The joys of Cambridge

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-11-15, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That must surely be the clincher. Has anyone seen a home zone in this
>> country? [...]
>
> Bristol, last Tuesday.

While not the UK, we have Home Zones here and they seem to be a very
good idea - I don't have any children myself, but I have friends that do
and it's great to be able to see their kids actually playing outside
just like I did (we lived in a cul-de-sac when I was a kid).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Dylan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-11-15, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> That must surely be the clincher. Has anyone seen a home zone in this
> >> country? [...]
> >
> > Bristol, last Tuesday.
>
> While not the UK, we have Home Zones here and they seem to be a very
> good idea - I don't have any children myself, but I have friends that do
> and it's great to be able to see their kids actually playing outside
> just like I did (we lived in a cul-de-sac when I was a kid).

I'm a great admirer of Home Zones, having seen a few on the continent,
and find it typically British that we have so few.

cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[tam]

This is just wrong.
I have been using cycle paths in Europe for 15 years.
They are just great to have.
I will continue to use them as they are great for transiting the area s I am
familiar with.
I use a mixture of paths- roads- planes-trains-underground-overground
whatever I feel like when I feel like.
Except in the UK.
We need them in the UK its as simple as that.
I am certain we are not going to get them since it appears that cycle
activists do nt want them.
I am not talking about paint pot bike tracks here- surely some of you have
used proper European cycle paths.
Tam


">> > So far Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Dublin,
>> > the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, the Nordic Countries..... have all
>> > failed to produce a "properly designed" cycle facility that increases
>> > cyclist safety.
>>

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <u%0%[email protected]>, tam
[email protected] says...
> This is just wrong.
> I have been using cycle paths in Europe for 15 years.
> They are just great to have.
> I will continue to use them as they are great for transiting the area s I am
> familiar with.
> I use a mixture of paths- roads- planes-trains-underground-overground
> whatever I feel like when I feel like.
> Except in the UK.
> We need them in the UK its as simple as that.
> I am certain we are not going to get them since it appears that cycle
> activists do nt want them.
> I am not talking about paint pot bike tracks here- surely some of you have
> used proper European cycle paths.
>
You do what you want, I'd rather be on the road.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <u%0%[email protected]>, tpsc12248
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> This is just wrong.
> I have been using cycle paths in Europe for 15 years.
> They are just great to have.
> >
>
> ">> > So far Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Dublin,
> >> > the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, the Nordic Countries..... have all
> >> > failed to produce a "properly designed" cycle facility that increases
> >> > cyclist safety.
> >>
>

Its not "just wrong"; "great to have" and safety are not the same thing.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[tam]

Thats just the point in the UK I am not going to get a choice I am on the
road-full stop.
You on the other hand get the road.
Why only in the UK does the cycling lobby prevent us cyclists get cycle
paths.
Its a complete mystery to me.
The statistics are no substitute for being there------.
Going back to Berlin I have seen cycling rise from obscurity to mainstream
transport in 15 years.
It is not going to happen in the UK without integrated train-road-path
systems.
Tam



You do what you want, I'd rather be on the road.
>

 

[Clive George]

"tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7F1%[email protected]...

> Why only in the UK does the cycling lobby prevent us cyclists get cycle
> paths.

Um, that's not even slightly close to the truth.

The people you're complaining about are trying to prevent the abominations
which others are foisting upon us all over the country.

clive

 

[tam]

Back to my previous point.
Cars injure/kill cyclists.
I have driven 500000 miles+ hand on heart I cannot claim to have been
concentrating for every yard I probably even fell asleep at the wheel in my
younger macho days-.
The bus driver that hit me last year admitted he did not look before turning
right.
The sports car that almost drove over me recently was turning left-he never
even looked left.
I survived I was lucky.
Its safer not to mix cyclists with motor vehicles.
It is obviously not possible always to do this.
I do not want mandatory paths I just want the European option.
It will certainly get the masses onto their bikes-at least once.

Tam

> Its not "just wrong"; "great to have" and safety are not the same thing.

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 8:22 pm, "tam" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is just wrong.
> I have been using cycle paths in Europe for 15 years.
> They are just great to have.
> I will continue to use them as they are great for transiting the area s I am
> familiar with.
> I use a mixture of paths- roads- planes-trains-underground-overground
> whatever I feel like when I feel like.
> Except in the UK.
> We need them in the UK its as simple as that.
> I am certain we are not going to get them since it appears that cycle
> activists do nt want them.
> I am not talking about paint pot bike tracks here- surely some of you have
> used proper European cycle paths.

I used some in Barcelona this week. On Tuesday, having got confused at
a junction and ending up on the path by mistake I got about twenty
yards before it was coned off for roadworks with no diversion. The
second time was when the polis pulled me over and told me it was
obligatory. I followed the indcated path for fifty yards before it
ended with a plant pot and dumped me in the middle of an enormous
junction with no sensible onward route. I returned to the bus lane
that had been serving me perfectly well up to that point.

best wishes
james

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <Pg2%[email protected]>, tpsc12248
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> Its safer not to mix cyclists with motor vehicles.

Is the wrong answer and not one bit of research shows you assertion to
be true. Cyclists on cycle paths are at greater risk from motorists. A
recent study of a new cycle path installation in Copenhagen found it
increased the accident rate, not decreased it.


> I do not want mandatory paths I just want the European option.
> It will certainly get the masses onto their bikes-at least once.
>

Once again the old chestnut that facilities will get the masses on their
bikes with not one shred of evidence to support it. In the late 80's
and early 90's Germany trebled its cycle network with no increase in the
number of cyclists.

Proof by repeated assertion won't work here.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <7F1%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Thats just the point in the UK I am not going to get a choice I am on the
> road-full stop.

That's as it should be as we have to cycle in the UK whereas you are in
Berlin.

> You on the other hand get the road.

Thankfully and for most of the time except when motorists bully and
intimidate us for not using the cycle facilities or the police even
prosecute us for not crossing a busy road to cycle on an unsuitable path
on the wrong side of the road. And its not just a British problem
because I've had the same for daring to cycle on a Dutch road when there
was a cycle path present.

> Why only in the UK does the cycling lobby prevent us cyclists get cycle
> paths.

For all the reasons just stated plus not only are they less convenient
and less safe so that your choice impacts heavily on our choice to use
the roads. If you could produce some evidence that cycle facilities
actually did encourage cycling or increased safety I might have more
sympathy but no one has been able to provide anything other than
anecdote

> Its a complete mystery to me.

Me too.

> The statistics are no substitute for being there------.

So you don't care about the facts because they happen to be counter to
your intuition.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[tam]

I am cycling in chilly Scotland for most of the winter.
I will not accept research that goes against the laws of physics{as Scotty
would say}.
I will not accept that cycling on a path 1 metre from the kerb elevated
above the traffic kerb high-is less safe than cycling in the road with cars
buses et al.
I do accept that British cycle paths are at least as dangerous as the
road-simply because-we call a bit of road painted red-a cycle track.

As for research that proves there is no correlation between cycling
facilities provided and an increase in cycling activity-we need look no
further than the boom in recreational off road UK biking and the creation of
off road cycling tracks like the superb circuits near Edinburgh.
Tam

>> Its safer not to mix cyclists with motor vehicles.
>
> Is the wrong answer and not one bit of research shows you assertion to
> be true. Cyclists on cycle paths are at greater risk from motorists. A
> recent study of a new cycle path installation in Copenhagen found it
> increased the accident rate, not decreased it.
>

 

[Adam Lea]

"tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6o3%[email protected]...
>
> I will not accept that cycling on a path 1 metre from the kerb elevated
> above the traffic kerb high-is less safe than cycling in the road with
> cars buses et al.

Think about the situation where you are approaching a side road. If you are
in a cycle lane, you have to think about traffic coming out of the side
road, traffic on the opposite side of the road turning into the side road
and traffic overtaking you then turning left across your path. On the road,
you only have the first two to think about as with correct positioning you
can control the traffic behind you to prevent the overtake/turn left across
path situation.

You seem to be worried about being hit from behind. It really is easy for a
motorist to spot a cyclist on the road in time to take appropriate action,
since the cyclist is right in the drivers field of vision. I cycle regularly
on roads with cars doing up to 60mph and have no problems.

Adam

 

[tam]

Side road problem-dead easy- crossings are complete with cycle traffic
lights on cycle paths.
Roads-I would suggest based on my 50 years experience as a cyclist on roads
and 40 years driving.
You cannot control cars on the road on your cycle that is the most important
point.
You assume a driver is watching and paying attention.
Tragically this is not always the case.
Cycling on roads with traffic doing 60 mph-feel free- you have my
admiration-as an ex-hang glider pilot I admire bravery.
I see cyclists travelling from Edinburgh out of town when I am moving at
50mph the legal limit in a rainy winters night oncoming headlights blazing
towards me- I admire all of you-its a calculated risk I would not take.
Hit from behind----------yes the classic reaching for
the-***-mobile-radio-cd and the ubiquitous MP3 player-fiddle-fiddle-fiddle.
Give me the well lit streets or the pitch black riverside path or daylight
quiet road-even the 2 mile high Sierra Nevada road with 15 mile descent.
You can see I am temperamentally unsuited to be a London bike courier.
Tam


"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6o3%[email protected]...
>>
>> I will not accept that cycling on a path 1 metre from the kerb elevated
>> above the traffic kerb high-is less safe than cycling in the road with
>> cars buses et al.
>
> Think about the situation where you are approaching a side road. If you
> are in a cycle lane, you have to think about traffic coming out of the
> side road, traffic on the opposite side of the road turning into the side
> road and traffic overtaking you then turning left across your path. On the
> road, you only have the first two to think about as with correct
> positioning you can control the traffic behind you to prevent the
> overtake/turn left across path situation.
>
> You seem to be worried about being hit from behind. It really is easy for
> a motorist to spot a cyclist on the road in time to take appropriate
> action, since the cyclist is right in the drivers field of vision. I cycle
> regularly on roads with cars doing up to 60mph and have no problems.
>
> Adam
>
>

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <7F1%[email protected]>, tam
[email protected] says...
In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
[email protected] says...
> In article <u%0%[email protected]>, tam
> [email protected] says...
> > This is just wrong.
> > I have been using cycle paths in Europe for 15 years.
> > They are just great to have.

> You do what you want, I'd rather be on the road.
>
> Thats just the point in the UK I am not going to get a choice I am on the
> road-full stop.
>
You can always get off and walk on the pavement. If you can't handle
traffic you're probably not a safe cyclist anyway.

 

[[email protected]]

tam wrote:
> You can see I am temperamentally unsuited to be a London bike courier.

Which is fair enough, but (1) don't assume your experiences are
universal, (2) don't assume your gut instinct for safety corresponds to
actual safety.

In general, when asserting "we need x" it might make less of a headline
impact but it's far more constructive if you start by specifying who
"we" are. Many on this group cycle regularly on roads in London and
other cities and are perfectly happy on the same roads as the cars use -
to be absolutely honest, I for one find it rather fun.


-dan

 

[Clive George]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> tam wrote:
>> You can see I am temperamentally unsuited to be a London bike courier.
>
> Which is fair enough, but (1) don't assume your experiences are universal,
> (2) don't assume your gut instinct for safety corresponds to actual
> safety.
>
> In general, when asserting "we need x" it might make less of a headline
> impact but it's far more constructive if you start by specifying who "we"
> are. Many on this group cycle regularly on roads in London and other
> cities and are perfectly happy on the same roads as the cars use - to be
> absolutely honest, I for one find it rather fun.

And coincidentally I can return to what started this thread, having just
visited Cambridge again. Less exciting this time, which is probably no bad
thing. I think somebody tried to nick my bike pump, but was defeated by the
shoelace holding it on. Traffic jamming definitely has a certain rush
though - interesting to see just how many people make basic mistakes though.

(Just saw the top gear segment too - conveyed it all rather well, I thought.
And he seemed to be pedalling quite well.)

cheers,
clive

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <IW5%[email protected]>, tpsc12248
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Side road problem-dead easy- crossings are complete with cycle traffic
> lights on cycle paths.

Every junction, side road, entry and drive has a signalised bicycle only
crossing phase? Really? Where's that then?

> Roads-I would suggest based on my 50 years experience as a cyclist on roads
> and 40 years driving.
> You cannot control cars on the road on your cycle that is the most important
> point.

Perhaps you should get yourself a copy of Cyclecraft and read it or join
a Bikeability course to learn how to control the cars.

> You assume a driver is watching and paying attention.
> Tragically this is not always the case.

You assume that being hit from behind is a common accident. Its
actually very rare. Almost all accidents between cars and cyclists
occur at intersections. Almost all accidents to cyclists on cycle paths
occur at intersections, junctions, entrances and driveways. Almost none
occur in the straight bits in between on either.

> Cycling on roads with traffic doing 60 mph-feel free- you have my
> admiration-as an ex-hang glider pilot I admire bravery.

It may appear risky to you but its actually very safe.

> Hit from behind----------yes the classic reaching for
> the-***-mobile-radio-cd and the ubiquitous MP3 player-fiddle-fiddle-fiddle.

Very very rare.

> Give me the well lit streets or the pitch black riverside path or daylight
> quiet road-even the 2 mile high Sierra Nevada road with 15 mile descent.


Well if you go where there are no cars you won't have a problem with
cars. Meanwhile back in the real world where most of us cycle.....

By the way, could you bottom post please - top posting is generally
frowned upon and makes a mess of a thread.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <IW5%[email protected]>, tam wrote:
>Side road problem-dead easy- crossings are complete with cycle traffic
>lights on cycle paths.

If you are happy to stop at lights at every single side road and driveway
when travelling along a main road, why not just walk?

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:04:50 GMT someone who may be "tam"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I am cycling in chilly Scotland for most of the winter.
>I will not accept research that goes against the laws of physics{as Scotty
>would say}.

One of the big problems with much of the road "safety" lobby is that
it assumes that humans are simple machines which follow simple
rules.

Reality is very different. We now know how to make some predictions
about this and the result is things like risk compensation, which
are well proven. However, this does not fit in with the
preconceptions of some who have the zeal of bad religion in
expressing their simple models.


--
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