "ocassional" is obviously complete bollocks though.

 

[Tom]

Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> There should be a separate road network for all vehicles
> less than 7500kg, and they should be forced to use it.
>
>

Put freight back where it belongs, on the railways and on cargo vessels.
Build supermarkets next door to railway stations or make them budget for a
branch line and you can remove 80% (guess) of all the HGV's on Britains
roads.

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://toomanybikes.com/address.jpg

 

[chris harrison]

ian henden wrote:
> "chris harrison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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!)

Not in the middle of towns - for example, where most of these cycle
facilities are imposed. The average speed around, for example, London is
going to be remarkably similar for bikes as for motorised traffic.

I absolutely guarantee that if I left home at the same time as a car
driver on my commute, I would get to my place of work first - and
comfortably so - and I'd be obeying all traffic rules and signs along
the way (as is my wont).

Might is not right, not even on the road. While I will happily admit
that a 50+ mph road is not going to be particularly, necessarily bike
friendly, on such roads there will generally be more cycle friendly
alternatives - at least in an urban or sub-urban environment. On country
lanes and the like - are you suggesting separated cycle facilities?

I will not apologise, though, for suggesting that a widespread
implementation of separated facilities is not going to do anyone any
favours.

 

[chris harrison]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:59:24 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>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,
>
>
> Not quite. Most of those things were introduced to speed up motor
> traffic.
>

Or to impede motor traffic (e.g. certain no-right turns at t-junctions
or one-way streets) where the other non-motorised users will just have
to suffer.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:50:24 +0000 someone who may be Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Fuel, maintenance, labour. They save on the last 2, but trams are big
>and heavy, so lose out on the first - though the fuel they use may be
>less heavily taxed than road diesel.

http://www.edinburgh-tram.co.uk/tram.htm is slightly lighter than
some other trams, but not by much. 20 tonnes, for a two section
vehicle, is heavier than a bus, but not much. It is powered by
electricity. Note that the regenerative brakes can bring it to a
standstill and the electricity produced is fed back into the system
for use by other trams. That sort of thing has been experimented
with on buses, but it can only store the energy on the bus, for use
while accelerating.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54