So what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

[Tony Raven]

MJ Ray wrote on 12/07/2006 11:05 +0100:

> I keep meeting cyclists riding on the right on-road too. One spot is
> particularly bad (St James Road to Clough Lane, Blackfriars Street,
> K.Lynn) where there's a cycle lane along only one side, because the
> route in the other direction runs along parallel one-way streets.
>

I've seen quite a few people mistakenly thinking a cycle lane on one
side of the road is a two way cycle lane. And with the Highway Code and
others trying to say you should use a cycle lane when its available, its
not surprising that people get confused. Genuine two way cycle lanes on
one side of the road add to the confusion.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

MJ Ray wrote on 12/07/2006 11:05 +0100:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
>> A person representing himself as a Sustrans spokeperson in Radio 4
>> interviews have stated that their goal was to 'get more cyclists off the
>> roads'. [...]
>
> Date and time (even rough) please, else it's going to be tricky to fix.

It was around the announcement of initiatives to increase cycling to
school recently. My comment at the time is
here:http://makeashorterlink.com/?N1032456D

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:04:00 +0100, "Tony W"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>,
>> dkahn400 ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> In our university days, a friend of mine who was then an engineering
>> student (he's now a lutanist) used to keep a spring loaded centre punch
>> clipped to his bars. The idea was that, if approached to closely by a
>> motorist, he would pull it out of its clip and swing his arm at the car
>> as if fending it off. The centre-punch would then shatter the
>> windscreen.
>>
>> Whether this would have worked or not I don't know, because as far as I
>> know it was never used in anger; but I put it to the jury that a spring
>> loaded centre punch is substantially less weight to carry around than
>> even a small hammer.
>
>It could work with old type toughened glass windscreens but not with
>laminated ones where one would just get a small 'stone chip'.

<thought type = idle>

Are the side windows of cars laminated?


<\thought>


Tim

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony Raven wrote:
> andym wrote on 11/07/2006 13:00 +0100:
>>
>> Bell is a legal requirement in Germany. I assume such a device does
>> not appear in the BS for UK sold bicycles?
>> In Germany and Holland I'd feel confident that using a bell would
>> alert pedestrians on a shared path. In UK, certainly in some areas,
>> I'd feel more uneasy and would expect at least a grumpy look, if not
>> some verbal abuse. Maybe the country has changed since I quit?
>>
>
> It is now a legal requirement for a bell to be fitted at the point of
> sale but not thereafter. IME a bell is useless anyway. I have tried
> gently ringing a bell approaching pedestrians with no response until I
> get close enough so they can hear me cough, at which point they jump
> out of their skin and make some rude comments that I ought to have a
> bell. I now just rely on a louder cough.

I have found the only solution that I'm comfortable with is to slow down to
walking pace while behind them before making my presence known. Normally a
click up and down the gears does it, but sometimes I say hello.

It's a pain, but I don't like going round pissing people off.

I also find it a bit annoying when people jump out of the way and stand
still on the side of the path the minute they see you coming. It makes
things a lot less relaxed for both them and the cyclist. I can see why they
do it, though.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

MJ Ray wrote:
>> Quite possibly also some just don't realise that cyclists can reach
>> 18mph. Many drivers seem basically unable to estimate speeds of
>> other vehicles and simply make assumptions about how fast they think
>> another road user "should" be going given their mode of transport.
>
> Thankfully I avoid most of them. I'd hope most realise cyclists can
> reach 10mph, though maybe not, from what I've seen :-/

My 6 year old nephew managed 10 for most of the 8 mile ride we were out on
on Sunday.

He was a little tired by the end, though.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

David Hansen wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2006 16:20:29 GMT someone who may be MJ Ray
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> I doubt it. Even without finding the DfT reference it doesn't take
>>> much intelligence to realise that a road-side shared use path that
>>> gives way at every side road is going to be slower than the road it
>>> runs next to.
>>
>> Often, those seem to be flagrant breaks of construction guidelines.
>> Cycleways should have priority, except for a few cases, but seldom
>> do.
>
> Whose construction guidelines and does it matter?
>
> Fife and the City of Edinburgh Councils will not mark bike
> bantustans as having priority over side roads. They say it would be
> "dangerous". I doubt if they are unique.

They are correct that it would be dangerous, and indeed more likely in the
short term to cause the nasty harmful side on collisions that occur in these
situations. Still, they don't seem to have come across the best way of
avoiding these.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

MJ Ray wrote:
> David Hansen <[email protected]>
>
>> Fife and the City of Edinburgh Councils will not mark bike
>> bantustans as having priority over side roads. They say it would be
>> "dangerous". I doubt if they are unique.
>
> As far as I've figured out so far, there seems to be two approaches
> to this:
> 1. if the side roads are state-owned (=adopted?) ask for the safety
> assessments, then they'll go quiet, so do a FoIA request to get them
> If they don't exist, you're up and running with the press, or if they
> do exist, they'll either contradict national policy and I'd hope the
> local cycling-friendly MP helps, or there's some good reason not to
> do it, but I've not got that far yet and I've lost my motivation to
> spend quite so much time on new ones in this area;
> 2. if the side roads are private owned, ask nicely for a priority
> change (it's usually thoughtlessness rather than mistaken ideas of
> safety), then ask for the safety assessment and watch them fold.
> This worked well so far.

Well done on all your work.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony W wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>,
>> dkahn400 ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> In our university days, a friend of mine who was then an engineering
>> student (he's now a lutanist) used to keep a spring loaded centre
>> punch clipped to his bars. The idea was that, if approached to
>> closely by a motorist, he would pull it out of its clip and swing
>> his arm at the car as if fending it off. The centre-punch would then
>> shatter the windscreen.
>>
>> Whether this would have worked or not I don't know, because as far
>> as I know it was never used in anger; but I put it to the jury that
>> a spring loaded centre punch is substantially less weight to carry
>> around than even a small hammer.
>
> It could work with old type toughened glass windscreens but not with
> laminated ones where one would just get a small 'stone chip'.
>
> However, I suspect an element of urban myth in this.

I'm sure plenty of people have had the urge to carry self defense mechanisms
around with them.

A

 

[Daniel Barlow]

MJ Ray <[email protected]> writes:

> Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>
> > I doubt it. Even without finding the DfT reference it doesn't take
> > much intelligence to realise that a road-side shared use path that
> > gives way at every side road is going to be slower than the road it
> > runs next to.
>
> Often, those seem to be flagrant breaks of construction guidelines.
> Cycleways should have priority, except for a few cases, but seldom do.

The particular road I have in mind is the Woodstock Road in Oxford, on
which IIRC each side road has *two* give-way lines marked - one before
the vehicle reaches the shared-use path, and the other after. While
technically it might be possible to claim that the cycleway therefore
has priority, what happens in practice is that vehicles drive across
the first one and wait at the second for a gap in the traffic (which
is actually pretty reasonable on their part: they're not going to have
a particularly clear view of the road from behind the path): any
cyclist using the path that arrives subsequently will have to wait for
the vehicle to get out of the way.

I can't find a particularly good picture, but you can just about see
what's going on at http://www.shwanrooms.co.uk/images/shwanrooms.jpg -
the second give way sign runs across the bottom of the picture,
and one stripe of the first one is in the bottom left corner.
Needless to say, primary or secondary position on the road is a much
safer place to be.


-dan

--
http://coruskate.blogspot.com/ why skate when you can talk about it instead?

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 11/07/2006 22:47, Danny Colyer said,

> I noticed these on my way home from work this evening:
> <url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-dscf0845.jpg>

That's to make it easier for local scum to tie a wire across the path.

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 12/07/2006 09:21, Simon Brooke said,

> A matron turned regally, and said, in chiding tones, 'bell! bell!'.

This is where the Airzound comes in handy. After all, do the
regulations actually state that it must be a bell???

I must admit that it is the attitude of redsocks that put me off cycling
in some areas. The Ramblers Association have a bit of a reputation
amongst walkers as well. I usually even get a friendly response from
horse riders on bridleways, but the redsocks, never!

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

 

[Clive George]

"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12/07/2006 09:21, Simon Brooke said,
>
>> A matron turned regally, and said, in chiding tones, 'bell! bell!'.
>
> This is where the Airzound comes in handy. After all, do the regulations
> actually state that it must be a bell???
>
> I must admit that it is the attitude of redsocks that put me off cycling
> in some areas. The Ramblers Association have a bit of a reputation
> amongst walkers as well. I usually even get a friendly response from
> horse riders on bridleways, but the redsocks, never!

We never have problems with walkers on BWs, even large groups. I say hello
well in advance, and by the time I arrive, they've nearly always sorted
themselves out. It's amusing seeing them all passing the message to each
other.

It may help that we're on a tandem, so are probably percieved as nice if
strange people rather than yobbos on mountain bikes. (even though sometimes
the latter may be more appropriate )

cheers,
clive

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:21:03 +0100 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>On an audax last year, riding on a public road, I came upon a group of
>middle aged (medieval?) redsocks who were, as per normal, strung out
>across the whole width of the carriageway. Approaching from behind, I
>rang my bell. No response, so I rang my bell again. Still no response,
>so I was forced to brake quite sharply, and said, politely, 'excuse me'.
>
>A matron turned regally, and said, in chiding tones, 'bell! bell!'.

Did you come up with a suitable response?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On 12 Jul 2006 09:13:02 GMT someone who may be MJ Ray
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Whose construction guidelines and does it matter?
>
>Department for Transport (dft.gov.uk).

Ah, no use in this country.

>As far as I've figured out so far, there seems to be two approaches
>to this:

I might try this sometime.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote on 12/07/2006 18:56 +0100:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:21:03 +0100 someone who may be Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> On an audax last year, riding on a public road, I came upon a group of
>> middle aged (medieval?) redsocks who were, as per normal, strung out
>> across the whole width of the carriageway. Approaching from behind, I
>> rang my bell. No response, so I rang my bell again. Still no response,
>> so I was forced to brake quite sharply, and said, politely, 'excuse me'.
>>
>> A matron turned regally, and said, in chiding tones, 'bell! bell!'.
>
> Did you come up with a suitable response?
>
>

"You, madam, are certainly no belle" ?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Nigel Randell]

"Mark McNeill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Response to Tony Raven:
>> IME a bell is useless anyway. I have tried
>> gently ringing a bell approaching pedestrians with no response until I
>> get close enough so they can hear me cough, at which point they jump out
>> of their skin and make some rude comments that I ought to have a bell.
>> I now just rely on a louder cough.
>
> Squealing brakes, I tells ye! Not only do peds take notice, you can
> also [if you're inclined] sieze the moral high ground by implying that
> you've just had to make a sudden avoiding manouevre. I've had peds
> genuinely apologise for being in the way, which I'm sure they wouldn't
> have if I'd only had a bell or a cough.
>


I find that a couple of seconds of freewheeling gives enough warning,
although you need a Campag hub for this to work.

--

Nigel

 

[Epetruk]

"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
> > posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
> > because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
> > don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
> > of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
> > So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?
>
> Car-free routes? I know it's not a complete description but any form of
> words including "motorised" or "non-motorised" would be too clumsy.

'Car-free routes' is concise enough, and most people would get the idea. No
need to be overly pedantic.

>
> "HPRs" would also be nice, for "Human Powered Routes", but I can't see
> the general public taking that on board.

A route that is human powered? Now that creates a funny image in the mind...
loads of people lifting a road on their shoulders and carrying it along...

--
Akin

(aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk)

 

[Tony Raven]

Nigel Randell wrote on 12/07/2006 21:16 +0100:
>
>
> I find that a couple of seconds of freewheeling gives enough warning,
> although you need a Campag hub for this to work.
>

Chris King is even better as they look around anxiously for the swarm of
bees ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"MJ Ray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

[snip]

The same question was asked in the USA, where cyclists felt that not
calling them "bike paths" would, hopefully, help to avoid suggestions
that cyclists ought to use them. This was reinforced by noting that
usually about two thirds of the people on the paths are actually not
cyclists but dog walkers, horsemen, roller bladers, and who knows
what.

The answer has been imported to England under the sponsorship of HM
Gov't, in the form of the Countryside Management Agency, as was.
There are now a few of them here in Hertfordshire. The word for them
is ***GREENWAYS***. I've seen that word in Sustrans literature, too.

A nice neutral word like "Greenways" also has the advantage that the
consultants can go after more different pots of money, emphasizing
whatever is fashionable at the time. They have to eat, after all.
It's really an extension of changing from talking about cycling to
talking about "walkingandcycling"

What has actually appeared here in Herts. is bridle paths with
upgraded surfaces.

The people who invented the greenway concept have set up as
consultants on the subject, calling themselves, I think, Greenways
Inc., or some such. They have quite a nice web site. Presumably you
could google it.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 12/07/2006 18:56, David Hansen said,

> Did you come up with a suitable response?

"What, this bell (ding-a-ling) that you all ignored?????"

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