On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote:
Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and
Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the
road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the
road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too
narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on
the cycle lane inevitable.

If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only.
If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit.

Other sections of the route involve cycling along dual carriageways.
If the whole purpose of this scheme is to make cycling more
attractive, then I don’t quite see how this adds up.

Lane width could be redistributed, e.g. with a 4.5m nearside lane and 3.0m
outer lane, instead of 2 x 3.75. This sort of juggling is harder on single
carriageways.

Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets
and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I’m
surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and keeping
well clear of the quieter and safer options,

One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the
Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're commuting,
you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions, back-street
routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some direct off-road
routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for high-speed cycling is low.

However, I would be amazed if the necessary measures are taken to make the
superhighways good. In particular, the roads they use meet at major
junctions and gyratories. As we know from LCN+, there is precious little
political will to make these cycle-friendly - and it certainly couldn't be
done between now and May 2010. So I guess we'll get slow, tortuous
bypasses, which will outweigh directness elsewhere.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 04:15:51 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling *removed*]

OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite
realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind,
perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any
other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest
they also remove uk,rec.cycling too.

A similar post was made in uk.rec.cycling about Boris' super highways
about an hour before your post. Oddly it lacked the troll element.

Perhaps the problems lie in the crossposting.

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift

Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets
and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I'm
surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and
keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options,

One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the
Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're
commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few
exceptions, back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are
of course some direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their
capacity for high-speed cycling is low.

Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking
cars and people climbing in and out of them. Many back-street direct routes
have been scuppered for road traffic in various ways in recent decades and
have become decent cycle routes in the process: these could be joined
together to create proper fast safe relatively car-free routes across London
if there was the will to build numerous cycle tunnels or bridges over
railways, demolishing several houses in the process. A plan called "cycle
superhighways" only makes sense if the ride speed and safety are so high
that cyclists will go out of their way to use the highway rather than a more
direct route, in the way that car drivers will prefer a circuitous motorway
to a direct B-road. I'm not convinced this plan does that - if anything, it
makes it less likely that the bridges to join up the back street routes will
ever be built.

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote:
Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and
Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the
road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the
road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too
narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on
the cycle lane inevitable.

If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only.
If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit.

Other sections of the route involve cycling along dual carriageways.
If the whole purpose of this scheme is to make cycling more
attractive, then I don’t quite see how this adds up.

Lane width could be redistributed, e.g. with a 4.5m nearside lane and
3.0m outer lane, instead of 2 x 3.75. This sort of juggling is harder on
single carriageways.

Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets
and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I’m
surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and keeping
well clear of the quieter and safer options,

One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the
Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're
commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions,
back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some
direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for
high-speed cycling is low.

However, I would be amazed if the necessary measures are taken to make
the superhighways good. In particular, the roads they use meet at major
junctions and gyratories. As we know from LCN+, there is precious little
political will to make these cycle-friendly - and it certainly couldn't
be done between now and May 2010. So I guess we'll get slow, tortuous
bypasses, which will outweigh directness elsewhere.

Colin McKenzie


A very nice summary ; Colin McKenzie to be put in charge of implementing
the Superhighways NOW.

Paul

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

snip


Please keep up, thanks.

And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white
line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates
cycists from drivers.


Perhaps you should inform the DfT of their error:

When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for
cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.


Please keep up, thanks.

--
DfT Figures:
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:06:38 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote:

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.



Not true:

--
DfT Figures:
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote:
Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and
Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the
road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the
road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too
narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on
the cycle lane inevitable.

If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only.
If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit.

snip

Colin McKenzie



20mph on that road, that would be improvement on the usual speed.

--

Tony Dragon

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you
could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give
anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply
to your error

If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift.

sigh

*Plonk*



I don't see you complain when Chapman does it.

That's one of the things I like about urc : the double standards.


--
Someone calling himself Lou Knee made a post in urc
referring to another poster as "a piece of ****".
The post was made from an IP address which had been used in urc over the last 6 years
uniquely by Guy Chapman.
All available evidence points to Lou Knee being a nym shift of Guy Chapman.
A respected poster to URC, JNugent, has categorically asked Guy Chapman if he has ever posted using the name Lou Knee.
Guy Chapman has refused to answer this question.
Conclusion: Guy Chapman and Lou Knee are one and the same despicable person.

On 7 June, 14:10, Tony Dragon wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote:
Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and
Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the
road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the
road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too
narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on
the cycle lane inevitable.

If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only.
If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit.

snip

Colin McKenzie

20mph on that road, that would be improvement on the usual speed.

Except late at night or early morning when roads are clear and
speeding is commonplace and highly dangerous.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jun 7, 1:29 pm, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

snip

Please keep up, thanks.

And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white
line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates
cycists from drivers.

Perhaps you should inform the DfT of their error:

When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for
cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.

Please keep up, thanks.

--
DfT Figures:
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

The conversation was about the white lane segregating cyclists from
cars, not cyclists from pedestrians. Please keep up! But of course you
have your own agenda, as ever.