|
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
Neil Williams wrote: On 13 Sep 2005 05:58:45 -0700, wrote: Not necessarily. If the pavement is raised above the cycle path, and the cycle path is seperated from the road by a kerb, then all should be happy. Until car passengers throw glass bottles out of the window, and you've got a nice glass trap that's too narrow to use a road sweeper on, so the glass remains and the cycle path is useless. Hmm - hadn't thought of that one. In Southern Germany people don't throw bottles out of car windows. Though I would have a raised curb of just a few centimeters - ideally just below straight line pedal height. That's still enough to deter cars, but a street sweeper could straddle it. Not to mention that pedestrians in many places still don't respect them. Chicken and egg? If there were enough cyclists, pedestrians would respect them. Unless the road is wide enough for a cycle path of at least a normal lane's width (which most of Milton Keynes' Redways are), there isn't room for one and the road is a better place for the cyclist. If the road was a foot or two wider, overtaking by cars would be easier and less dangerous. Sorry - can't agree there. I'd be happy to have a dedicated, 1m wide cylce path each way. Putting one of these on both sides would require removing one lane of parked cars, or in some places reducing the car lane width to 3m. Unless your talking sports cyclists at high speed! |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
|
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:29:32 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:36:49 +0100, Clive wrote: I have always advocated total separation for safeties sake. *Total* separation would be fine. The trouble is, it is both difficult and expensive to achieve that - you will always have some interface between the modes. Given that Milton Keynes was planned from more or less scratch, and while it did get a certain level of separation between motorised and non-motorised transport, I suspect that I'm not the only one thinking that. The thing that is missing from all this is the fact that off road cycle paths are significantly more dangerous to the cyclist than cycling on the road. Studies on the continent, MK, and the recent TFL study all found that off road cycle paths increase the risk of death and serious injury. Try cycling on one and you soon find out why, bad design, bad surface and zero priority at junctions. What is really needed is better standards by both cyclists and motorists, backed up by improved laws. We need to fill in the missing law of death by careless driving , and replace the d-b-dangerous driving with an upgraded offence. Steve Steve |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
In message , Steve Peake
writes Studies on the continent, MK, and the recent TFL study all found that off road cycle paths increase the risk of death and serious injury. Try cycling on one and you soon find out why, bad design, bad surface and zero priority at junctions. What is really needed is better standards by both cyclists and motorists, backed up by improved laws. We need to fill in the missing law of death by careless driving , and replace the d-b-dangerous driving with an upgraded offence. If this is true, it points directly to the lack of observation by cyclists, if the zero priority at junctions on cycle paths causes accidents. Maybe the motorist does come out in a much better light. -- Clive |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
elyob ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : So, going down this route would mean that cycles require an MOT. Is that a bad thing? I wouldn't be allowed to respray it Why not? and with 25 million bikes in the UK one hell of a headache. Remind me how many vehicles are on DVLA's books? |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:03:48 +0100, Clive wrote:
In message , Steve Peake writes Studies on the continent, MK, and the recent TFL study all found that off road cycle paths increase the risk of death and serious injury. Try cycling on one and you soon find out why, bad design, bad surface and zero priority at junctions. What is really needed is better standards by both cyclists and motorists, backed up by improved laws. We need to fill in the missing law of death by careless driving , and replace the d-b-dangerous driving with an upgraded offence. If this is true, it points directly to the lack of observation by cyclists, if the zero priority at junctions on cycle paths causes accidents. Maybe the motorist does come out in a much better light. No it points to terrible design. Take the A4, cycle lanes down both sides, but on light controlled junctions either one row of traffic or the other always has priority meaning that there is no safe way to cross over using the cycle path(psychopath), other then dismounting, walking down the side road, crossing over, walking back and re-mounting to use the path. Its no wonder that accidents happen when idiots design such crazy schemes. Steve |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
In message , Steve Peake
writes Take the A4, cycle lanes down both sides, but on light controlled junctions either one row of traffic or the other always has priority meaning that there is no safe way to cross over using the cycle path(psychopath), other then dismounting, walking down the side road, crossing over, walking back and re-mounting to use the path. Its no wonder that accidents happen when idiots design such crazy schemes. If car drivers get stopped by lights, traffic what ever they stop, why can't a cyclist get off and walk, if that's what's required of him. What is it with London cyclists, (I say that because I don't see the same stupid behaviour in the Lakes.) that they feel they must keep going, regardless, weaving in and out of traffic, riding on the pavement, going through red lights disregarding pedestrian crossings, even using dedicated pedestrian pavements, you'd think they haven't got a spare second to live and sod anyone that gets in their way. -- Clive |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
In article , Clive wrote:
In message , Steve Peake If car drivers get stopped by lights, traffic what ever they stop, why can't a cyclist get off and walk, if that's what's required of him. What is it with London cyclists, (I say that because I don't see the same stupid behaviour in the Lakes.) that they feel they must keep going, regardless, weaving in and out of traffic, riding on the pavement, going through red lights disregarding pedestrian crossings, even using dedicated pedestrian pavements, you'd think they haven't got a spare second to live and sod anyone that gets in their way. I think you have a high opinion of London car drivers if you think that they wouldn't do that if they could get away with it... Paul |
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
|
Inevitable Cycle Fiasco
In article , Clive wrote:
In message , writes I think you have a high opinion of London car drivers if you think that they wouldn't do that if they could get away with it... So your opinion of what you think car drivers might want to get away with, justifies stupid behaviour by the cyclist? Where did I say that? I was merely questioning your assumption that car drivers were somehow more law-abiding than cyclists. I don't think the form of transport makes any difference, it's the person that makes the difference. If that cyclist were in his car, he'd be driving while talking on his mobile, doing 50 in a 30 and jumping red lights... Paul |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk