Cycle Paths or Not?

Clive George

"Sir Jeremy" <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:0bc32de5-739b-4b5b-a642-bc1bc24cf8de@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 11 May, 22:45, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> The fact that you have to resort to a patronising response suggests that
>> you
>> don't have a valid counterargument to Wafflycats post.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>
>It was a suitable response to an irrational rant

Time of the month is it darling?

Jeremy Parker

"Steve C" <sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote

[snip]

> 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 remember, back in the 1970s, when I worked for the Communications
Satellite Corp (Comsat) in Washington DC, a bunch of Comsat people
went over to the Netherlands to help design a satellite that never
happened. All were enthusiastic about being able to ride a bike,
rather than drive a car, to get to work.

Their efforts to use Dutch bike facilities legally lasted about a
fortnight, I was told. What really got to them was making left
turns, and having to wait all those light cycles before they had
completely negotiated a turn.

A separated system is not separated if it is not separated where the
accidents happen, i.e at intersections. At intersections cars can be
separated from bikes either by space, or by time. Separation by time
implies lots of red traffic lights. Presumably the proportion of
green time each kind of vehicle gets would be roughly in proportion
to their amount of the traffic. Bikes are a smaller fraction of the
traffic in the UK than they are in the Netherlands, so the proportion
of green time would likely also be less in the UK

Jeremy Parker.

Jeremy Parker

"Matt B" <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote

[snip]

> 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.

Britain has a law rather like that. If a motorist is in collision
with a cyclist, the motorist pays the cyclist's medical expenses, no
matter who is at fault. The law, which applies to pedestrians, too,
of course, has been in existence ever since car insurance became
compulsory, in 1929. [ref. Plowden, "The Motor Car and Politics in
Britain" p263]

It's not the NHS that is supposed to pay, although the motor
insurance companies tend to keep quiet if the NHS forgets to send out
a bill

Jeremy Parker

Mark

On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:48:42 +0100, Paul Boyd <usenet@abcd.invalid>
wrote:

>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 ;-)

Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?

My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

The ones I have seen are often narrow, cross right in front of
driveways with poor visibility and suddenly end at a road junction,
often with no dropped kerb. How can these be useful to cyclists.

Another worrying trend is that, the more cycle "facilities" there are,
the more motorists are calling for cyclists to be banned from the
road. One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Jeremy Parker

"Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote i
>
> 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

Somehow I doubt if they ever have bike lanes on such roads in the
Netherlands, although I can believe in cycle tracks/paths/trails.

In the USA they don't have bike lanes on freeways either, but it is
often legal to cycle on the shoulder. New Jersey is unique in that
to ride on the shoulders of their interstate highways requires a
licence. I have one.

Some bike paths alongside freeways in the USA are fantastic. The
bike path alongside interstate 70 over Vail Pass is worth crossing
the Atlantic to ride, as is the path between Ventura and Santa
Barbara in California, alongside US 101.

Among experienced cyclists in Britain enthusiasm for facilities seems
to be diminishing at the moment, with the result that enthusiasm for
lanes seems to be left to those who know so little about cycling that
they don't even know what a lane is. That diminishes my confidence
in their judgement about what might be a "proper" lane.

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker

"Steve C" <sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote

[snip]

> 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?

No matter what you think, my advice is to say that you don't like
faculties. As you get older and slower, like me (I'm 66) that gets
ever more important. If you disparage lanes, everybody will
immediately assume that you are a super fast rider. You might be
able to convince the more impressionable women that you always keep
up with the other traffic, even where the speed limit is 70 mph.

Say you don't like lanes, and you will never have to admit how slowly
you actually do ride.

Actually counterflow lanes might occasionally be useful, although
slightly riskier than a normal road. Bike paths can be ok, too, so
long as they were originally designed for trains, not bicycles. It's
only bicycle facilities designed for bicycles that are bad

Jeremy Parker

GeoffC

Just zis Guy, you know? <uce@ftc.gov> 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.
>

Well no, the law is intended to provide some measure of protection for
vulnerable (ie. non-motorised) traffic in the event of a collision
with a motor vehicle.
So pedestrians and cyclist actually reside in the same category and
shouldn't need protecting from each other.
TBO if pedestians and cyclists can't get along amicably then I think
this may point to a more fundamental social problem which cannot be
solved by laws.

--

Geoff

Steve C

Jeremy Parker wrote:

>
> Their efforts to use Dutch bike facilities legally lasted about a
> fortnight, I was told. What really got to them was making left
> turns, and having to wait all those light cycles before they had
> completely negotiated a turn.
>

Just reminded me of a trip to Belgium about ten years ago, where a local
looking cyclist tried to cross at a red cycle light. He was stopped by a
police office, hand ready on holster, and made to wait. Police in
Belgium can be very strict...

Terry Duckmanton

Rog wrote:
> "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.

Working in 'Engaged-Brain' mode as much as is possible in my case, I can
see sense in what Andy is proposing. One of the problems with crossings
is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
contain fast moving traffic. In this case it is unreasonable to expect
traffic to stop in time and pedestrians who want to cross safely should
allow some stopping time.

What if we alter the scenario slightly by removing all crossings and
road markings and stating that no-one has priority on this stretch of
road. This effectively lowers the speed of traffic and gives the
pedestrian the ability to cross the road where and when he/she wishes.
It is up to the parties involved to sort out who goes first. I'm just
not sure if the go-fast brigade could cope with old-fashioned "after
you" manners.

Obviously we would still need fast trunk roads to move traffic around
the country, but is it essential for trunk roads to pass through the
middle of towns?

Terry

Andy Morris

Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> One of the problems with crossings
> is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
> contain fast moving traffic.

Are they really?

They could be construed as being the only places where pedestrians are
allowed to cross the road. If my mother in law is walking home in the
rain with her shopping, why should she go out of her way cross on the
crossing so that someone in a heated car can save a couple of seconds.


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Andy Morris

Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
> Time of the month is it darling?


Wanker

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Paul Boyd

Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:

> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?

I expect so.

> My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
> path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
> one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
> which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

....which was precisely my point. I'm not sure if you missed it or not :-)

> One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
> asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

S'OK - and at the same time, we'll fine motorists who use country lanes
instead of motorways and dual-carriageways :-)

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

Mark

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:42:42 +0100, Paul Boyd
<usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:

>Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:
>
>> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?
>
>I expect so.
>
>> My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
>> path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
>> one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
>> which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.
>
>...which was precisely my point. I'm not sure if you missed it or not :-)

No, I was agreeing with you ;-)

>> One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
>> asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!
>
>S'OK - and at the same time, we'll fine motorists who use country lanes
>instead of motorways and dual-carriageways :-)

Or fine them for not using the bus or train?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

seveniron

On May 12, 11:32 pm, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> > One of the problems with crossings
> > is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
> > contain fast moving traffic.
>
> Are they really?
>
> They could be construed as being the only places where pedestrians are
> allowed to cross the road. If my mother in law is walking home in the
> rain with her shopping, why should she go out of her way cross on the
> crossing so that someone in a heated car can save a couple of seconds.
>
> --
> Andy Morris
>
> AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Andy, do you find yourself the butt of jokes, not taken seriously
etc??
Just asking
rog