Cycle Paths or Not?

Sir Jeremy said:

Time of the month is it darling?

[censored]

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:

Quoted message said:

Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?

I expect so.

Quoted message said:

My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

....which was precisely my point. I'm not sure if you missed it or not :-)

Quoted message said:

One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

S'OK - and at the same time, we'll fine motorists who use country lanes
instead of motorways and dual-carriageways :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:42:42 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:

Quoted message said:

Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?

I expect so.

Quoted message said:

My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

...which was precisely my point. I'm not sure if you missed it or not :-)

No, I was agreeing with you ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

S'OK - and at the same time, we'll fine motorists who use country lanes
instead of motorways and dual-carriageways :-)

Or fine them for not using the bus or train?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
("😉_("😉 their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Andy Morris said:

Terry Duckmanton said:

One of the problems with crossings
is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
contain fast moving traffic.

Are they really?

They could be construed as being the only places where pedestrians are
allowed to cross the road. If my mother in law is walking home in the
rain with her shopping, why should she go out of her way cross on the
crossing so that someone in a heated car can save a couple of seconds.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Andy, do you find yourself the butt of jokes, not taken seriously
etc??
Just asking
rog

On 13/05/2008 22:34, seveniron wondered:

Quoted message said:

Andy, do you find yourself the butt of jokes, not taken seriously
etc??

Quite possibly by idiots, but I don't think that's anything to worry about.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Mark said:

My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Another worrying trend is that, the more cycle "facilities" there are,
the more motorists are calling for cyclists to be banned from the
road. One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

There's an interesting debate going on in Sydney at the moment.
Council are about to put a two-way "bicycle road" through some narrow
parts of the inner city after running focus group sessions with
noncyclists - who were shown photos of cycleways and thought they
looked safer than the existing shoulder lanes. The new bike road will
run between the old kerb and the parking lane with a new 400mm wide
kerb to separate them

Would welcome UK input:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/browse_thread/thread/52c4a5d6b36e9b05

All is made the more complicated by a recent pile-up on an arterial
road which has produced a lot of anti-bike "letters to the editor":

http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6071

It's my impression that there's still a lot of confusion here in
noncyclists' (and planners'😉 minds between "what looks safe" and "what
the stats show to be safe".

tenspeed said:

Mark said:

My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Another worrying trend is that, the more cycle "facilities" there are,
the more motorists are calling for cyclists to be banned from the
road. One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

There's an interesting debate going on in Sydney at the moment.
Council are about to put a two-way "bicycle road" through some narrow
parts of the inner city after running focus group sessions with
noncyclists - who were shown photos of cycleways and thought they
looked safer than the existing shoulder lanes. The new bike road will
run between the old kerb and the parking lane with a new 400mm wide
kerb to separate them

Would welcome UK input:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/browse_thread/thread/52c4a5d6b36e9b05

All is made the more complicated by a recent pile-up on an arterial
road which has produced a lot of anti-bike "letters to the editor":

http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6071

It's my impression that there's still a lot of confusion here in
noncyclists' (and planners'😉 minds between "what looks safe" and "what
the stats show to be safe".

Looks like the Aussies have their share of ignorant & misguided
"do-gooders" too.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
("😉_("😉 their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.

I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.

Be fair - I was riding across the open area between the Civic and the
street market this evening when without warning the one pedestrian
whipped round ninety degrees and strode smack into my path -
I missed her, but if I'd been looking anywhere else I might not have.
I don't for a moment think she did it on purpose; I think she suddenly
remembered something!

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

Why aren't we demanding regular retests for motor drivers?
It's obvious a lot of them would fail so that'd solve the congestion problem too.

Jeremy Parker said:

"Ben C" <[email hidden]> wrote i

Quoted message said:

Something they have in the Netherlands which is quite nice is that
big A
roads and dual carriageways usually have a pretty good (mandatory)
cycle
lane

Somehow I doubt if they ever have bike lanes on such roads in the
Netherlands, although I can believe in cycle tracks/paths/trails.

I don't know the difference between a lane/track/path or trail so I'm
sorry if I used the wrong term.

What you get is a strip of tarmac quite a few feet wide and separated
from the road by quite a few more feet of grass with trees growing out
of it. That kind of thing.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Among experienced cyclists in Britain enthusiasm for facilities seems
to be diminishing at the moment, with the result that enthusiasm for
lanes seems to be left to those who know so little about cycling that
they don't even know what a lane is. That diminishes my confidence
in their judgement about what might be a "proper" lane.

I think the reality is it's the budget. To build a proper
lane/track/path/trail costs I should think about as much as adding
another car lane.

In the UK they just slosh a bit of paint on the pavement (sidewalk)
that's already there as if that would make it a good place to ride a
bike.