P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
P
Pete Biggs
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Unwanted by whom?
>> By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of
>> way on the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent
>> better elsewhere.
>
> Well, yes, but on the other hand a lot of people who are
> non-cyclists, occasional cyclists or lapsed cyclists have said many
> times that this is what they want.
I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential cyclists,
perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling on the roads
normally if only they had some training* and encouragement*, and if roads
were made generally less intimidating - as they would be if car numbers and
speeds were reduced, for example.
* From cycling friends & relatives, if not professionals.
~PB
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Unwanted by whom?
>> By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of
>> way on the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent
>> better elsewhere.
>
> Well, yes, but on the other hand a lot of people who are
> non-cyclists, occasional cyclists or lapsed cyclists have said many
> times that this is what they want.
I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential cyclists,
perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling on the roads
normally if only they had some training* and encouragement*, and if roads
were made generally less intimidating - as they would be if car numbers and
speeds were reduced, for example.
* From cycling friends & relatives, if not professionals.
~PB
J
Jeremy Parker
Guest
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in
[snip]
>>I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
>>would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
>>building unwanted cycle paths.
>
> Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which
> represent
> a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
> These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL
> as
> continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which
> are
> of variable standards.
Hahaha. You don't seriously believe that do you? The only places
that Ken Livingstone has available to build his Amsterdam standard
routes are on the trunk roads, like the North Circular, and the
Barnet bypass. All other places belong to the boroughs, not to Ken.
I don't see the North Circular Road becoming an Amsterdam standard
bike route. I was on the CRIM for that, so I have a big book
describing all the expensive, useless, proposals for our part of it,
and I have another equally useless book for the A41.
You must remember that "variable" standards when talking about bike
facilities is a plannerspeak word, not an English word. It's rather
like the airline industry, where a "direct" flight means one that
goes somewhere else first. "Variable" means absolutely consistent,
and universally bad. "Variable" is almost the worst possible grade
when one deciphers the appearance of optimism in plannerspeak
adjectives. The only grade worse than "variable" is, "not as
successful as was hoped"
At the moment London does not have Amsterdam design standards, it has
its own "London Cycling Design Standards". The current edition is
the second edition, and TfL is planning to revise the standards
again. The reason we are on the second edition is the universal
dissatisfaction there was with the first. Unfortunately, however,
the same people, with the same mindset, worked on the second edition
as worked on the first, so the result was much the same as before.
Likely the same thing will happen again. And for bike planners
there's no "three strikes and you are out" rule like there is for
baseball.
Are you really sure that either the LCC or the CTC supports what has
been said. Feelings are so mixed in the LCC that all it has ever
been able to say about facilities is that they are in favour of
"appropriate facilities in appropriate places". They know that any
attempt to say anything stronger will, thanks to the dissention it
will arouse, likely gravely weaken the organization at best. Much
the same goes for the CTC.
The real point about the Livingstone announcement is that we have an
election coming up. The announcement was kept secret from all the
stakeholders (such as us) to prevent the other political parties from
getting wind of the details.
It will be interesting to see what the other political parties do
come up with. I have visions of a Tory election campaign about
cycling, with a Tory team, Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and Brian
Coleman, all riding their bikes together round London.
Jeremy Parker
[snip]
>>I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
>>would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
>>building unwanted cycle paths.
>
> Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which
> represent
> a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
> These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL
> as
> continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which
> are
> of variable standards.
Hahaha. You don't seriously believe that do you? The only places
that Ken Livingstone has available to build his Amsterdam standard
routes are on the trunk roads, like the North Circular, and the
Barnet bypass. All other places belong to the boroughs, not to Ken.
I don't see the North Circular Road becoming an Amsterdam standard
bike route. I was on the CRIM for that, so I have a big book
describing all the expensive, useless, proposals for our part of it,
and I have another equally useless book for the A41.
You must remember that "variable" standards when talking about bike
facilities is a plannerspeak word, not an English word. It's rather
like the airline industry, where a "direct" flight means one that
goes somewhere else first. "Variable" means absolutely consistent,
and universally bad. "Variable" is almost the worst possible grade
when one deciphers the appearance of optimism in plannerspeak
adjectives. The only grade worse than "variable" is, "not as
successful as was hoped"
At the moment London does not have Amsterdam design standards, it has
its own "London Cycling Design Standards". The current edition is
the second edition, and TfL is planning to revise the standards
again. The reason we are on the second edition is the universal
dissatisfaction there was with the first. Unfortunately, however,
the same people, with the same mindset, worked on the second edition
as worked on the first, so the result was much the same as before.
Likely the same thing will happen again. And for bike planners
there's no "three strikes and you are out" rule like there is for
baseball.
Are you really sure that either the LCC or the CTC supports what has
been said. Feelings are so mixed in the LCC that all it has ever
been able to say about facilities is that they are in favour of
"appropriate facilities in appropriate places". They know that any
attempt to say anything stronger will, thanks to the dissention it
will arouse, likely gravely weaken the organization at best. Much
the same goes for the CTC.
The real point about the Livingstone announcement is that we have an
election coming up. The announcement was kept secret from all the
stakeholders (such as us) to prevent the other political parties from
getting wind of the details.
It will be interesting to see what the other political parties do
come up with. I have visions of a Tory election campaign about
cycling, with a Tory team, Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and Brian
Coleman, all riding their bikes together round London.
Jeremy Parker
E
Ekul Namsob
Guest
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
> >> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
> >> roads.
> >
> >The Netherlands.
>
> And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
> cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing that Denmark has similar laws.
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
> >> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
> >> roads.
> >
> >The Netherlands.
>
> And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
> cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing that Denmark has similar laws.
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:51:52 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Clickable link:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/iceblinker/image/92827741/original
Oh! I saw that and assumed it to be a defunct church!!!!
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Clickable link:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/iceblinker/image/92827741/original
Oh! I saw that and assumed it to be a defunct church!!!!
P
Pete Biggs
Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/iceblinker/image/92827741/original
>
>
> Oh! I saw that and assumed it to be a defunct church!!!!
It is amazing. Actually a lot of churches are plainer!
~PB
>> http://www.pbase.com/iceblinker/image/92827741/original
>
>
> Oh! I saw that and assumed it to be a defunct church!!!!
It is amazing. Actually a lot of churches are plainer!
~PB
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:52:42 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential cyclists,
>perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling on the roads
>normally if only they had some training* and encouragement*, and if roads
>were made generally less intimidating - as they would be if car numbers and
>speeds were reduced, for example.
I would hardly class myself as the timid type, nor would I describe
myself as anywhere close to novice levels of skill, and I find
riding along the route out to Canary Wharf pretty unpleasant.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential cyclists,
>perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling on the roads
>normally if only they had some training* and encouragement*, and if roads
>were made generally less intimidating - as they would be if car numbers and
>speeds were reduced, for example.
I would hardly class myself as the timid type, nor would I describe
myself as anywhere close to novice levels of skill, and I find
riding along the route out to Canary Wharf pretty unpleasant.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
P
Pete Biggs
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:52:42 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential
>> cyclists, perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling
>> on the roads normally if only they had some training* and
>> encouragement*, and if roads were made generally less intimidating -
>> as they would be if car numbers and speeds were reduced, for example.
>
> I would hardly class myself as the timid type, nor would I describe
> myself as anywhere close to novice levels of skill, and I find
> riding along the route out to Canary Wharf pretty unpleasant.
What about it is unpleasant for you? In what ways could it be improved
without you having to get off the main carriageway?
On a road bike, I find rough and dirty surfaces unpleasant when I want to
maintain a decent speed. I find it unpleasant to be banned from going where
I want to go.
I find nearly every cycle facility I come across unpleasant and stupid and
dangerous. It would be amazing indeed if the new ones really were so much
better. The budget doesn't reassure me. That could easily just mean we
will have an awful lot more ****.
~PB
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:52:42 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential
>> cyclists, perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling
>> on the roads normally if only they had some training* and
>> encouragement*, and if roads were made generally less intimidating -
>> as they would be if car numbers and speeds were reduced, for example.
>
> I would hardly class myself as the timid type, nor would I describe
> myself as anywhere close to novice levels of skill, and I find
> riding along the route out to Canary Wharf pretty unpleasant.
What about it is unpleasant for you? In what ways could it be improved
without you having to get off the main carriageway?
On a road bike, I find rough and dirty surfaces unpleasant when I want to
maintain a decent speed. I find it unpleasant to be banned from going where
I want to go.
I find nearly every cycle facility I come across unpleasant and stupid and
dangerous. It would be amazing indeed if the new ones really were so much
better. The budget doesn't reassure me. That could easily just mean we
will have an awful lot more ****.
~PB
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:54:01 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>What about it is unpleasant for you? In what ways could it be improved
>without you having to get off the main carriageway?
Make the first lane in each direction about 3ft wider.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>What about it is unpleasant for you? In what ways could it be improved
>without you having to get off the main carriageway?
Make the first lane in each direction about 3ft wider.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:27:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:52:42 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
><[email protected]> said in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential cyclists,
>>perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling on the roads
>>normally if only they had some training* and encouragement*, and if roads
>>were made generally less intimidating - as they would be if car numbers and
>>speeds were reduced, for example.
>
>I would hardly class myself as the timid type, nor would I describe
>myself as anywhere close to novice levels of skill, and I find
>riding along the route out to Canary Wharf pretty unpleasant.
Which route do you choose? I use a particularly interesting route to
go to Canary Wharf. Even by public transport its a delight to visit,
but no so by motor vehicle - which I have done just once.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:52:42 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
><[email protected]> said in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>I'm sure a significant proportion of those kind of potential cyclists,
>>perhaps even the majority, would positively enjoy cycling on the roads
>>normally if only they had some training* and encouragement*, and if roads
>>were made generally less intimidating - as they would be if car numbers and
>>speeds were reduced, for example.
>
>I would hardly class myself as the timid type, nor would I describe
>myself as anywhere close to novice levels of skill, and I find
>riding along the route out to Canary Wharf pretty unpleasant.
Which route do you choose? I use a particularly interesting route to
go to Canary Wharf. Even by public transport its a delight to visit,
but no so by motor vehicle - which I have done just once.
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:17:17 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>Which route do you choose? I use a particularly interesting route to
>go to Canary Wharf. Even by public transport its a delight to visit,
>but no so by motor vehicle - which I have done just once.
I go past the Tower and along the red route. There is a parallel
"cycle route" which is unusable for all the usual reasons. Any
other route I've found thus far is simply too long; I can do
Paddington to Canada Square in about 40 minutes on the Brom
(spillchucker wants to make that broom, which seems appropriate),
any longer and it's quicker by tube and being a lazy ******* I leave
home at 8:15, so I can't get there any later than I do.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>Which route do you choose? I use a particularly interesting route to
>go to Canary Wharf. Even by public transport its a delight to visit,
>but no so by motor vehicle - which I have done just once.
I go past the Tower and along the red route. There is a parallel
"cycle route" which is unusable for all the usual reasons. Any
other route I've found thus far is simply too long; I can do
Paddington to Canada Square in about 40 minutes on the Brom
(spillchucker wants to make that broom, which seems appropriate),
any longer and it's quicker by tube and being a lazy ******* I leave
home at 8:15, so I can't get there any later than I do.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
J
Jeremy Parker
Guest
"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:1ic5zt1.4xcjxy159jnuvN%[email protected]...
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>> >> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the
>> >> building of
>> >> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way
>> >> on
>> >> roads.
>> >
>> >The Netherlands.
>>
>> And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
>> cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.
>
> I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing that Denmark has similar
> laws.
>
> Luke
Indeed, and Belgium, and Switzerland, and now, though it's not
mainland, Ireland. Britain may be the lone hold out. Denmark has
another strange law, what I call the ouslem bird cycling law. It's
illegal to turn left, because turning left is so dangerous. You have
to stop on the right side of the road, and then treat the
intersection as a cross roads Sweden tried to introduce the same
law, but Swedish cyclists managed to beat it off.
In the USA it is generally compulsory to use lanes, but usually not
paths. There is generally a long list of exceptions to the lane
compulsion, turning left, potholes, illegally parked cars etc. etc.
The exception list gets ever longer as people discover more problems,
and you just have to hope your state has the complete exception list
in its law, and hasn't forgotten one or two.
Back in the 1970s, when Oregon introduced a law requiring facility
use, cyclists managed to get the law amended to say that this should
not apply unless a public hearing was held to verify that the
facility was safe. In the third of a century or so that the law has
been in force no jurisdiction ever dared to hold such a hearing on
the safety of what they had built. However, a year or two ago some
policeman gave a cyclist a ticket for not using a facility, and when
the court threw out the ticket, the jurisdiction, wherever it was,
appealed. They argued that the State of Oregon had held a hearing on
the State Bicycle Plan, and that the existence of that plan, and its
hearing, implied that every facility, federal, state, county, town,
or whatever, in Oregon was therefore deemed safe. They won, so now
cyclists in Oregon have lost their rights.
Jeremy Parker
message
news:1ic5zt1.4xcjxy159jnuvN%[email protected]...
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>> >> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the
>> >> building of
>> >> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way
>> >> on
>> >> roads.
>> >
>> >The Netherlands.
>>
>> And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
>> cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.
>
> I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing that Denmark has similar
> laws.
>
> Luke
Indeed, and Belgium, and Switzerland, and now, though it's not
mainland, Ireland. Britain may be the lone hold out. Denmark has
another strange law, what I call the ouslem bird cycling law. It's
illegal to turn left, because turning left is so dangerous. You have
to stop on the right side of the road, and then treat the
intersection as a cross roads Sweden tried to introduce the same
law, but Swedish cyclists managed to beat it off.
In the USA it is generally compulsory to use lanes, but usually not
paths. There is generally a long list of exceptions to the lane
compulsion, turning left, potholes, illegally parked cars etc. etc.
The exception list gets ever longer as people discover more problems,
and you just have to hope your state has the complete exception list
in its law, and hasn't forgotten one or two.
Back in the 1970s, when Oregon introduced a law requiring facility
use, cyclists managed to get the law amended to say that this should
not apply unless a public hearing was held to verify that the
facility was safe. In the third of a century or so that the law has
been in force no jurisdiction ever dared to hold such a hearing on
the safety of what they had built. However, a year or two ago some
policeman gave a cyclist a ticket for not using a facility, and when
the court threw out the ticket, the jurisdiction, wherever it was,
appealed. They argued that the State of Oregon had held a hearing on
the State Bicycle Plan, and that the existence of that plan, and its
hearing, implied that every facility, federal, state, county, town,
or whatever, in Oregon was therefore deemed safe. They won, so now
cyclists in Oregon have lost their rights.
Jeremy Parker
S
Sir Jeremy
Guest
On 14 Feb, 19:48, "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in
> messagenews:1ic5zt1.4xcjxy159jnuvN%[email protected]....
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
> >> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> >> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the
> >> >> building of
> >> >> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way
> >> >> on
> >> >> roads.
>
> >> >The Netherlands.
>
> >> And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
> >> cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.
>
> > I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing that Denmark has similar
> > laws.
>
> > Luke
>
> Indeed, and Belgium, and Switzerland, and now, though it's not
> mainland, Ireland. Britain may be the lone hold out. Denmark has
> another strange law, what I call the ouslem bird cycling law. It's
> illegal to turn left, because turning left is so dangerous. You have
> to stop on the right side of the road, and then treat the
> intersection as a cross roads Sweden tried to introduce the same
> law, but Swedish cyclists managed to beat it off.
>
> In the USA it is generally compulsory to use lanes, but usually not
> paths. There is generally a long list of exceptions to the lane
> compulsion, turning left, potholes, illegally parked cars etc. etc.
> The exception list gets ever longer as people discover more problems,
> and you just have to hope your state has the complete exception list
> in its law, and hasn't forgotten one or two.
>
> Back in the 1970s, when Oregon introduced a law requiring facility
> use, cyclists managed to get the law amended to say that this should
> not apply unless a public hearing was held to verify that the
> facility was safe. In the third of a century or so that the law has
> been in force no jurisdiction ever dared to hold such a hearing on
> the safety of what they had built. However, a year or two ago some
> policeman gave a cyclist a ticket for not using a facility, and when
> the court threw out the ticket, the jurisdiction, wherever it was,
> appealed. They argued that the State of Oregon had held a hearing on
> the State Bicycle Plan, and that the existence of that plan, and its
> hearing, implied that every facility, federal, state, county, town,
> or whatever, in Oregon was therefore deemed safe. They won, so now
> cyclists in Oregon have lost their rights.
>
> Jeremy Parker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't continental Europe always being held up on here as the perfect
example of how much better cyclists are treated than in the UK?
Perhaps this has something to do the with cycle paths being made
mandatory in the countries mentioned?
> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in
> messagenews:1ic5zt1.4xcjxy159jnuvN%[email protected]....
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
> >> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> >> What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the
> >> >> building of
> >> >> cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way
> >> >> on
> >> >> roads.
>
> >> >The Netherlands.
>
> >> And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
> >> cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.
>
> > I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing that Denmark has similar
> > laws.
>
> > Luke
>
> Indeed, and Belgium, and Switzerland, and now, though it's not
> mainland, Ireland. Britain may be the lone hold out. Denmark has
> another strange law, what I call the ouslem bird cycling law. It's
> illegal to turn left, because turning left is so dangerous. You have
> to stop on the right side of the road, and then treat the
> intersection as a cross roads Sweden tried to introduce the same
> law, but Swedish cyclists managed to beat it off.
>
> In the USA it is generally compulsory to use lanes, but usually not
> paths. There is generally a long list of exceptions to the lane
> compulsion, turning left, potholes, illegally parked cars etc. etc.
> The exception list gets ever longer as people discover more problems,
> and you just have to hope your state has the complete exception list
> in its law, and hasn't forgotten one or two.
>
> Back in the 1970s, when Oregon introduced a law requiring facility
> use, cyclists managed to get the law amended to say that this should
> not apply unless a public hearing was held to verify that the
> facility was safe. In the third of a century or so that the law has
> been in force no jurisdiction ever dared to hold such a hearing on
> the safety of what they had built. However, a year or two ago some
> policeman gave a cyclist a ticket for not using a facility, and when
> the court threw out the ticket, the jurisdiction, wherever it was,
> appealed. They argued that the State of Oregon had held a hearing on
> the State Bicycle Plan, and that the existence of that plan, and its
> hearing, implied that every facility, federal, state, county, town,
> or whatever, in Oregon was therefore deemed safe. They won, so now
> cyclists in Oregon have lost their rights.
>
> Jeremy Parker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't continental Europe always being held up on here as the perfect
example of how much better cyclists are treated than in the UK?
Perhaps this has something to do the with cycle paths being made
mandatory in the countries mentioned?
T
TimB
Guest
On Feb 11, 3:45 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Unwanted by whom?
> >By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of way on
> >the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent better elsewhere.
>
> Well, yes, but on the other hand a lot of people who are
> non-cyclists, occasional cyclists or lapsed cyclists have said many
> times that this is what they want.
They don't want gridlock, pollution etc either, but they back policies
that lead to these things.
Tim
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Unwanted by whom?
> >By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of way on
> >the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent better elsewhere.
>
> Well, yes, but on the other hand a lot of people who are
> non-cyclists, occasional cyclists or lapsed cyclists have said many
> times that this is what they want.
They don't want gridlock, pollution etc either, but they back policies
that lead to these things.
Tim
R
Roger Merriman
Guest
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:55 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
> >> motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.
> >>
> >
> >In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
> >safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
> >respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
> >would destroy all three objectives at once.
>
> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
> even though they are free to do so.
cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:55 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
> >> motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.
> >>
> >
> >In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
> >safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
> >respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
> >would destroy all three objectives at once.
>
> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
> even though they are free to do so.
cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:41:12 +0000, [email protected] (Roger
Merriman) wrote:
>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:55 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
>> >> motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
>> >safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
>> >respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
>> >would destroy all three objectives at once.
>>
>> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
>> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
>> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
>> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
>> even though they are free to do so.
>
>cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
>path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
>path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
I've just come back from a ride - 50 miles - almost entirely on shared
use paths. Waterlink Way Greenwich to Crystal Palace; Crystal Palace
to Morden; Wandle Way Mordon to Richmond; through Richmond Park to the
Thames; Thames Path to Greenwich.
I can't say that the presence of pedestrians bothered me in the
slightest. If they were there I slowed down.
However, I have the impression that the Mayor isn't proposing shared
use paths. He's proposing wide on-road dedicated cycle lanes.
Pedestrians won't be banned any more than they are banned from
crossing the road, but I really can't envisage large numbers of
pedestrians choosing to use the cycle lanes over the footway.
Merriman) wrote:
>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:55 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
>> >> motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
>> >safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
>> >respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
>> >would destroy all three objectives at once.
>>
>> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
>> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
>> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
>> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
>> even though they are free to do so.
>
>cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
>path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
>path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
I've just come back from a ride - 50 miles - almost entirely on shared
use paths. Waterlink Way Greenwich to Crystal Palace; Crystal Palace
to Morden; Wandle Way Mordon to Richmond; through Richmond Park to the
Thames; Thames Path to Greenwich.
I can't say that the presence of pedestrians bothered me in the
slightest. If they were there I slowed down.
However, I have the impression that the Mayor isn't proposing shared
use paths. He's proposing wide on-road dedicated cycle lanes.
Pedestrians won't be banned any more than they are banned from
crossing the road, but I really can't envisage large numbers of
pedestrians choosing to use the cycle lanes over the footway.
S
Simon Brooke
Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:41:12 +0000, [email protected] (Roger
> Merriman) wrote:
>
>>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
>>> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
>>> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
>>> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
>>> even though they are free to do so.
>>
>>cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
>>path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
>>path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
>
> I've just come back from a ride - 50 miles - almost entirely on shared
> use paths. Waterlink Way Greenwich to Crystal Palace; Crystal Palace
> to Morden; Wandle Way Mordon to Richmond; through Richmond Park to the
> Thames; Thames Path to Greenwich.
>
> I can't say that the presence of pedestrians bothered me in the
> slightest. If they were there I slowed down.
Exactly. That's the point. If these are transport routes rather than just
mimbling corridors, then you don't want pedestrians slowing you down. To be
useful they need to enable riders to achieve /at/ /least/ the speed they
can achieve on existing roads. Otherwise it's just another way of pissing
400 million pounds of taxpayers money up the wall.
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:41:12 +0000, [email protected] (Roger
> Merriman) wrote:
>
>>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
>>> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
>>> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
>>> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
>>> even though they are free to do so.
>>
>>cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
>>path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
>>path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
>
> I've just come back from a ride - 50 miles - almost entirely on shared
> use paths. Waterlink Way Greenwich to Crystal Palace; Crystal Palace
> to Morden; Wandle Way Mordon to Richmond; through Richmond Park to the
> Thames; Thames Path to Greenwich.
>
> I can't say that the presence of pedestrians bothered me in the
> slightest. If they were there I slowed down.
Exactly. That's the point. If these are transport routes rather than just
mimbling corridors, then you don't want pedestrians slowing you down. To be
useful they need to enable riders to achieve /at/ /least/ the speed they
can achieve on existing roads. Otherwise it's just another way of pissing
400 million pounds of taxpayers money up the wall.
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:02:33 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:41:12 +0000, [email protected] (Roger
>> Merriman) wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
>>>> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
>>>> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
>>>> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
>>>> even though they are free to do so.
>>>
>>>cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
>>>path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
>>>path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
>>
>> I've just come back from a ride - 50 miles - almost entirely on shared
>> use paths. Waterlink Way Greenwich to Crystal Palace; Crystal Palace
>> to Morden; Wandle Way Mordon to Richmond; through Richmond Park to the
>> Thames; Thames Path to Greenwich.
>>
>> I can't say that the presence of pedestrians bothered me in the
>> slightest. If they were there I slowed down.
>
>Exactly. That's the point. If these are transport routes rather than just
>mimbling corridors, then you don't want pedestrians slowing you down. To be
>useful they need to enable riders to achieve /at/ /least/ the speed they
>can achieve on existing roads. Otherwise it's just another way of pissing
>400 million pounds of taxpayers money up the wall.
I see you snipped the part of my message where I explained how I
believed the money would be spent and why I believed that pedestrians
in the main will stay out of them.
However, I have recently learnt that the proportion of the £500m to be
spent on the 12 cycling routes is likely to be around 10%, or £4m per
route, so the standard is likely to be much lower than I originally
envisaged. They are likely to base the new routes' design on that of
Aylesbury.
http://www.cycleaylesbury.co.uk/gemstoneCycleways.asp
Which, from the website, looks little better than standard 24"
optional cycle lanes painted onto roads with one or two toucan
crossings to take them onto shared use paths. Which, if is the case,
my optimism was misplaced. £500m on twelve 6 ft wide on-road cycle
lanes would have made a difference; £50m on twelve 2 ft wide lanes and
shared use paths probably won't.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:41:12 +0000, [email protected] (Roger
>> Merriman) wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
>>>> wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
>>>> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
>>>> me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
>>>> even though they are free to do so.
>>>
>>>cycle lanes are often smoother, wider than the path. see the cycle/foot
>>>path split from hampton court to kingston. where very few use the foot
>>>path as it's narrow and not tarmac.
>>
>> I've just come back from a ride - 50 miles - almost entirely on shared
>> use paths. Waterlink Way Greenwich to Crystal Palace; Crystal Palace
>> to Morden; Wandle Way Mordon to Richmond; through Richmond Park to the
>> Thames; Thames Path to Greenwich.
>>
>> I can't say that the presence of pedestrians bothered me in the
>> slightest. If they were there I slowed down.
>
>Exactly. That's the point. If these are transport routes rather than just
>mimbling corridors, then you don't want pedestrians slowing you down. To be
>useful they need to enable riders to achieve /at/ /least/ the speed they
>can achieve on existing roads. Otherwise it's just another way of pissing
>400 million pounds of taxpayers money up the wall.
I see you snipped the part of my message where I explained how I
believed the money would be spent and why I believed that pedestrians
in the main will stay out of them.
However, I have recently learnt that the proportion of the £500m to be
spent on the 12 cycling routes is likely to be around 10%, or £4m per
route, so the standard is likely to be much lower than I originally
envisaged. They are likely to base the new routes' design on that of
Aylesbury.
http://www.cycleaylesbury.co.uk/gemstoneCycleways.asp
Which, from the website, looks little better than standard 24"
optional cycle lanes painted onto roads with one or two toucan
crossings to take them onto shared use paths. Which, if is the case,
my optimism was misplaced. £500m on twelve 6 ft wide on-road cycle
lanes would have made a difference; £50m on twelve 2 ft wide lanes and
shared use paths probably won't.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 475
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 227
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 412
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K