Colin McKenzie wrote:
Martin Underwood wrote:
wrote in message

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

Now that I would definitely support. For slow vehicles like bikes, the road,
with cars doing 30, 40, 50, 60 mph is not the best place. Sadly, give the
way that pedestrians have no "lane discipline" and no idea what's behind
them, the pavement is an even worse place.

And any off-road cycle path will be shared with pedestrians. And
almost certainly give way at all side roads, making it both slower and
more dangerous than the road.

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.

This could be achieved in most places by sacrificing a little pavement
width and some road width. In soem places a row of parking needs to be
sacrificed.

The cycle lane should be given the same priority over side roads as the
main road, subject to provisions being made for driver visibility.

(To use Tunbrisge Wells as an example, where the local authorities
would prefer a shoot to kill policy for cyclists, there is a major road
with 4,000 school children, and a dangerous cycle lane consisting of
sporadic white paint, followed by "please cycle in front of the bus".
The road is wide enough at almost every point for a dedicated cycle
path, but in some places parking would need to be removed. The parking
itself is a major cause of traffic congestion).

Key factors in safety and comfort of on-road cycling a
- speed difference (not absolute speed)
- space for overtaking

A speed difference up to 20mph is pretty safe. A road layout that
allows bikes to be overtaken with good clearance without the driver
changing lane is also safe, even with a greater speed difference.

Agree that people like Lance Armstrong are probably better off on the
road than on the cycle path.