On 10 Sep 2005 11:45:08 -0700, wrote:

If local authorities made descent provision for cyclists like they do
in Holland and Germany, then this wouldn't be an issue. Certainly
Tunbridge Wells is purely car focused, and makes no consideration for
cyclists, apart from throwing some paint on to the road.

It depends what "decent provision" is. On the face of it, Milton
Keynes' Redway system is just what is required, and I do use it
myself. However, there are parts of it that are downright dangerous
and/or impede reasonable progress by bicycle due to blind bends,
excessive rubbish/glass being present and not cleaned up, or due to
repeatedly crossing side roads with poor visibility, or simply
pedestrians who block the way and don't respond to/respond
unpredictably to a bicycle bell or a shout of "Excuse me please"[1].
For that reason, the roads are often a better place to ride even
though these are generally national speed limit dual carriageways.

My experience in Germany, or Hamburg in particular, is that the cycle
facilities were little better. Indeed, I can recall one very narrow
bit of kerb which was divided into a cycle and pedestrian lane, each
being about 2 feet wide. This was more dangerous than not having it -
and due to German law it is illegal not to use it where provided.

[1] I've taken to ringing my bell and shouting "Coming past on your
right", for example, but it seems that even this is beyond some
pedestrians on the Redway system, usually those with children and/or
dogs, and often leads to them/their dogs/their children moving towards
instead of away from the cyclist.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
It was obviously going to happen. All the mob who suddenly leapt onto
pedal bikes after the 7th July, are now being a menace to themselves and
anyone else who gets near them. I regularly see them going through red
lights, treating the pavement and roadway and equally appropriate places
to hurtle along...etc.

The sad thing is that they're probably thousands of times more likely to
get maimed riding a cycle than using the tube or bus.

Surely it's time for cycles to be registered and insured ? I'm not
suggesting mandatory training. To be honest I think they all know the
correct way to drive, but they just don't care. Put a traceable
registration number on the back and it'll give them an incentive not to
ride like lunatics.

Plus it might help reduce the number stolen each year.

And how about some cycle paths to encourage cyclists off the roads (on
car and bike) and onto bikes.

In message . com,
writes
It's not ideal, but certainly there are some parts of the road where
it's not safe to cycle on the road, leaving the pavement as the only
safe option. I've cycled slowly on the pavement when carrying a child
on the back. In this instance I'd rather risk a fine than an accident.
Cycling on the path is illegal and should be fined. If you don't think
the road is safe why should pedestrians feel safe with you riding on it?
Ever heard of get off and push until you can rejoin the road?
--
Clive

In message , Neil Williams
writes
due to German law it is illegal not to use it where provided.
One up for German law, let's hope we soon get the same here.
--
Clive

In message , Paul Terry
writes
The law needs to be applied vigorously to everyone who flouts their
responsibilities to others - not just "easy targets" such as cyclists.
Yes I agree, but it needs to be easier to enforce the law by having
cyclists registered and carrying plates as mopeds have to do.
--
Clive

In message , Neil Williams
writes
I don't believe points are appropriate, unless a cycling licence is
introduced. Otherwise, those who do have a car are punished more
harshly than those who do not.
How?
--
Clive

In message ,
Martin Underwood writes
Are "rouge [sic] cyclists" the ones who go through red lights? ;-)
Yes. Sory bout me spelin.
--
Clive

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:21:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

One up for German law, let's hope we soon get the same here.

Not until the standard of cycle paths is improved.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:27:03 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Neil Williams
writes
I don't believe points are appropriate, unless a cycling licence is
introduced. Otherwise, those who do have a car are punished more
harshly than those who do not.

How?

Someone who does not drive, and does not intend to drive, is not in
any way punished by having points on a theoretical driving licence,
unless a licence was also issued for cycling and withdrawn when 12
points were reached as with a car licence.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

What a choice collection of rants from positions of little or no
knowledge!

wrote:
Clive wrote:
In message , Paul Terry
writes

Possibly they already are - a friend of mine got an on-the-spot £30
fine for riding his bike on the (wide) pavement of Bayswater Road last
week. Apparently he rode straight towards the policeman - foolish man!

As someone who cycles further than I drive each year, I would have no
problem with enforcement of traffic law against cyclists - if the
police had infinite resources. As it is, it's the motor vehicles that
cause almost all the danger, and therefore the vast bulk of
enforcement needs to be directed against them. Of 3 and a half
thousand-odd road deaths each year, under a hundred (probably under
20) involve no motor vehicle.

It's not ideal, but certainly there are some parts of the road where
it's not safe to cycle on the road, leaving the pavement as the only
safe option. I've cycled slowly on the pavement when carrying a child
on the back. In this instance I'd rather risk a fine than an accident.

It is almost never safer to cycle on the pavement than the road,
because of the increased danger at junctions, where most collisions
happen. The only exceptions are roads where motor traffic is fast
(50+) and has no room to pass. On such roads drivers should, but
don't, drive so that they can stop before they hit an obstruction.

The real way to stop pavement cycling is to make drivers behave
properly towards cyclists on the road, and to train cyclists in how to
interact with motor traffic. This means the consequences of hitting a
cyclist, or a pedestrian, must be much more severe for drivers than
they are now.

90% of road users, regardless of vehicle type, do whatever they can
get away with. To cut the casualty figures, drivers have to get away
with a lot less than they do now.

(There's one road with about 4,000 school children, the majority of
whom are driven to school, partly because its a dangerous road with no
cycle path. As a result its blocked with cars during school run time)

Typical of the wrong thinking ingrained in a motor-centric society.
The road needs to be made safe for those thousands of children to
cycle on, regardless of the inconvenience to drivers. Safety comes
from tackling the sources of danger, not its victims.

Colin McKenzie


--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!