Cycle Paths or Not?

wafflycat

"Steve C" <sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0fbe@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>
> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?
>
> Steve

This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..) would
like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not just
Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more courtesy &
respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of us,
when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads are
there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our way
when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in the
Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in Cologne
was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never anything
JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96 of
the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk>
said in <tsudnXvWyvVVgrvVnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com>:

>Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
>hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.

I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.

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

Brian G

Steve C wrote:

> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?


Here in my part of Scotland, as in many other areas with medium to low
population density, the road system provides a wonderful network of
paths between communities and through the countryside. Additionally
there are various other paths which are not suitable for motor vehicles
but can accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and horses. There is no need
for any extra provision of cycle paths, lanes, routes or whatever.

In general, the behaviour of motorists on these roads towards cyclists
and pedestrians is much less aggressive and dangerous than is reported
from the densely populated urban parts of the country. As a result I
can ride my bicycle without fear or apprehension all over the place, in
whichever direction takes my fancy, except on motorways from which bikes
are banned.

So naturally I want the status quo. The sad thing, however, is that the
fear of "dangerous roads" has spread here with the result that very few
people take the opportunities to cycle offered by the road system and
many of those who do now absurdly bedeck themselves with hi-viz yellow
vests and plastic hats. This of course re-inforces the message about
"dangerous roads" to young people and others who might want to cycle.

Further to that, the local authorities find themselves duty bound to
provide their quota distance of "cycle facilities" whether or not there
is any need for them. Novice cyclists then find themselves utterly
confused when presented with pavements they are encouraged to cycle on,
pavements they mustn't cycle on, roads with skinny tracks at the side
for bicycles which immediately turn into roads with no such tracks on
them. No wonder the vast majority give up and limit themselves to
"leisure cycling" which involves sticking their bikes on motor car roof
racks and driving them to forest parks where they can puff up a bumpy
rutted track for a mile or so then turn round and bounce back down to
the car park.


Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

Ben C

On 2008-05-11, Brian G <junk@ardo-howe.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve C wrote:
>
>> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
>> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
>> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
>> cycle paths?
>
>
> Here in my part of Scotland, as in many other areas with medium to low
> population density, the road system provides a wonderful network of
> paths between communities and through the countryside. Additionally
> there are various other paths which are not suitable for motor vehicles
> but can accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and horses. There is no need
> for any extra provision of cycle paths, lanes, routes or whatever.

Something they have in the Netherlands which is quite nice is that big A
roads and dual carriageways usually have a pretty good (mandatory) cycle
lane.

Although it's still often nicer to ride through the lanes and villages
(where you don't always get a cycle lane, but they're quiet roads), it
does give you a bit more freedom in planning your route.

They have a different infrastructure because they have more cyclists.
One could argue however that more POBs would ride to work here if
(proper) cycle lanes were provided as the perception of the man on the
Clapham omnibus is that it is too dangerous to consider getting off the
omnibus and riding alongside it on a bike.

Personally I don't see much need to encourage people onto bikes. I'm
quite happy to be in a minority. If everyone was riding them they'd
start legislating and taxing them like crazy and then they'd be just as
bad as cars.

Richard Fairhurst

On May 10, 10:04*pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
> [...]
> trying to find a "one-size fits all" consensus is
> like trying to design a facility for motorbikes that's equally as
> advantageous for the 50cc scooter rider and the Hayabusa owner.

Absolutely agree with this.

There's a big difference between "right to use the roads" (which is
good) and "compulsion to only use roads" (which isn't).

Richard

Zog The Undeniable

Steve C wrote:
> I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
> understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn
> surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side
> to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are
> often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is
> understandable.
>
> My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
> infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about
> this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
> cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
> banned from the road.
>
> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?

I's say roads. More than 90% of cycle paths are just awful, and no
safer or quicker than riding on the pavement, which is rightly illegal.

Paul Boyd

On 11/05/2008 18:08, Zog The Undeniable said,

> .... and no
> safer or quicker than riding on the pavement, which is rightly illegal.

Unless the council use some of their magic white paint, then it's
suddenly safe and legal ;-)

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

Rog

"Andy Morris" <AndyMorris@DeadSpam.com> wrote in message
news:g05ac2$hfj$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
>>
>>
>> C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
>> pedestrians at times and we do matter.
>>
>
> I know this is a bit OT, but your post has raised a couple of questions in
> my mind.
>
> Zebra crossings, why? Why not make every bit of road a zebra crossing,
> change the rule to be:
>
> If you see a pedestrian signalling that they wish to cross the road (by
> raising an arm) you will stop and allow them.

Total carnage, if they still had someone walking in front with a red flag it
would work.
You can't be serious.
Engage brain.

>
> Why do pelican crossings, miles away from traffic lights, make you wait to
> cross?
>
> --
> Andy Morris
>
> AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

rog

Sir Jeremy

On 11 May, 07:18, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> "Steve C" <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0fbe@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> > for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> > any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> > cycle paths?
>
> > Steve
>
> This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..) would
> like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
> tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not just
> Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more courtesy&
> respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of us,
> when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads are
> there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our way
> when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in the
> Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
> main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
> 'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
> riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
> do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
> which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
> facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in Cologne
> was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
> retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never anything
> JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
> terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
> wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96 of
> the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.


Time of the month is it darling?

Adam Lea

"Sir Jeremy" <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:174010c2-42ff-497b-aa61-db9c07f862da@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On 11 May, 07:18, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>>
>> This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..)
>> would
>> like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
>> tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not
>> just
>> Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more
>> courtesy &
>> respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of
>> us,
>> when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads
>> are
>> there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our
>> way
>> when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in
>> the
>> Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
>> main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
>> 'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
>> riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
>> do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
>> which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
>> facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in
>> Cologne
>> was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
>> retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never
>> anything
>> JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
>> terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
>> wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96
>> of
>> the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.


> Time of the month is it darling?

The fact that you have to resort to a patronising response suggests that you
don't have a valid counterargument to Wafflycats post.

Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C
> <sc99cs@googlemail.com> said in
> <359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0fbe@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
>> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
>> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
>> cycle paths?
>
> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.

Can you cite the law that "presumes fault" - I thought is was a *no*
fault insurance liability that they have, and only 100% if the
vulnerable road user was a minor. There, like here, criminal fault has
to be proven, based on evidence.

--
Matt B

GeoffC

Matt B <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C
>> <sc99cs@googlemail.com> said in
>> <359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0fbe@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a
>>> ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use
>>> roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low
>>> design speed for cycle paths?
>>
>> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
>> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.
>
> Can you cite the law that "presumes fault" - I thought is was a *no*
> fault insurance liability that they have, and only 100% if the
> vulnerable road user was a minor. There, like here, criminal fault
> has to be proven, based on evidence.

Yep. Similar to the French "Loi Badinter" introduced in !985 and
predating the Dutch (and Belgian) law by about 10 years.

--

Geoff

GeoffC

Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? said the following on 10/05/2008 18:20:
>
>> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
>> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.
>
> It's not actually quite that straightforward,

No it's not. unless you consider fault and liability to be the same
thing.

--

Geoff

Alan Braggins

In article <a18d241utu8utlerlgvkfjsbtu0li8kclp@4ax.com>, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk>
>said in <tsudnXvWyvVVgrvVnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com>:
>
>>Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
>>hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.
>
>I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
>get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
>to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.

Surely that would be covered by the fact that it's a presumption of
liability, not an automatic assignment of liability regardless of
circumstances, just as a cyclist who rode fast out of a side footpath
hidden from view and across a pavement just in front of a car would
still be liable?