Good News!

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:01:08 +0000, Dave Kahn <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You've missed the point.

Nugent? Missed the point? Who would have thought it ;-)

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

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> One of the key criticisms of footway cycling *when legal* is that it reduces both peak and mean
>>> travel speeds.

>> It may be *a* criticism (from people only concerned in some sense with the welfare of the
>> cyclist). It is by no means the major criticism (whih is rather more to do with the welfare of
>> pedestrians (ie, al of us).

>>> Peak speeds are lower due to increased numbers of conflicts, and mean speeds are lower because
>>> each time the cyclist is forced to stop, getting going again requires the energy equivalent of
>>> around 150m of travel.

>> Not an issue, and and not the reason why footway cycling is illegal.

> You've missed the point. Guy's talking about shared use paths. See above. "One of the key
> criticisms of footway cycling *when legal*".

His point was that footway cycling reduced cycling speed (de-criminalising it here and there does
not in itself affect the speed). He did allow that this occurs even where the use has been de-
criminalised, but that does not detract from the issues, which are:

(a) concern with reductions in cycling speed when used on footways are some way from being the
central point, and

(b) whether footway-cycling on a particular section of footway is de-criminalised or not, the safety
of pedestrians (ie, all of us) is, or should be, the paramount consideration.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:01:12 -0000, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:

>> You've missed the point. Guy's talking about shared use paths. See above. "One of the key
>> criticisms of footway cycling *when legal*".
>
>His point was that footway cycling reduced cycling speed (de-criminalising it here and there does
>not in itself affect the speed).

It could be expected to as sharded use paths have been designated as suitable for cycling on.

> He did allow that this occurs even where the use has been de-criminalised, but that does not
> detract from the issues, which are:
>
>(a) concern with reductions in cycling speed when used on footways are some way from being the
> central point, and

Once again, Guy stated that one of the reasons he considered *shared use* footways to be a "work of
Stan" is that they slow you down. Loss of speed is one of the factors that makes footpath cycling an
unappealing prospect for experienced cyclists, even where it is officially encouraged. It is a valid
point, whether or not you consider it to be central.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:16:13 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>You've missed the point.
>
>Nugent? Missed the point? Who would have thought it ;-)

Even allowing for the fact that he's being deliberately argumentative, I do find myself wondering
now and again just how much of it is intentional.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain

 

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:23:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Indeed.
>
>A question which a cursory reading of RCGB answers fully and succinctly, in my view :-/
>

RCGB sounds as if it shouod have something to do with my monitor but I doubt it. What is
or are RCGB?

James

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:40:19 +0000, James Hodson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What is or are RCGB

Road Casualties Great Britain, formerly Road Accidents Great Britain (RAGB).

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

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> [email protected] wrote:

>>> You've missed the point. Guy's talking about shared use paths. See above. "One of the key
>>> criticisms of footway cycling *when legal*".

>> His point was that footway cycling reduced cycling speed (de- criminalising it here and there
>> does not in itself affect the speed).

> It could be expected to as sharded use paths have been designated as suitable for cycling on.

I genuinely don't know whether that is a just a typo for "shared", or whether you mean "sharded"
(not a word I have ever met, but conceivably descriptive of some sort of paving material). But on
the assumption it is just a typo, I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a
shared-use footway would be forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians,
of course).

Not that this is anything todo with the thread, as it stems from the good news that the police in
Portsmouth were reportedly enforcing the law on cycling on footways and in pedestrian areas. Not shared-
use areas, footways and pedestrian-only areas.

>> He did allow that this occurs even where the use has been de- criminalised, but that does not
>> detract from the issues, which are:

>> (a) concern with reductions in cycling speed when used on footways are some way from being the
>> central point, and

> Once again, Guy stated that one of the reasons he considered *shared use* footways to be a "work
> of Stan" is that they slow you down.

He may do.

It would be more to his credit if his concern was confined to the risks faced by pedestrians when
cyclists use footways (whether they are"allowed to" or not - and it is usually not).

> Loss of speed is one of the factors that makes footpath cycling an unappealing prospect for
> experienced cyclists, even where it is officially encouraged. It is a valid point, whether or not
> you consider it to be central.

Oh, it definitely isn't "central" (and central to what(?), one could ask).

What is central to the thread (and the reason why cycling on footways is illegal almost everywhere)
is the fact that footway-cycling is dangerous to the lawful users of footways, including me wen I am
on foot. The possibility that it might not be ideal for cyclists for reasons of their own leaves me
completely unmoved.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04

 

[Adrian]

JNugent ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

> I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced
> to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).

Is this applicable to all scenarios where a faster mode of transport is sharing with a slower one?

Like, erm, roads?

 

[Andyp]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote

> What is central to the thread (and the reason why cycling on footways is illegal almost
> everywhere) is the fact that footway-cycling is dangerous
to
> the lawful users of footways, including me wen I am on foot. The possibility that it might not be
> ideal for cyclists for reasons of their
own
> leaves me completely unmoved.

I haven't been following this thread but just out of interest there are in the centre of Bristol a
couple of open pedestrian areas..uh..squares I suppose you'd best call them although one isn't very
square, where if you look very carefully there are a series of six inch square tiles set into the
paving with a picture of a bike on them about 15 feet apart. Hardly noticeable as a way of
signifying the route that bikes are presumably permitted to take and I'm sure most shoppers are
unaware of them let alone the fact that for cyclists they aren't very easy to follow and are easily
lost on a first visit. I also think I'm right in saying one line of tiles crosses the square, goes
onto a pavement for a few metres and then disappears as they meet the old tarmac with no further
indication of permitted cycling.

Totally bizarre but all I've ever seen is cyclists and pedestrians existing happily together with
each crossing the other's path in a random fashion.

 

[Simian]

JNugent wrote:
> descriptive of some sort of paving material). But on the assumption it is just a typo, I'd have to
> say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced to cycle
> more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).

Lamp posts, side roads, poor surfaces, parked cars. Plus most have peds on anyway, and even one
means you have to slow down, make sure you pass them safely, make sure they have some idea you are
there, etc,.

 

[Tony Raven]

AndyP wrote:
>
> I haven't been following this thread but just out of interest there are in the centre of Bristol a
> couple of open pedestrian areas..uh..squares I suppose you'd best call them although one isn't
> very square, where if you look very carefully there are a series of six inch square tiles set into
> the paving with a picture of a bike on them about 15 feet apart. Hardly noticeable as a way of
> signifying the route that bikes are presumably permitted to take and I'm sure most shoppers are
> unaware of them let alone the fact that for cyclists they aren't very easy to follow and are
> easily lost on a first visit. I also think I'm right in saying one line of tiles crosses the
> square, goes onto a pavement for a few metres and then disappears as they meet the old tarmac with
> no further indication of permitted cycling.
>
> Totally bizarre but all I've ever seen is cyclists and pedestrians existing happily together with
> each crossing the other's path in a random fashion.

I've cycled there and there is a code as well of ribbed tiles. On the bicycle side the ribs run
parallel to the travel and on the pedestrian side they run perpendicular. As you say, a strange
place and it took some working out of what was supposed to be what.

Tony

 

[Simon Proven]

Tony Raven wrote:

>
> I've cycled there and there is a code as well of ribbed tiles. On the bicycle side the ribs run
> parallel to the travel and on the pedestrian side they run perpendicular. As you say, a strange
> place and it took some working out of what was supposed to be what.

We have them here too. They're for blind people.

Simon

 

[Andyp]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote

> I've cycled there and there is a code as well of ribbed tiles. On the
bicycle
> side the ribs run parallel to the travel and on the pedestrian side they
run
> perpendicular. As you say, a strange place and it took some working out
of
> what was supposed to be what.

I hadn't noticed that about the ribbed tiles. I don't go that way very often but now you mention it,
I think they did change the 2 main routes across between pelican crossings on the surrounding roads
to make them a more obvious path for both pedestrians and cyclists to the opposite crossing but I
think there are still routes marked with just the odd single flat bike tile along the edge on the
Hippodrome side of what people usually call 'The Centre' and certainly also into Millennium Square
by the @Bristol centre because that's the way I go every day.

 

[Andyp]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> >What is or are RCGB

> Road Casualties Great Britain

Repentant Cagers Get Bikes

 

[Andyp]

"AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote

> > >What is or are RCGB

> > Road Casualties Great Britain

> Repentant Cagers Get Bikes

Really Clueless Gits, Bicyclists

 

[Davidr]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote

> I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced
> to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).

If you got your bike out you might find out. At the same time you can test another claim you made
earlier - // Cyclists use the roads. If the location is OK and convenient for // car-drivers, it
will be equally OK and convenient for cyclists.

> What is central to the thread (and the reason why cycling on footways is illegal almost
> everywhere) is the fact that footway-cycling is dangerous to the lawful users of footways,
> including me wen I am on foot. The possibility that it might not be ideal for cyclists for reasons
> of their own...

The only way to read that last sentence is to replace the subject "it" with "footway-cycling". Yes,
footway-cycling is not ideal so your point is?

Confused...

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent ([email protected]):

>> I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced
>> to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).

> Is this applicable to all scenarios where a faster mode of transport is sharing with a slower one?

> Like, erm, roads?

Why not just re-read what was actually written?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04

 

[Jnugent]

Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> ... on the assumption it is just a typo, I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a
>> cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng
>> of pedestrians, of course).

> Lamp posts, side roads, poor surfaces, parked cars. Plus most have peds on anyway, and even one
> means you have to slow down, make sure you pass them safely, make sure they have some idea you are
> there, etc,.

Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does that) may make for a slower
average speed, but not necessarily for a slower speed whilst on the move.

And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where he/she
belongs), why cycle on the footway?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote

>> I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be
>> forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).

> If you got your bike out you might find out.

No, certainly not at this time of year. And not for a real journey - cycling is/was just a method of
recreation, of no application (for me) to the real world.

> At the same time you can test another claim you made earlier - // Cyclists use the roads. If the
> location is OK and convenient for // car-drivers, it will be equally OK and convenient for
> cyclists.

You have lost me.

Is there a point to what you have written?

>> What is central to the thread (and the reason why cycling on footways is illegal almost
>> everywhere) is the fact that footway- cycling is dangerous to the lawful users of footways,
>> including me wen I am on foot. The possibility that it might not be ideal for cyclists for
>> reasons of their own...

> The only way to read that last sentence is to replace the subject "it" with "footway-cycling".

Thats right.

> Yes, footway-cycling is not ideal so your point is?

The people for whom the problems of illegal footway-cycling are most manifested are
pedestrians (eg, me).

And....

Good News!

The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.

Remember that?

It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04

 

[Richard Bates]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:50:40 -0000, in
<[email protected]>, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does
>that)
>> may make for a slower average speed, but not necessarily for a slower
>speed
>> whilst on the move.
>>
>> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
>> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
>
>My route to work makes use of shared use paths because they are the quickest way to go. First off
>they take a more direct route by cutting through a park, avoiding the one way system and following
>a disused railway line and secondly average speed is faster due to lack of traffic jams, traffic
>lights and junctions pulling out on to busy main roads.

This sounds like the perfect scenario - And having eliminated the junctions pulling out on to main
roads, it seems on the face of it to be quite safe. If the path goes where you want it to then
great. Unfortunately, on many occasions such a path going through a park may not be the direct
choice for a cyclist who doesn't actually want to end up on the other side of the park. In indiviual
cases the path will be of differing benefit.

--
I remember when the internet was only in black & white. It only had a few pages but at least they
all worked. Email: Put only the word "richard" before the @ sign.