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

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

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

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

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

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?
--
Clive

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:10:32 +0100, Clive
wrote:

What is it with London cyclists

I could be tempted to counter that with "what is it with London
*people*". I am rarely proven wrong in my observation that, the
further north you get, generally speaking, the more friendly, less
rushed and more pleasant people tend to be. Your observation about
the Lakes probably backs this up quite nicely.

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 Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:10:32 +0100, Clive
wrote:

What is it with London cyclists

I could be tempted to counter that with "what is it with London
*people*". I am rarely proven wrong in my observation that, the further
north you get, generally speaking, the more friendly, less rushed and
more pleasant people tend to be.

If that's true, then i suggest that the key bit is "less rushed" - if
they're less rushed, they're bound to be more relaxed, and so more
friendly and pleasant.

I will neither speculate nor comment on any possible connection between
this difference in degree of rushedness and the threefold difference in
GDP per capita [1] between London and the north.

tom

[1] http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/p...2005-EN-AP.PDF

--
The Impossible is True

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:33:04 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

If that's true, then i suggest that the key bit is "less rushed" - if
they're less rushed, they're bound to be more relaxed, and so more
friendly and pleasant.

Agreed.

I will neither speculate nor comment on any possible connection between
this difference in degree of rushedness and the threefold difference in
GDP per capita [1] between London and the north.

Most probably true, but money isn't everything. I would be
interesting to see how the comparison would work if compared between
similarly sized entities such as "the North" and "the South East", or
"Manchester and London", though - while I expect it to be the same way
round, I would not expect it to be as drastic.

I will have a nose at said link later to see if it has such stats...

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.