A
Andy Morris
Guest
Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
> Time of the month is it darling?
******
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk
>
> Time of the month is it darling?
******
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk
P
Paul Boyd
Guest
Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:
> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?
I expect so.
> 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
> 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/
> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?
I expect so.
> 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
> 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/
M
Mark
Guest
On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:42:42 +0100, Paul Boyd
<usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:
>
>> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?
>
>I expect so.
>
>> 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 ;-)
>> 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
<usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:
>
>> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?
>
>I expect so.
>
>> 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 ;-)
>> 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
S
seveniron
Guest
On May 12, 11:32 pm, Andy Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> > 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
> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> > 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
D
Danny Colyer
Guest
On 13/05/2008 22:34, seveniron wondered:
> 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
> 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
T
tenspeed
Guest
Mark wrote:
>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>
>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".
>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>
>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".
M
Mark
Guest
On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:12:37 -0700 (PDT), tenspeed
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>>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>
>>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
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>>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>
>>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
S
Sue White
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
>said in <[email protected]>:
>
>>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.
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
>said in <[email protected]>:
>
>>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.
B
Ben C
Guest
On 2008-05-12, Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ben C" <[email protected]> wrote i
>>
>> 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.
[...]
> 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.
>
> "Ben C" <[email protected]> wrote i
>>
>> 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.
[...]
> 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.