"cycle paths are dangerous"

[Marc]

MudMover <[email protected]> wrote:

> <snipped>
>
> And to that I would add that ******** maggot cagers think they can park in them.

They can, if the line is dashed.

 

[Paul Kelly]

In news:[email protected], John TM <[email protected]> typed:
>>
> I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
> "cycle facilities". As a matter of blind faith, not of reason.

Ah! I thought I was alone in feeling that!

pk

 

[Taywood]

"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have often seen the sentiment "cycle paths are dangerous"
expressed in
> this n.g., but how do you mean dangerous?

Ian Can you define what sort of path you envisaged when you used the words cycle path, just so that
we are all on the same track, so to speak.

 

[Andy Todd]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> I can't see how a car parked in a cycle lane is any worse than a car parked at the side of a road
> (of the same width) without a cycle lane as you would still take the same course around the parked
> car if there is a cycle lane or not.

Because it involves changing lane (into the path of a faster moving vehicle).

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"Andy Todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Because it involves changing lane (into the path of a faster moving vehicle).

Which proves that cycle lanes really serve no useful purpose as they put us in our own lane that we
have to negotiate to get *out* of, yet the white paint line provides no protection from passing
vehicles as a vehicle that swerves out of control will simply cross the line.

 

[Peter Fox]

Following on from IanB's message. . .

In addition to the other comments:

The general public is not aware that these routes are less safe than the roads. Therefore we get
things like "We can't allow kids to cycle to school unless there are cycle lanes." being spouted by
parents and schools alike.

Nearly all journeys involve some road use so the attitude that the only safe place to cycle is the
pavement/cyclepath/cyclelane means that many won't be allowed out on their bikes ever.

Small children might find it convenient and safe to trundle along the footpath with their
_pedestrian_ parents.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded

Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm East Anglian Pub cycle rides
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides

 

[W K]

"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Because it involves changing lane (into the path of a faster moving vehicle).
>
> Which proves that cycle lanes really serve no useful purpose as they put
us
> in our own lane that we have to negotiate to get *out* of

Whenever theres a car in a bike lane, I try to make sure I'm in the "main lane" early, and take a
very central position when going past it.

 

[Dave Larrington]

John TM wrote:

> I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
> "cycle facilities". As a matter of blind faith, not of reason. Having said that there are some
> good arguments against them too, but each should be judged on a case by case basis.

Personally I'm not against them per se, but I have not encountered many in this country which I'd
want to use as a matter of course.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:37:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "John TM" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
>"cycle facilities". As a matter of blind faith, not of reason.

Even though they often point out why they are against them and provide links to various reports on
the subject. Fascinating.

--
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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
> "cycle facilities".

It's fair to say that many of us are prejudiced against "cycle facilities" but entirely in favour of
cycle facilities. A good example of a "cycle facility" is a shared-use pavement: the only
beneficiaries from these abominations are motorists. A good example of a cycle facility is an
advanced stop line - these are a Good Thing as long as the cagers keep out of them.

> As a matter of blind faith, not of reason.

Is wrong, because...

> there are some good arguments against them too

And we have, between us, a pretty substantial amount of experience of the various "facilities" and
facilities on offer, based on which the consensus is that you stay on the mian carriageway unless
you are confident that the particular facility on offer is of benefit.

http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/cycling/farcilities.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~hazel_peter/cycling/
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/eastriding/facilities1.html

just for starters.

I certainly don't discount the possibility that good quality cycling facilities may exist - as soon
as I see some I'll let you know ;-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[W K]

"John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
> "cycle facilities".

No, its called "judgement" not "prejudice" when its based on a variety of experiences.

 

[Tony W]

"John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng are prejudiced against any
> "cycle facilities".

I admit to being prejudiced against them. I can think of very few facilities provided on or by the
road that add much to the sum of human happiness. Exceptions exist. Locally, there are a couple or
'wrong way' cycle lanes that allow me to avoid the long cut taken by cars. There are some
underpasses under major roundabouts -- helpful in practice but often strewn with glass and yoof
which reduced their desirability.

> As a matter of blind faith, not of reason. Having said that there are some good arguments
> against them
too,
> but each should be judged on a case by case basis.

Wrong. I, and others here, can put forward cogent arguements as to why we do not use the majority of
'facilities'. Why should I ride on the pavement and have to give way at every little junction and
contend with pavement lemmings when I can ride on a better surface on the road and have priority?
Why should I ride on green paint in the perfect position to be 'car doored' when I can ride a few
feet further out and be safe?

> I really find them useful in some circumstances. The lanes can have a benefit in being safer in
> some circumstances; or providing contra flow in
1
> way streets; or connecting up off road/back street routes across main
roads;
> or segregation on high speed roads;

All true -- see comments above on contraflow lanes.

> promote cycling to the non-cyclist;

Also true -- but often by putting them at greater risk and encouraging a culture that says riding on
the road is too dangerous.

> raise its profile, etc.

Doubtfull.

> Let the flames begin.

I hope I am not flaming -- cycle facilities in this country are, by and large, bad.

T

 

[Philip Taylor -]

[no-one cited, slightly at a tangent]

Having done a little cycling in Germany, where cycle lanes are frequently a part of the pavement, I
felt distinctly uneasy about using them except when starting off or coming to a rest. The reason for
my unease was that the vast majority of German cyclists who use these lanes are cyling as a means to
an end rather than as an activity in its own right. Many are going to or from the shops, some
visiting friends and so on, but virtually all are riding at a very modest speed and can therefore
easily and happily co-exist with the pedestrians with whom they are sharing the pavement. I, on the
other hand, was cycling "for the hell of it" (i.e., for sheer pleasure) and my average speed was two
to three times that of the "average German cyclist" : not very fast in its own right (maybe 18--22
mph) but compared to the vast majority of the German cyclists, and certainly to the German
pedestrians, it was fast indeed. For that reason, I tended to eschew the cycle lanes and use instead
the roads : unfortunately I did so on the main road to Hanover on one occasion, and the motorised
traffic left me in no doubt that this was "streng verboten" on that particular stretch of road!

Philip Taylor

 

[John Tm]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:37:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "John TM" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
> >I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng
are
> >prejudiced against any "cycle facilities". As a matter of blind faith,
not
> >of reason.
>
> Even though they often point out why they are against them and provide links to various reports on
> the subject. Fascinating.

Glad you find it so. They are entitled to their opinions, mine just differ sometimes based on my own
experience.

J

 

[John Tm]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng
are
> > prejudiced against any "cycle facilities".
>
> No, its called "judgement" not "prejudice" when its based on a variety of experiences.
>

Our judgements differ then. I hope we can agree on that at least!

Most of the posters on here seem to be pretty gung ho cyclists (lots of racers, recumbents, non-car
owners, CTC members). While I do the odd 50 mile leisure ride and sometimes cycle the 20 miles to
work and back, I don't count myself as hardcore as most here. I think their judgements are based on
their extensive experience and might not be suitable for the less confident or experienced. They
should try to see things from other perspectives too.

Some examples - I don't like mixing with heavy/fast traffic, try the A23 through Brixton - but some
here seem to take pride in it. Also I don't like overtaking on the outside of moving traffic - in my
experience its more dangerous due to the disparity in speed and mixing with motorcycles. On road
cycle lanes are fine with me.

J

 

[John Tm]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng
are
> > prejudiced against any "cycle facilities".
>
> I admit to being prejudiced against them. I can think of very few facilities provided on or by the
> road that add much to the sum of human happiness. Exceptions exist. Locally, there are a couple or
> 'wrong way' cycle lanes that allow me to avoid the long cut taken by cars. There are some
> underpasses under major roundabouts -- helpful in practice but often strewn with glass and yoof
> which reduced their desirability.

So some are good, that admission is all I wanted to hear.

> > As a matter of blind faith, not of reason. Having said that there are some good arguments
> > against them
> too, > > but each should be judged on a case by case basis.
>
> Wrong. I, and others here, can put forward cogent arguements as to why we do not use the majority
> of 'facilities'. Why should I ride on the
pavement
> and have to give way at every little junction and contend with pavement lemmings when I can ride
> on a better surface on the road and have
priority?
> Why should I ride on green paint in the perfect position to be 'car
doored'
> when I can ride a few feet further out and be safe?

You are not quite responding to what I wrote. Your cogent arguments (often right) are usually
presented here on this ng as "all cycle facilities = bad". It comes through to me just the same as
the attitude "all cyclists ride on the pavement and ignore red lights". See Paul Kellys reply for
corroboration.

> > I really find them useful in some circumstances. The lanes can have a
snip
>
> > Let the flames begin.
>
> I hope I am not flaming -- cycle facilities in this country are, by and large, bad.

Yes perhaps they are. I'd go for 60%/40% myself, based on my area. Thats bad/good

J

 

[W K]

"John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "John TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > I think, from long observation, the the majority of posters in this ng
> are
> > > prejudiced against any "cycle facilities".
> >
> > No, its called "judgement" not "prejudice" when its based on a variety
of
> > experiences.
> >
>
> Our judgements differ then. I hope we can agree on that at least!
<...>
> Some examples - I don't like mixing with heavy/fast traffic, try the A23 through Brixton - but
> some here seem to take pride in it. Also I don't
like
> overtaking on the outside of moving traffic - in my experience its more dangerous due to the
> disparity in speed and mixing with motorcycles. On
road
> cycle lanes are fine with me.

Experience differs. Here we have a lot of wide roads made in the early 20th century. Just about wide
enough for four lanes, but not really wise to have them as such. Most the on-road cycle lanes are
just there to stop people racing each other on a 4-lane road. They have only been in 0.5- 2 years
and the difference between surface quality is already showing. The worse thing about this, is that
anywhere that a nice overtaking lane would be useful in congestion - the road reverts to 4 lanes.

So these are so-so really. You got just as much space from motorists when there were none. Other
examples just really poor

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:38:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A good example of a cycle facility is an advanced stop line - these are a Good Thing as long as
> the cagers keep out of them.

Quite rarely, then.

--
Dave...

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:27:35 +0000 (UTC), "John TM" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> I hope I am not flaming -- cycle facilities in this country are, by and large, bad.
>
>Yes perhaps they are. I'd go for 60%/40% myself, based on my area. Thats bad/good

I'd go for about 97% / 3% based on my area.

--
Dave...

 

[Arthur Clune]

Dave Kahn <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:38:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

:> A good example of a cycle facility is an advanced stop line - these are a Good Thing as long as
:> the cagers keep out of them.

: Quite rarely, then.

Traffic is really good in York - stays out of the most of the time.

Mind, coming to work last month I counted 14 cyclists in one ASL (and they were just all commuters
as well, not a special event or anything) so your average car would have a hard time fitting in

Arthur