UK and Europe · Public discussion

Walking & cycling action plan published

Started by Just zis Guy, you know? · · Last activity · 10 posts · 276 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
16 June 2004
Last activity
19 June 2004
Original author
Just zis Guy, you know?
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
276
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/downloadable/dft_susttravel_029204.pdf

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

  2. you know? said:

    http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/downloadable/dft_susttravel_029204.pdf

    Every single cyclist pictured is wearing a helemt, bar one. Mind you all
    the pedestrians are wearing shoes.

    Colin

    Quoted message said:
  3. Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
    thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word. It's the same as the
    trend to use the words "vehicle" or "traffic" to mean "not bicycles".

    The announcement talks about the record of the government's cycle
    strategy in increasing cycling as "mixed". That's [censored]. It
    hasn't been mixed, it's been a total failure, except in central
    London. In Central London the increase in cycling is attributed to
    the congestion charge. That could be partly true, but a few other
    factors like the Central Line and Northern Line tube being disrupted
    or totally out of service for months might be a factor, as might he
    fact that we have had the best summer since the bronze age, and that
    the tube, even when it's working, and Ken Livingstone's wonderful new
    buses - with no opening windows - are totally unbearable in warm
    weather.

    The government's strategy is essentially nothing but to give cyclists
    lots of farciliities, designed by idiots, for idiots, to get cyclists
    away from where they will bother proper road users, and to
    demonstrate that cycling on an unchanged road is terribly dangerous
    and therefore "something must be done", even if it costs the poor
    overtaxed motorist even more money. That the facilities don't
    actually help cyclists is of no concern to anybody, as anyone who
    complains soon finds out. The farcilities strategy continues
    because, from the government's point of view, it's a success

    Jeremy Parker

  4. On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:08:41 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    Every single cyclist pictured is wearing a helemt, bar one.

    Not a surprise - official DfT policy following RR30 (and not changed
    despite the gradual retraction some of the more ludicrous claims in
    RR30)

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

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

  5. Jeremy Parker said:

    Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
    thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word. It's the same as the
    trend to use the words "vehicle" or "traffic" to mean "not bicycles".

    It is a well known fact that cyclists are just peds-on-wheels who keep
    their maximum speed below 12 mph at all times to make sure that their
    expanded polystyrene headwarmers will work properly. :-)

    Quoted message said:

    The announcement talks about the record of the government's cycle
    strategy in increasing cycling as "mixed". That's [censored]. It
    hasn't been mixed, it's been a total failure, except in central
    London. In Central London the increase in cycling is attributed to
    the congestion charge. That could be partly true, but a few other
    factors like the Central Line and Northern Line tube being disrupted
    or totally out of service for months might be a factor, as might he
    fact that we have had the best summer since the bronze age, and that
    the tube, even when it's working, and Ken Livingstone's wonderful new
    buses - with no opening windows - are totally unbearable in warm
    weather.

    The government's strategy is essentially nothing but to give cyclists
    lots of farciliities, designed by idiots, for idiots, to get cyclists
    away from where they will bother proper road users, and to
    demonstrate that cycling on an unchanged road is terribly dangerous
    and therefore "something must be done", even if it costs the poor
    overtaxed motorist even more money. That the facilities don't
    actually help cyclists is of no concern to anybody, as anyone who
    complains soon finds out. The farcilities strategy continues
    because, from the government's point of view, it's a success

    Jeremy Parker


    The plan goes into great detail about how the numbers of cyclists &
    pedestrians should best be counted to produce the required outcome of
    the plan, i.e. a demonstrable increase in the number of people cycling &
    walking.
    <cynic>
    So, all the gubbymint have to do is make a super-deluxe shared use route
    from a large housing estate straight into the playground of a local
    school and close off all routes to the school which are accessible by
    four wheel drive jobbies. The before and after counts will show a
    massive increase in pupils cycling and walking which is obviously
    representative of the effect of the plan on a national level.
    </cynic>

    Terry Duckmanton

  6. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/downloadable/dft_susttravel_029204.pdf

    Interested to see the bit in the Press Release :

    <<<
    2. The Traffic Management Bill amendment will provide local
    authorities with a power to impose penalty charges when vehicles are
    driven in lanes reserved for cyclists and when pedestrian and cycle
    crossings are blocked by parked vehicles. These are not new offences:
    police already have the power to enforce these offences, but this
    amendment would extend those powers to local authorities.

    3. The Department intends to introduce this new power next year.
    Guidance will be issued for local authorities enforcement officers in
    advance of the introduction of the new powers. >>>

    I'm still trying to find out if anyone has ever been prosecuted for
    infringing a bike lane. Anyone know ?

    Tim

  7. [email hidden] (Tim Henderson)typed

    Quoted message said:

    I'm still trying to find out if anyone has ever been prosecuted for
    infringing a bike lane. Anyone know ?

    I don't know, but from the ads in the local Press and the reasonably
    pro-cycling stance of the council, it might yet happen in Camden...

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  8. Tim Henderson said:

    I'm still trying to find out if anyone has ever been prosecuted for
    infringing a bike lane. Anyone know ?

    I doubt it. This isn't a totally one sided argument though. In two places
    mandatory cycle lanes on my way to work reduce the width of the road to
    less than a car width. I've always wondered the legal way to deal with
    these, do I stop before it gets narrow, wait for traffic to clear in the
    other direction, and overtake the cycle lane???

    Steve

  9. Jeremy Parker said:

    Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
    thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word.

    I think you are overreacting in the case of this document. The focus
    is clearly on health and reduction in private motor traffic; in those
    contexts it makes perfect sense to lump cycling and walking together.

    In general, I though it was a pretty decent document. Though I have to
    admit the pictures of people wearing silly plastic hats to ride
    utility bikes at low speeds made me a bit nauseous. I am inured to
    seeing "serious"/"real" bike riders wear helmets (heck, I even do it
    myself), but somehow helmets just don't seem to fit with the idea of
    bike-as-transport for the masses.

    --
    Peter Headland

  10. On 18 Jun 2004 13:39:58 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter Headland)
    wrote (more or less):

    Quoted message said:
    Jeremy Parker said:

    Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
    thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word.

    I think you are overreacting in the case of this document. The focus
    is clearly on health and reduction in private motor traffic; in those
    contexts it makes perfect sense to lump cycling and walking together.

    In general, I though it was a pretty decent document. Though I have to
    admit the pictures of people wearing silly plastic hats to ride
    utility bikes at low speeds made me a bit nauseous.

    Why? Silly plastic hats are pretty much only useful at low speeds.
    As can be seen by the recent sad news of racing cyclist deaths on a
    fast downhill decent while wearing a helmet.

    Quoted message said:

    I am inured to
    seeing "serious"/"real" bike riders wear helmets (heck, I even do it
    myself), but somehow helmets just don't seem to fit with the idea of
    bike-as-transport for the masses.

    --
    Cheers,
    Euan
    Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
    Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.