Cycling wrong way up one way street

lardyninja

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> Well, in Bremen, before cars, but when the car people got
> enthusiastic about getting cyclists off the road, in about 1930, they
> went for tracks, not lanes
>
> Other places used cycle tracks before Davis as well; Wisconsin in
> 1941, Belgium just after WWII, the Hague, to lessen the hazards of
> Dutch cycle tracks at intersections, but it's Davis which originated
> the world wide infection.
>
> Cycle tracks, of course, have such a bad reputation that people have
> started resorting to euphemisms to avoid referring to them, such as
> "protected (hah!) lanes". Every traffic engineer seems to know that
> tracks are bad, even if they don't know enough about traffic
> engineering to know why.
>
> Jeremy Parker
>
>



Sorry I don't understand, can you explain the difference between cycle
lanes and cycle tracks?

LN

Rob Morley

On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:29:18 +0100
lardyninja <lardyninja@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry I don't understand, can you explain the difference between
> cycle lanes and cycle tracks?
>
A cycle lane is part of the main carriageway reserved for cycles, a
cycle track or path is separate.

The Luggage

On 21 May, 14:48, "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyPar...@compuserve.com> wrote:

> Cycle tracks, of course, have such a bad reputation that people have
> started resorting to euphemisms to avoid referring to them, such as
> "protected (hah!) lanes". *Every traffic engineer seems to know that
> tracks are bad, even if they don't know enough about traffic
> engineering to know why.

So why do they still inflict them on us???

TL

Jeremy Parker

"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4_ydne9yRd2ZKKnVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@bt.com...
> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>>> The next thing the USA did, in Davis, California, in 1966, was
>>>> invent
>>>> the bike lane.
>>>>
>>> Errr, not quite.
>>>
>>> The Great West Road (A40) has/had cycle lanes from Chiswick
>>> roundabout to its junction with the A30. It was built in the
>>> early
>>> 1920s.
>>
>> No it didn't, It had cycle tracks, the bike facility with such a
>> bad
>> reputation, that it dare not speak it's name
>
> Would you care to elaborate?

Groan. I wish this newsgroup had a FAQ, although I'm not able to set
one up myself.

Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
useful objectives.

They are bicycle bantustans for fietsaparthied, proving that
"separate but equal" never is.

From the traffic engineer's point of view, I suppose the problems are
that they produce embarrassing numbers of dead or injured cyclists,
they fail to increase cycling, and they make all the supposed
beneficiaries hate them.

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker

"lardyninja" <lardyninja@gmx.net> wrote

[snip]

> Sorry I don't understand, can you explain the difference between
> cycle lanes and cycle tracks?

A lane is part of a roadway, usually marked off with dashed or solid
white lines. Some lanes are restricted to only certain kinds of
traffic, such as buses, high occupancy vehicles, or cycles. Some
lanes are paved with a different colour surfacing, although this has
no legal significance.

A cycle track is a separate narrow roadway nominally restricted to
cyclists only (or sometimes cyclists and mopeds) although pedestrians
are also permitted to use them. In practice it's only roadways that
are part of a multi roadway highway that get referred to as cycle
tracks. Ones on their own right of way get called bike paths or bike
trails.

Americans don't talk about "cycle tracks". They tend to talk about
"sidepaths" alongside roads.

In the 1940s highways for only certain classes of traffic were
legalised, and the terms "cycleway" and "motorway" were invented.

People are beginning to avoid talking about bike paths or bike
trails. That's because usually something like two thirds of the
traffic isn't bikes, but pedestrians, horses, rollerbladers, or
whatever. "Greenways" is a fashionable term, which is being used in
London - there's a plan for them - and sometimes Sustrans uses the
term as well In the USA, "MUPs", multi user paths, gets used,
especially to clarify liability or compulsion issues.

We badly need a word for those stupid lines councils have started
painting on pavements, to encourage pavement riding. "Pedestrian
lanes" is the best I can come up with. Whenever I have appealed for
a better term all the suggestions seem to be rude, and worse yet, non
descriptive.

Jeremy Parker

Brimstone

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4_ydne9yRd2ZKKnVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>>>> The next thing the USA did, in Davis, California, in 1966, was
>>>>> invent
>>>>> the bike lane.
>>>>>
>>>> Errr, not quite.
>>>>
>>>> The Great West Road (A40) has/had cycle lanes from Chiswick
>>>> roundabout to its junction with the A30. It was built in the
>>>> early
>>>> 1920s.
>>>
>>> No it didn't, It had cycle tracks, the bike facility with such a
>>> bad
>>> reputation, that it dare not speak it's name
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate?
>
> Groan. I wish this newsgroup had a FAQ, although I'm not able to set
> one up myself.

Which NG are you referring to? I'm from uk.transport.

> Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
> cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
> motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
> are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
> where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
> useful objectives.
>
> They are bicycle bantustans for fietsaparthied, proving that
> "separate but equal" never is.
>
> From the traffic engineer's point of view, I suppose the problems are
> that they produce embarrassing numbers of dead or injured cyclists,
> they fail to increase cycling, and they make all the supposed
> beneficiaries hate them.
>
That strikes me as an opinion born out of frustration at the ineptitude of
our planners (I use the term as a job title not as a description of their
talents) rather than as an explanation of the difference between a "cycle
lane" and a "cycle track".

On the basis of your comments I'm assuming that the difference, in your eyes
at least, is that a "lane" is a part of the main carriageway with a white
line seperation whereas a "track" is seperated by a kerb or other physical
obstruction?

Daniel Barlow

"Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker@compuserve.com> writes:

> We badly need a word for those stupid lines councils have started
> painting on pavements, to encourage pavement riding.

"Daft" pretty much covers it, I reckon


-dan

mike

On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:23:28 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
<JeremyParker@compuserve.com> wrote:

>
>"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4_ydne9yRd2ZKKnVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>>>> The next thing the USA did, in Davis, California, in 1966, was
>>>>> invent
>>>>> the bike lane.
>>>>>
>>>> Errr, not quite.
>>>>
>>>> The Great West Road (A40) has/had cycle lanes from Chiswick
>>>> roundabout to its junction with the A30. It was built in the
>>>> early
>>>> 1920s.
>>>
>>> No it didn't, It had cycle tracks, the bike facility with such a
>>> bad
>>> reputation, that it dare not speak it's name
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate?
>
>Groan. I wish this newsgroup had a FAQ, although I'm not able to set
>one up myself.
>
>Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
>cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
>motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
>are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
>where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
>useful objectives.


I am glad you elaborated as requested. It is a pity that you could
only post a load of shite in response.
Unless you are trolling? Are you? If so - not a bad effort - you
nearly caught me.

dkahn400

On May 24, 9:05 pm, mike <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:23:28 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"

> >Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
> >cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
> >motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
> >are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
> >where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
> >useful objectives.
>
> I am glad you elaborated as requested. It is a pity that you could
> only post a load of shite in response.
> Unless you are trolling? Are you? If so - not a bad effort - you
> nearly caught me.

Jeremy Parker is not a troll. I think he may have misunderstood what
it was he was being asked to elaborate upon though. A cycle track is a
separate facility provided alongside the carriageway; a cycle lane is
a marked area on the carriageway itself. They're both dangerous places
to ride.

--
Dave...

Mortimer

"dkahn400" <dkahn400@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1e2404a4-ad6c-46f1-998d-4a603f175871@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:05 pm, mike <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:23:28 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
>
>> >Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
>> >cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
>> >motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
>> >are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
>> >where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
>> >useful objectives.
>>
>> I am glad you elaborated as requested. It is a pity that you could
>> only post a load of shite in response.
>> Unless you are trolling? Are you? If so - not a bad effort - you
>> nearly caught me.
>
> Jeremy Parker is not a troll. I think he may have misunderstood what
> it was he was being asked to elaborate upon though. A cycle track is a
> separate facility provided alongside the carriageway; a cycle lane is
> a marked area on the carriageway itself. They're both dangerous places
> to ride.

But maybe less dangerous than being in amongst faster traffic.

I prefer to cycle on a cycle track rather than a road - with three provisos:
a) the track must be continuous without frequent shifts from one side of the
road to the other or side roads where you must give way to traffic
entering/leaving; b) pedestrians must be segregated from the cycle track and
not permitted to walk n-abreast across both the pedestrian part and the
cycle track part of the pavement; c) the surface must be non-skid - no loose
gravel! Anything which physically segregates a vehicle travelling at 10-20
mph from vehicles that are travelling at maybe 60 mph has got to be a good
thing for both parties!

Cycle lanes can be a bugger, no least because they force cars to position
themselves to the right of where they should be when they are turning left
and allow/encourage cyclists to overtake cars on the cars' left. I'd like to
see cycle lanes discontinued within n metres of every junction to allow
left-turning cars to position themselves hard left, rather than putting them
in a lane to the right of cycles which may be going straight on.

Some cycle tracks suffer from not having the dropped kerb in a sensible
places: there's one near me where you are initially on a road (the pavement
is for pedestrians only) and then the track starts where a side road comes
in. There's no dropped kerb just beyond the lights so you can switch easily
from road to track; instead you must turn into the side road a few yards and
cycle across the pelican crossing where there is a dropped kerb - or else
you must stop and walk across the crossing.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/...cletrackct3.png

Steve Firth

Jeremy Parker <JeremyParker@compuserve.com> wrote:

> They are bicycle bantustans for fietsaparthied, proving that
> "separate but equal" never is.

Perhaps you could now wipe the drool off your chin and the spittle off
your monitor. While you're busy cleaning up, I'll simoply express my
amazement that you have obviously either never used a properly designed
cycle track or that you simply have a knee-jerk reaction to the
existence of such facilities based on a political prejudice on your
part.

I used to use a cycle track in the City of Leicester regularly. It had,
I think, been designed and installed around the second world war and
provided access to industrial estates to the north of the city. It was
popular and well used, providing express access from city centre and
housing estates to the biggest employers in the region.

The "track" was in fact wider than the road that it ran parallel to, and
provided the fastest route free from traffic lights.

I can't see how such a facility would attract the unhinged rant you just
emitted.

Daniel Barlow

"Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> writes:

> But maybe less dangerous than being in amongst faster traffic.
>
> I prefer to cycle on a cycle track rather than a road - with three provisos:
> a) the track must be continuous without frequent shifts from one side of the
> road to the other or side roads where you must give way to traffic
> entering/leaving; b) pedestrians must be segregated from the cycle track and
> not permitted to walk n-abreast across both the pedestrian part and the
> cycle track part of the pavement; c) the surface must be non-skid - no loose
> gravel!

As far as I am aware, your proviso (b) excludes all cycle provision in
the UK. Pedestrians, by and large, can walk wherever they wish

> Anything which physically segregates a vehicle travelling at 10-20
> mph from vehicles that are travelling at maybe 60 mph has got to be a good
> thing for both parties!

It may give you a perception of safetly, but most accidents happen at
junctions.

If the vehicles travelling at 60mph are determined to kill you, a
little thing like a kerb is not going to stop them.

If they're not determined to kill you, a road wide enough that they
can safely travel at 60mph is wide enough to allow safe overtakes with
little delay or inconvenience to either party.

If they're merely incompetent not malicious, deal with that by
appropriate driver training/law enforcement, not by pandering to their
crapness by spending taxpayers money on fences.


-dan

Mortimer

"Daniel Barlow" <dan@telent.net> wrote in message
news:87mymecz4z.fsf@toy.config...
> "Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> writes:
>
> As far as I am aware, your proviso (b) excludes all cycle provision in
> the UK. Pedestrians, by and large, can walk wherever they wish

Yes, pavement markings and common sense notwithstanding. I find that even
when I *walk* on a pavement, it's not uncommon to meet a group of people
walking n-abreast across the whole width, forcing me to step into the road
or crush up against a wall/fence. I always think of a pavement as having an
invisible white line down the middle and I keep well to my side of it
(usually the left since that's also the side we drive on). Ditto for a
marked cycle track: I keep within the cycle part and over to the LHS of it.

>> Anything which physically segregates a vehicle travelling at 10-20
>> mph from vehicles that are travelling at maybe 60 mph has got to be a
>> good
>> thing for both parties!
>
> It may give you a perception of safetly, but most accidents happen at
> junctions.
>
> If the vehicles travelling at 60mph are determined to kill you, a
> little thing like a kerb is not going to stop them.
>
> If they're not determined to kill you, a road wide enough that they
> can safely travel at 60mph is wide enough to allow safe overtakes with
> little delay or inconvenience to either party.

The problem is roads which aren't wide enough for a large vehicle like a
lorry or bus to overtake without getting very close to the white line and
the oncoming traffic: either they have to slow down or else they give you
very little room - and the draught from a bus or an HGV when it passes 3
feet from you is enough to make you swerve off course towards them.

If I'm on a separate track, then traffic can continue as if I wasn't there,
without danger to me or inconvenience to them.

Daniel Barlow

"Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> writes:

> The problem is roads which aren't wide enough for a large vehicle like a
> lorry or bus to overtake without getting very close to the white line and
> the oncoming traffic: either they have to slow down or else they give you
> very little room - and the draught from a bus or an HGV when it passes 3
> feet from you is enough to make you swerve off course towards them.

So we're talking about different things, basically. I usually plan my
journeys to avoid roads with both 60mph lorries and a continuous
stream of oncoming traffic that stops them from using the other side
of the road to overtake, but I can see your point about the
unpleasantness where they're unavoidable. I guess we're mostly
talking about suburban and rural single-carriageway A-roads - in fact,
mostly rural, even big roads like the A40 tend to have 40 limits in
suburban areas.

The problem is in extrapolating from that case to say that cycle
tracks (or any kind of cycle provision) are a good idea _in general_.
I would wager that most cycle journeys are in urban areas which are
30-limited by law and further limited by traffic congestion, and we
shouldn't set policy affecting those by reference to another kind of
road completely. And most cycle miles outside of urban areas (where
the distance per trip tends to be longer) are tourers, club cyclists,
Audax and similar, and my gut feeling is that they'll tend to prefer
B roads and lanes where possible.

Remember that Jason MacIntyre was killed by a driver turning right
across his path who allegedly thought Jason was on the cycle track and
that therefore he need not give way as he would do for another
vehicle. Yes, it's anecdata, but it is consistent with the "junctions
are more dangerous" view and it does show that cycle paths are not an
unalloyed good even when you think they ought to be.


-dan