cycling speed trap in Bournemouth

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:34:57 +0100, davek <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You know how motorists are always complaing about the fact that speed
limits don't apply to cyclists? Well...

<urk:http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3444896>

Heil Blunkett.

Throw that scruff in jail. Arrest that cyclist . Arrest anybody for
anything. Take out Iran .

davek said:

You know how motorists are always complaing about the fact that speed
limits don't apply to cyclists? Well...

10mph? That's pathetic.

Zog The Undeniable said:

davek said:

You know how motorists are always complaing about the fact that speed
limits don't apply to cyclists? Well...

10mph? That's pathetic.

It's very frustrating, as it is about the most direct, and flattest, route
from Studland all the way to Christchurch. Don't use it in summer as there
are far too many wandering, aimless peds about.

Simonb said:

It's very frustrating, as it is about the most direct, and flattest, route
from Studland all the way to Christchurch. Don't use it in summer as there
are far too many wandering, aimless peds about.

By coincidence, we have a similar "problem" here where I live, the
difference being that bikes are banned altogether on the prom, even
though it would be an ideal shared use path, being nice and wide (much
wider than several other paths locally that /are/ designated shared use)
with smooth tarmac along most of its length and by far the most
favourable route for cyclists from here to the next town. (Got to wonder
why they bothered putting all that tarmac down if it's just for peds.)

There's a priceless quote in the local paper about how collisions
between cyclists and peds on the prom are very rare and even when they
happen no-one gets hurt, but we still need to stamp down on The Cycling
Menace because J. Numpty Esq doesn't like bikes passing by him at
anything faster than walking pace.

I was going to write a letter pointing out that they'd be much better
off directing their foot stamping towards motoring offences, many of
which /do/ result in people getting seriously injured, but there's no
point - it will get me nowhere.

d.

Don't know the details of the area myself but from what I read in the
article it's a "promenade"

Doesn't that mean it is for pedestrians? Or is it actually a shared
cycle/walk type affair?

Ian

wheelsgoround said:

Don't know the details of the area myself but from what I read in the
article it's a "promenade"

Doesn't that mean it is for pedestrians? Or is it actually a shared
cycle/walk type affair?

This particular one appears to be shared use. It's not the presence of
cyclists per se that's the problem, it's their speed.

d.

I don't know the area at all myself so can't really comment but I think its good that they are not issuing fines (considering fines are issued for petty stuff like cycling on the pavement etc).

DSK said:

I don't know the area at all myself so can't really comment but I think
its good that they are not issuing fines (considering fines are issued
for petty stuff like cycling on the pavement etc).

Yes, of course, we wouldn't want anything to interfere with a cyclist's
right to please himself as to what speed they ride, especially seeing
as many can't abide by the highway code and RTA prohibition on riding
on pavements. There's no laws restricting bicycle speeds so of course
we can ride as fast as we like any time, after all we're not as
dangerous as cars and anyway, if you can't beat them, join them.

--
Trevor Barton

davek said:

You know how motorists are always complaing about the fact that speed
limits don't apply to cyclists? Well...
<urk:http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3444896>

Seems fair to me. It's a shared-use facility, and they really are not
designed for fast moving vehicular traffic. That fact will not, of course,
prevent drivers from shouting "get on the psychlepath!" if cyclists dare to
do the obvious and ride on the road...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

you know? said:

Seems fair to me. It's a shared-use facility, and they really are not
designed for fast moving vehicular traffic. That fact will not, of course,
prevent drivers from shouting "get on the psychlepath!" if cyclists dare to
do the obvious and ride on the road...

Hi Guy

Your mate, Paul Smith, has spoken on the issue. From today's DM:

"It is a further extension of our obsession with numerical speed.

"The whole idea of thinking there is a magic number for when it is
safe and is not safe to drive or, in this case, cycle is wrong.

"A cyclist using a deserted promenade at 6am can safely go at 20mph.
If the promenade is packed then it makes sense to go at under 10mph.

"It should just be about common sense and schemes like this are just
absurd and go a long way to shatter the public confidence in the
authorities."

James

James Hodson said:

Your mate, Paul Smith, has spoken on the issue. From today's DM:
"It is a further extension of our obsession with numerical speed.

Smith in Daily Mail: not worth reading on two counts, then ;-)

Quoted message said:

"The whole idea of thinking there is a magic number for when it is
safe and is not safe to drive or, in this case, cycle is wrong.

And, as always, he thus ignores the simple and obvious truth that danger
increases with speed. He does love that particular evasion.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

davek said:

You know how motorists are always complaing about the fact that speed
limits don't apply to cyclists? Well...

Apparently a lot of the cyclists just flip them the bird and ride off.
What are they going to do?

Zog The Undeniable said:

davek said:

You know how motorists are always complaing about the fact that speed
limits don't apply to cyclists? Well...

10mph? That's pathetic.

Ooooohh is it .............. I must check my training schedule

you know? said:

And, as always, he thus ignores the simple and obvious truth that danger
increases with speed. He does love that particular evasion.

Never let the truth etc

On this occasion I do actually agree with his sentiments, if nothing
else.

As I read it, the area involved is not part of the road but, rather,
is a sea-front prom. Worthing has one of these and cycling used to be
allowed along that strip. Quite a few years ago an elderly lady was
killed when _she_ stepped in front of a cyclist. The obvious and
sensible, IMO, course was to ban cycling along the prom. In quiet
times, 20 or 30mph was quite possible, especially when with a good
tail wind.

Of course, this obvious answer was not quite as obvious as it may have
seemed to the local law-makers. All too often, I've had to swerve etc
when riding quite sensibly along the main sea-front road and peds have
strolled into the road.

James

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:15:41 GMT, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

As I read it, the area involved is not part of the road but, rather,
is a sea-front prom. Worthing has one of these and cycling used to be
allowed along that strip. Quite a few years ago an elderly lady was
killed when _she_ stepped in front of a cyclist. The obvious and
sensible, IMO, course was to ban cycling along the prom. In quiet
times, 20 or 30mph was quite possible, especially when with a good
tail wind.

Possible, but arguably not safe when mixing it with peds, especially
with the possibility of turd dispensers on string wandering about. I
tend to keep down to about 12mph sort of pace on shared-use
facilities, on the very rare occasions when I use them. Warning
faster-moving cyclists to slow down seems more reasonable than banning
cycling, TBH.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy said:

turd dispensers on string

Probably an oldie but I like it :-)

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

As I read it, the area involved is not part of the road but, rather,
is a sea-front prom. Worthing has one of these and cycling used to be
allowed along that strip. Quite a few years ago an elderly lady was
killed when _she_ stepped in front of a cyclist. The obvious and
sensible, IMO, course was to ban cycling along the prom. In quiet
times, 20 or 30mph was quite possible, especially when with a good
tail wind.

Possible, but arguably not safe when mixing it with peds, especially
with the possibility of turd dispensers on string wandering about. I
tend to keep down to about 12mph sort of pace on shared-use
facilities, on the very rare occasions when I use them. Warning
faster-moving cyclists to slow down seems more reasonable than banning
cycling, TBH.

Wothing has a pefectly servicible road (apart from the tyre puncturing
gravelly bits) along side the prom and I have no objection to using
this. Of course I'd like still to be allowed to ride along the prom
but too many did use it as a drag strip, no matter who else may or may
have not been there. I can't recall whether or not Bournemouth has a
sea-front road.

James