Do You Ever Not Use Cycle Paths Just to Obstruct Motorists?
Guy Cuthbertson
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
mileburner
"Guy Cuthbertson" <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.25b5c8231...@news.zen.co.uk...
Not that I recall.
I have used some cycle paths, but I will only use them on the MTB, as the
road bike and the hybrid are too fast for them and the wheels don't handle
the holes, bumps, kerbs, etc.
Shared use pedestrian/cycle paths are simply too dangerous at any speed more
than walking pace.
20mph+ is better on the road.
Doug
expense of pedestrians. If there were cyclists only paths, devoid of
pedestrians, I might use them but I don't see how that could be
enforced. So, I will continue to exercise my right to use a public
road as much as possible, particularly as it usually provides the,
shortest, fastest and smoothest route, if not the safest or quietest.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Jim A
> We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
> to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
> to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
> dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
I haven't, Guy, but if I knew for sure it was you I would delight in
doing so.
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Light of Aria
"Guy Cuthbertson" <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.25b5c8231...@news.zen.co.uk...
Never. I am an occasional motorist as well as daily cyclist. Why would I
possibly do something that as a motorist I would not like. Do unto others as
you would have them do to you.
Squashme
Golden (you know what I mean).
Sorry, strange friskiness this morning. I'll go out.
Happi Monday
I never us cycle lanes that are shared with pedestrians as I think they
are extremely dangerous (for pedestrians and cyclists).
Those painted on the roads I always use, except when they are covered
with glass and other sh*t.
I think that my usage would represent those of the vast majority of
cyclists - unfortunately, there are a few nut-case psycholists out there
like Doug, whose habits make life much more dangerous for all other
cyclists.
Mas...@bp.com
The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
“Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.”
Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
> On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote:
>> We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
>> to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
>> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
>> to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
>> dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
>>
>> You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
>
> The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
>
> in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
Where have they published that guideline? What other advice does it
contain?
--
Matt B
mileburner
So do I. The problem with on road cycle lanes is that generally, they are
too close to the kerb to be safe to use and too narrow anyway. If a cyclist
uses them, they are likely to be gutter hugging and inviting drivers to pass
too close. I tend to ride on the road just outside of the lane which means
that drivers cannot whizz by without considering their overtake. Some
drivers do not like this, presumably its because they are too thick to
understand why it is necessary.
Peter Grange
Let me ask a question. Do you ever ask a question on this NG that you
really want to know the answer to, or is it always just to start a
fight?
Roger Merriman
yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.
thats not to say there aren't ones i'll use, such as the one down
hampton court road to kingston which is fine.
it is slower surface but inspite of being a shared footpath very rare to
see any one walking, and it has no turning into it so safe.
plus if the road backs up as it does. you can roll quicker past the cars
on the path than filtering past on the road safely.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Mas...@bp.com
> Mas...@BP.com <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
> > On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote:
> > > We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
> > > to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
> > > accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
> > > to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
> > > dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
>
> > > You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
>
> > The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
>
> > "Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
> > in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
> > excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
>
> > Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
> are covered in ice, when the road is clear.
Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice as
outlined here:
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/culture-clash
"Nonetheless, Morgan J convicted Cadden on the basis that it was
inconsiderate to ride on the road at all, rather than on a separate
cycle path. The Department of Transport advises: “As a general rule,
if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18mph/30kph, then you
should be riding on the road.”
The conviction was overturned on appeal, but there remains a striking
contrast between the police, prosecution and judicial time and effort
directed towards the harmless Mr Cadden and that directed towards
motorists who have run down cyclists."
--
Simon Mason
mileburner
"Peter Grange" <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blook5h6it09ock0e...@4ax.com...
Fight! Gwaarn...
Matt B
> On 12 Jan, 11:54, N...@sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>> Mas...@BP.com <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote:
>>>> We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
>>>> to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
>>>> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
>>>> to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
>>>> dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
>>>> You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
>>> The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
>>> "Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
>>> in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
>>> excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
>>> Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>> yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
>> are covered in ice, when the road is clear.
>
I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
advice then.
I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
item to add to the urc list of urban myths.
--
Matt B
Keitht
Who needs loads more off-shore windfarms when we have the ever-present
incandescent rage of the Nuxx puppet to be tapped?
If more power is required just show him a picture of a bike or (better
still) a picture of a cyclist going past a speed camera and a decent
head of steam is reached almost immediately (once the coughing and
spluttering stage is passed)
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Mas...@bp.com
LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
Cyclists.
Published in 2004.
Archived in Jun 09.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
Published as part of a _consultation_ though, and rejected.
It was published with "LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for
Pedestrians and Cyclists" which was intended to replace "LTN 2/86 Shared
Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians". The latter though is still current,
"LTN 2/04..." never saw the light of day. It was archived, as you say.
Time to stop quoting it then, eh?
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not at all - it would seem to fit in with the current HC rule 61:
61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is
unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is *not compulsory* and will
depend on your *experience and skills*, but they can make your journey
safer.
And if legal firms are still quoting it, all the better!
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
>
> 61
> Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop
> lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is
> unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is *not compulsory* and will
> depend on your *experience and skills*, but they can make your journey
> safer.
>
> And if legal firms are still quoting it, all the better!
To quote that paragraph though as "The current Dept for Transport
guidelines state:" though was, at best, mistaken. To quote it again as
such, now that you know its provenance would, wouldn't you agree, be
dishonest?
--
Matt B
Doug
useless.
--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
d...@telent.net
> To quote that paragraph though as "The current Dept for Transport
> guidelines state:" though was, at best, mistaken. To quote it again
> as such, now that you know its provenance would, wouldn't you agree,
> be dishonest?
LTN 2/08 DfT guidelines for Cycle Infrastructure Design, which as far as
I know is still current, says :
1.3.2 The road network is the most basic (and important) cycling
facility available, and the preferred way of providing for
cyclists is to create conditions on the carriageway where cyclists
are content to use it, particularly in urban areas.
It would be curious if the DfT advice to cyclists were that they should
use off-road facilities even where they are happy on the carriageway,
given that it is advising transport planners to construct carriageways
that cyclists should be happy on
-dan
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
This from a man who said:
"I wonder if it /was/ ever published"
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
The point that I'm making is about misinformation. The assertion that
Simon made was incorrect. I wasn't commenting on, or inferring anything
about, DfT advice on use of the road.
My personal view on these things is clear and has always been consistent
- the public roads should always be available equally and equitably to
road users of all modes.
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
Highway Code rule 61 states that they are not compulsory anyway, so in
that regard, what the DfT published does not really matter. It was
interesting however, to see that they attributed a riding speed of 18
mph as the maximum where a shared used path was suitable, whereas the
HC only mentions cyclists having "experience and skills" as perhaps
not wanting to use shared paths.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
>
> "I wonder if it /was/ ever published"
Yes, in the context of my previous sentence talking about "current"
advice. Which it now transpires it was not and is not.
So would you now accept that it was never published as anything other
than a draft for consultation purposes, and that it (your quoted
sentence) is certainly not, and never was part of "current Dept for
Transport guidelines".
--
Matt B
Squashme
Thanks for the article. Good description of car culture:-
The convenience of the car over the last century has led to the
development of a culture which largely exempts motoring from the
strict regulation of other areas of life in which poor practice costs
lives.
The main tenets of this car culture can be summarised as follows:
(i) The attrition is a price worth paying in return for individual
autonomy and convenience.
(ii) Every physically competent adult has a right to drive, removable
only as a punishment for serious or repeated criminal offending and,
even then, only temporarily.
(iii) Conduct regarded as dangerous in other walks of life is, in a
motorist, merely careless, and that which would otherwise be careless
is excusable.
(iv) Road safety efforts focus upon segregating the vulnerable road
user from motorised traffic (at the expense of the safe sharing of
road space) and upon encouraging personal protection as second line
prevention.
(v) The harmful potential of a fast motor vehicle is not distinguished
from that of a bicycle, notwithstanding the laws of physics.
Mas...@bp.com
You challenged the notion that it was ever published at all.
The definition of "to publish" is to "make public" or to put into the
public domain.
Since it was on the DfT's website for 5 years or so and legal teams
are using it and you and I are talking about it, then it quite clearly
*was* published.
--
Simon Mason
d...@telent.net
> Highway Code rule 61 states that [cycle paths] are not compulsory anyway, so in
> that regard, what the DfT published does not really matter. It was
> interesting however, to see that they attributed a riding speed of 18
> mph as the maximum where a shared used path was suitable, whereas the
> HC only mentions cyclists having "experience and skills" as perhaps
> not wanting to use shared paths.
If you look at LTN 2/08 you will find that it goes into some detail
about the design speed of cycle paths: recommending 12mph for "link"
paths and 20mph for "commuter" paths - this design speed includes a
safety margin as most users are expected to average 12-20.
It would be quite surprising, therefore, if any guidance from the DfT to
riders would advise them to use off-road facilities at higher speeds
than they're actually designed for: not least because it would probably
get them sued if someone did so and came off. So the "archival" status
of the code of conduct in 2/04 is really not that relevant except to
people who want to argue for the sake of it.
-dan
Matt B
A simple question for you Simon...
Do you now believe that the paragraph that you quoted was /ever/ part of
the official DfT guidelines for cyclists?
--
Matt B
Matt B
> "Mas...@BP.com" <Mas...@BP.com> writes:
>
>> Highway Code rule 61 states that [cycle paths] are not compulsory anyway, so in
>> that regard, what the DfT published does not really matter. It was
>> interesting however, to see that they attributed a riding speed of 18
>> mph as the maximum where a shared used path was suitable, whereas the
>> HC only mentions cyclists having "experience and skills" as perhaps
>> not wanting to use shared paths.
>
> If you look at LTN 2/08 you will find that it goes into some detail
> about the design speed of cycle paths: recommending 12mph for "link"
> paths and 20mph for "commuter" paths - this design speed includes a
> safety margin as most users are expected to average 12-20.
>
> It would be quite surprising, therefore, if any guidance from the DfT to
> riders would advise them to use off-road facilities at higher speeds
> than they're actually designed for: not least because it would probably
> get them sued if someone did so and came off.
The question though isn't whether they would ever advise them to use the
facilities at higher speeds - as you are well aware.
The question is whether the paragraph that Simon quoted was /ever/ in
current DfT guidelines.
> So the "archival" status
> of the code of conduct in 2/04 is really not that relevant except to
> people who want to argue for the sake of it.
It's a matter of principle, and a matter of information honesty and
integrity.
Would you accept it if I dug out a rule from a consultation draft
version of the Highway Code, one that never got into any official
release, and claimed that it represented the current state as published
by the DfT?
--
Matt B
d...@telent.net
> The question though isn't whether they would ever advise them to use
> the facilities at higher speeds - as you are well aware.
>
> The question is whether the paragraph that Simon quoted was /ever/ in
> current DfT guidelines.
"The question" was not a question, it was an accusation. Don't pretend
it wasn't.
-dan
Matt B
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question>
*question* - noun
...
2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
...
4. a subject of dispute or controversy.
...
I was correct. Where does that leave you?
I have exposed another urban myth which has become part of the
established cycling arsenal; you should be congratulating me and
supporting me - not attempting to nullify or dilute my finding by the
use of a variety of fallacious arguments.
--
Matt B
bugbear
> A simple question for you Simon...
>
> Do you now believe that the paragraph that you quoted was /ever/ part of
> the official DfT guidelines for cyclists?
You have an amazing ability to use words, and yet
fail to communicate.
BugBear
d...@telent.net
> d...@telent.net wrote:
>> "The question" was not a question, it was an accusation. Don't pretend
>> it wasn't.
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question>
> *question* - noun
> ...
> 2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
> ...
> 4. a subject of dispute or controversy.
And here is your original post again:
| I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
| advice then.
That was an assertion. Its tone was accusatory
| I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
| item to add to the urc list of urban myths.
And that was a speculation. One that judith would have ben proud of.
> I have exposed another urban myth which has become part of the
> established cycling arsenal
Oh, bollocks have you. The DfT advise designers of roads that the
carriageway is the best place for bikes, and that off-road cycle
facilities need to cater to a maximum speed of 12mph or 20mph: whether
or not they also have a current document aimed at faster cyclists
advising them to cycle in the carriageway - well, what of it? It's
transparently obvious what their position is even without the "draft
code of conduct"
-dan
Matt B
> Matt B <matt....@nospam.london.com> writes:
>
>> d...@telent.net wrote:
>>> "The question" was not a question, it was an accusation. Don't pretend
>>> it wasn't.
>> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question>
>> *question* - noun
>> ...
>> 2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
>> ...
>> 4. a subject of dispute or controversy.
>
> And here is your original post again:
> | I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
> | advice then.
No it isn't.
Here is _all_ of my _original_ post (made at 11:33):
"Where have they published that guideline? What other advice does it
contain?"
Then Simon made a post which contained another reference to the
offending paragraph, obviously found whilst looking for a source. Your
snippet above is from my reply to that post.
> That was an assertion. Its tone was accusatory
I was waiting for his source.
> | I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
> | item to add to the urc list of urban myths.
>
> And that was a speculation. One that judith would have ben proud of.
The evasion, and elapsed time since my original question (now 12:57) had
made me suspicious. I attempted to provoke an answer reply - one way or
the other.
>> I have exposed another urban myth which has become part of the
>> established cycling arsenal
>
> Oh, bollocks have you.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/urban+myth>
*urban myth* - noun
a modern story of obscure origin and with little or no supporting
evidence that spreads spontaneously in varying forms and often has
elements of humor, moralizing, or horror:...
A classic case, if ever there was one!
> The DfT advise designers of roads that the
> carriageway is the best place for bikes, and that off-road cycle
> facilities need to cater to a maximum speed of 12mph or 20mph: whether
> or not they also have a current document aimed at faster cyclists
> advising them to cycle in the carriageway - well, what of it? It's
> transparently obvious what their position is even without the "draft
> code of conduct"
Your between-the-line constructions are neither here nor there though.
The question is whether the paragraph that Simon quoted was /ever/ in
current DfT guidelines - and apparently it wasn't.
--
Matt B
d...@telent.net
> Here is _all_ of my _original_ post (made at 11:33):
>
> "Where have they published that guideline? What other advice does it
> contain?"
"On their web site", we now know.
> Then Simon made a post which contained another reference to the
> offending paragraph, obviously found whilst looking for a source.
> Your snippet above is from my reply to that post.
>
>> That was an assertion. Its tone was accusatory
>
> I was waiting for his source.
Ah, right. If someone doesn't respond obligingly with sources within an
hour of your asking them, it's OK to accuse them of lying is it?
-dan
Matt B
> Matt B <matt....@nospam.london.com> writes:
>
>> Here is _all_ of my _original_ post (made at 11:33):
>>
>> "Where have they published that guideline? What other advice does it
>> contain?"
>
> "On their web site", we now know.
No, we now know that apparently it was never released - only the
consultation draft was published which can hardly be described as
current DfT guidelines now can it.
>> Then Simon made a post which contained another reference to the
>> offending paragraph, obviously found whilst looking for a source.
>> Your snippet above is from my reply to that post.
>>
>>> That was an assertion. Its tone was accusatory
>> I was waiting for his source.
>
> Ah, right. If someone doesn't respond obligingly with sources within an
> hour of your asking them, it's OK to accuse them of lying is it?
Certainly not, and I wouldn't dream of it.
Nice snipping, and evasion of the substantive points btw.
--
Matt B
mileburner
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:nIqdnaYjOPPKBtHW...@brightview.co.uk...
<rolls eyes>
Regardless of whether this is DfT made up shit, it sounds very sensible
advice:
The Medway Handyman
Why would that bother Simple Simon?
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
d...@telent.net
>> Ah, right. If someone doesn't respond obligingly with sources within an
>> hour of your asking them, it's OK to accuse them of lying is it?
>
> Certainly not, and I wouldn't dream of it.
Are you really trying to pretend there was no implied criticism of Simon
in your second post?
> Nice snipping, and evasion of the substantive points btw.
You have no substantive point. Simon has stated his reasons for using
roads instead of cycle tracks, they are in accordance with recommended
DfT practice, all you're trying to do is wriggle on a technicality.
If the current policy had *changed* since the draft LTN 2/04 then you'd
have a substantive point. But it hasn't changed in any relevant way,
and so you don't. And that's the end of the matter as far as I'm
concerned.
-dan
Jim A
> If you look at LTN 2/08 you will find that it goes into some detail
> about the design speed of cycle paths: recommending 12mph for "link"
> paths and 20mph for "commuter" paths - this design speed includes a
> safety margin as most users are expected to average 12-20.
I average about 11.
Except at the moment with all this snow about it's more like 7 or so.
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Tom Crispin
<matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
>>
>> �Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
>> in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
>> excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.�
>
>Where have they published that guideline?
Austrailia.
>What other advice does it
>contain?
Wear a helmet.
But I guess you knew that...
www.austroads.com.au/documents/08_Education_and_Awareness.pdf
Matt B
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:33:04 +0000, Matt B
> <matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>> The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
>>>
>>> in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
>>
>> Where have they published that guideline?
>
> Austrailia.
>
>> What other advice does it
>> contain?
>
> Wear a helmet.
>
> But I guess you knew that...
> www.austroads.com.au/documents/08_Education_and_Awareness.pdf
Yes Tom. But the "they" that I was referring to was our DfT, not the
association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic
authorities. And the "that guideline" that I was referring to was "the
current DfT guideline". But you knew that, didn't you.
Did you notice too, as I did when I found that this afternoon, that they
were careful in how they framed the wording, and didn't claim it to be
"The current Dept for Transport guidelines"?
--
Matt B
Matt B
> Matt B<matt....@nospam.london.com> writes:
>
>>> Ah, right. If someone doesn't respond obligingly with sources within an
>>> hour of your asking them, it's OK to accuse them of lying is it?
>>
>> Certainly not, and I wouldn't dream of it.
>
> Are you really trying to pretend there was no implied criticism of Simon
> in your second post?
No, not at all.
>> Nice snipping, and evasion of the substantive points btw.
>
> You have no substantive point.
The main ones being whether that widely quoted paragraph is from current
DfT guidelines, or whether that is an urban myth.
> Simon has stated his reasons for using
> roads instead of cycle tracks,
I've never questioned them. I did though ask for confirmation of one of
his claims.
> they are in accordance with recommended
> DfT practice,
Can you cite a DfT officially released (i.e. not a scrapped consultation
draft) and published source setting out that as recommended practice?
> all you're trying to do is wriggle on a technicality.
Wriggle on what technicality? The one where a scrapped consultation
draft has been quoted as a current guideline? This isn't the first time
it has been used either. I've exposed an urban myth. There is much
wriggling occurring somewhere, but not by me.
> If the current policy had *changed* since the draft LTN 2/04 then you'd
> have a substantive point.
I don't know whether it has changed, or not. But that wasn't the
question either.
> But it hasn't changed in any relevant way,
> and so you don't.
So you'll be able to cite where the released version is to be found then
- won't you?
--
Matt B
Happi Monday
> I'm surprised that nobody has seen fit to point out that the
> "perfectly good and accessible" cycle path so rare as to be almost
> myth, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
You clearly didn't read the answers.
Dave Larrington
Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
> to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
> dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
If I ever find a "perfectly good and accessible cycle path", I'll let you
know.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I'm just a primitive creature of the heath, so pardon my savage
ignorance.
The Medway Handyman
> On 12 Jan, 11:52, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote:
>>>> We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own
>>>> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they
>>>> want to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because
>>>> they dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less
>>>> pleasant)?
>>
>>
>>
>>> in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
>>
>>> Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their
>>> advice.
>>
>> they are too close to the kerb to be safe to use and too narrow
>> anyway. If a cyclist uses them, they are likely to be gutter hugging
>> and inviting drivers to pass too close. I tend to ride on the road
>> just outside of the lane which means that drivers cannot whizz by
>> without considering their overtake. Some drivers do not like this,
>> presumably its because they are too thick to understand why it is
>> necessary.
>>
> Also drivers often park in cycle lanes which can render the lanes
> useless.
But I though cyclists didn't want cycle lanes?
The Medway Handyman
> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>> On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote:
>>> We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own
>>> up to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
>>> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they
>>> want to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because
>>> they dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less
>>> pleasant)?
>>>
>>> You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
>>
>> The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
>>
>> �Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
>> in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
>> excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.�
>>
>> Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
>
> So do I. The problem with on road cycle lanes is that generally, they
> are too close to the kerb to be safe to use and too narrow anyway. If
> a cyclist uses them, they are likely to be gutter hugging and
> inviting drivers to pass too close. I tend to ride on the road just
> outside of the lane which means that drivers cannot whizz by without
> considering their overtake. Some drivers do not like this, presumably
> its because they are too thick to understand why it is necessary.
What a whinging git. You are given free cycle lanes at motorists expense
and you don't use them, instead you get in the way of tax paying motorists.
If you must ride childrens toys on the road, at least you could stay in your
little lanes & keep out of the way.
The Medway Handyman
> Keitht <KeithT> considered Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:06:04 +0000 the perfect
> time to write:
>
>> Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
>>> We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own
>>> up to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
>>> accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they
>>> want to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because
>>> they dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less
>>> pleasant)?
>>>
>>> You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
>>
> "perfectly good and accessible" cycle path so rare as to be almost
> myth, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
Since, as a sponging cyclist, you don't pay for cycle lanes you can't
really complain about them can you?
mileburner
"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:U_54n.26860$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Cycle lanes exist primerily to keep cyclists out of the way of other
traffic. Drivers who park in them render them useless whether cyclists want
them or not. I suspect some cyclists think that cycle lanes will make
drivers more courteous and their ride safer, but if drivers park in them the
whole issue becomes entirely irrellevant. I also suspect that drivers who
park in cycle lanes piss-off the other drivers who are delayed slightly by
having cyclists "in their way" and not cycling in the (otherwise occupied)
cycle lane.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>>
>> So do I. The problem with on road cycle lanes is that generally, they
>> are too close to the kerb to be safe to use and too narrow anyway. If
>> a cyclist uses them, they are likely to be gutter hugging and
>> inviting drivers to pass too close. I tend to ride on the road just
>> outside of the lane which means that drivers cannot whizz by without
>> considering their overtake. Some drivers do not like this, presumably
>> its because they are too thick to understand why it is necessary.
>
> What a whinging git. You are given free cycle lanes at motorists expense
> and you don't use them, instead you get in the way of tax paying
> motorists.
It's a safety issue.
> If you must ride childrens toys on the road, at least you could stay in
> your little lanes & keep out of the way.
The problem is that where there is a cycle lane used by cyclists, the
passing traffic is more likely to pass closer than if there is no cycle lane
at all. The most effective way to stop drivers passing too close is to ride
wider, further to the right so that they cannot squeeze by and have to wait
for a bigger gap to overtake properly.
This is what I meant by "too thick to understand why it is necessary".
HTH
mileburner
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>
>> I'm surprised that nobody has seen fit to point out that the
>> "perfectly good and accessible" cycle path so rare as to be almost
>> myth, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
>
>
> Since, as a sponging cyclist, you don't pay for cycle lanes you can't
> really complain about them can you?
Interesting that Mr Medway is coming around to realise that cycle lanes are
not built for, by, or even in the interests of cyclist.
They are instead selfishly given, to keep cyclists out of the way.
Unfortunately, they don't always work.
JNugent
> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:U_54n.26860$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 Jan, 11:52, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> So do I. The problem with on road cycle lanes is that generally,
>>>> they are too close to the kerb to be safe to use and too narrow
>>>> anyway. If a cyclist uses them, they are likely to be gutter hugging
>>>> and inviting drivers to pass too close. I tend to ride on the road
>>>> just outside of the lane which means that drivers cannot whizz by
>>>> without considering their overtake. Some drivers do not like this,
>>>> presumably its because they are too thick to understand why it is
>>>> necessary.
>>>>
>>> Also drivers often park in cycle lanes which can render the lanes
>>> useless.
>> But I though cyclists didn't want cycle lanes?
>
> Cycle lanes exist primerily to keep cyclists out of the way of other
> traffic. Drivers who park in them render them useless whether cyclists want
> them or not.
Not useless at all.
They're providing useful parking spaces.
And you inadvertently raise a very good point. On the main road between this
village and the nearest town, there are purported cycle lanes down each
nearside of the carriageway (fornmerly, there were four marked traffic lanes).
It is now impossible to (lawfully) park on that road except on an off-street
space. But if you are merely visiting, pulling into a private driveway is
very presumptious and may not be welcome.
Either the result wasn't thought through or the authorities expect parking in
the cycle lanes and take a sanguine view of it.
JNugent
> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> considered Sat, 16 Jan 2010
> 15:36:56 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:G864n.26879$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>> I'm surprised that nobody has seen fit to point out that the
>>>> "perfectly good and accessible" cycle path so rare as to be almost
>>>> myth, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
>>>
>>> Since, as a sponging cyclist, you don't pay for cycle lanes you can't
>>> really complain about them can you?
>> Interesting that Mr Medway is coming around to realise that cycle lanes are
>> not built for, by, or even in the interests of cyclist.
>
> When motorists pay their full share, he'll have an argument.
> Cycle lanes are a way of ensuring that at least get a small proportion
> of what they pay for through council tax, income tax, etc.
>> They are instead selfishly given, to keep cyclists out of the way.
>>
>> Unfortunately, they don't always work.
>>
> All roads should be run on a first come first served basis, with no
> passing unless there is an available additional lane in which to pass
> safely.
Oh don't be so stupid.
Doug
which is why they do not enforce the laws against inconsiderate
parking, it is obviously not a good idea to encourage car parking at
all as it merely increases the impact of the deleterious mass car
culture on society and the environment.
Cycle lanes are put there to wean cyclists from public road use. As
they cannot ban cyclists from public roads, yet, they must find ways
to prevent them obstructing privileged drivers. So first get cyclists
used to some form of segregation in the hope that they will eventually
go the whole way and start sharing with pedestrians instead.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
JNugent
Already had that - two lanes in each direction.
Bikes, milk-floats, the post-van, buses running slowly, etc, were all easily
overtaken.
JMS
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:I164n.26864$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> mileburner wrote:
>>>
>>> So do I. The problem with on road cycle lanes is that generally, they
>>> are too close to the kerb to be safe to use and too narrow anyway. If
>>> a cyclist uses them, they are likely to be gutter hugging and
>>> inviting drivers to pass too close. I tend to ride on the road just
>>> outside of the lane which means that drivers cannot whizz by without
>>> considering their overtake. Some drivers do not like this, presumably
>>> its because they are too thick to understand why it is necessary.
>>
>> What a whinging git. You are given free cycle lanes at motorists expense
>> and you don't use them, instead you get in the way of tax paying
>> motorists.
>
>It's a safety issue.
>
>> If you must ride childrens toys on the road, at least you could stay in
>> your little lanes & keep out of the way.
>
>The problem is that where there is a cycle lane used by cyclists, the
>passing traffic is more likely to pass closer than if there is no cycle lane
>at all.
Can you point out the peer reviewed research which confirms this?
An alternative view is that the further away from the curb you cycle,
then the closer the overtaking vehicles pass you. The closer the
overtaking vehicle is to you, then the more chance of you being
knocked off.
Therefore you are safer the nearer the curb you are - which will of
course include riding in the curb-side cycle lane.
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
mileburner
"JMS" <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote in message
news:40t8l5h9e8cijejkq...@4ax.com...
> An alternative view is that the further away from the curb you cycle,
> then the closer the overtaking vehicles pass you. The closer the
> overtaking vehicle is to you, then the more chance of you being
> knocked off.
While this stacks up logically, the further out you are, the less chance
there is of traffic overtaking when there is not really enough space to do
so safely. Riding further out forces the overtaking traffic to wait until
there *is* enough space (at which time the cyclist can pull over to the left
to allow even more space and to wave them past if necessary). If there is a
standard lane width available, and the cyclist is riding a 3rd of the way
into it, no other traffic *can* overtake (apart from other TWRUers).
> Therefore you are safer the nearer the curb you are - which will of
> course include riding in the curb-side cycle lane.
I have only been run off the road once. That was when I was riding on the
very edge because the road was narrow and I was being courteous to the
overtaking traffic. I learnt a lesson never to do that again.
Other times I have been passed too close (for my comfort) are when I was
riding too close to the kerb allowing traffic to pass when really they
shouldn't have.
Jim A
> An alternative view is that the further away from the curb you cycle,
> then the closer the overtaking vehicles pass you. The closer the
> overtaking vehicle is to you, then the more chance of you being
> knocked off.
JMS do you actually ride a bicycle? I see your logic, but in this
discussion there really is no substitute for real world experience.
> Therefore you are safer the nearer the curb you are - which will of
> course include riding in the curb-side cycle lane.
Most of the curb side cycle lanes around where I live are so narrow
they're full of debris and drain covers etc,. Only a complete numpty
would contemplate actually riding in them.
There are however a few completely off-road cycle paths which I do find
useful. A faster cyclist wouldn't because there are usually pedestrians
to slow down for.
JMS
You seem to have missed my request for the peer reviewed research
which supports your assertion; I guess you have none.
JMS
wrote:
I believe that there was research carried out which proved the points
I was making.
I cycle rarely these days - but my family do.
JMS
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
<snip>
>All roads should be run on a first come first served basis, with no
>passing unless there is an available additional lane in which to pass
>safely.
I really do love your little gems.
I believe that you had an accident when someone knocked you off your
bike and "disabled" you.
Did you bang your head in the fall?
mileburner
> You seem to have missed my request for the peer reviewed research
> which supports your assertion; I guess you have none.
Perhaps you could explain the point of "peer reviewed research".
Or you could just test out the theory for yourself.
But I guess you do not have a bike. Or if you do, you never ride it on the
roads.
<shrug>
--
NLF
Jim A
Given your insistence on citation of peer-reviewed research elsewhere in
this thread, such a vague expression of belief in the existence of some
research is hardly doing your argument or your credibility any favours.
> I cycle rarely these days - but my family do.
Good for them.
JMS
Thanks - so it was those firm basics of scientific proof : anecdotal
experience and I read it in the Daily Mail.
Why not ask someone who is educated of the benefits of peer -reviewing
: Round may have some views.
JMS
wrote:
>JMS wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:39:41 +0000, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> JMS wrote:
>>>> An alternative view is that the further away from the curb you cycle,
>>>> then the closer the overtaking vehicles pass you. The closer the
>>>> overtaking vehicle is to you, then the more chance of you being
>>>> knocked off.
>>> JMS do you actually ride a bicycle? I see your logic, but in this
>>> discussion there really is no substitute for real world experience.
>>>
>>>> Therefore you are safer the nearer the curb you are - which will of
>>>> course include riding in the curb-side cycle lane.
>>> Most of the curb side cycle lanes around where I live are so narrow
>>> they're full of debris and drain covers etc,. Only a complete numpty
>>> would contemplate actually riding in them.
>>>
>>> There are however a few completely off-road cycle paths which I do find
>>> useful. A faster cyclist wouldn't because there are usually pedestrians
>>> to slow down for.
>>
>>
>> I believe that there was research carried out which proved the points
>> I was making.
>
>Given your insistence on citation of peer-reviewed research elsewhere in
>this thread, such a vague expression of belief in the existence of some
>research is hardly doing your argument or your credibility any favours.
I am sorry - you only needed to ask if you find Google too difficult:
Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on
the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent
gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.
Jim A
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Black+is+White
Results 1 - 10 of about 487,000,000 for Black is White
Hmmm. Google is great for finding whatever you like to prove any point
you want, right or wrong.
> Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on
> the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent
> gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.
That's a US journal affiliated to an organization(sic) dedicated
entirely to motor vehicle crash injury prevention and control.
Pah!
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>> Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on
>> the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent
>> gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.
>
>That's a US journal affiliated to an organization(sic) dedicated
>entirely to motor vehicle crash injury prevention and control.
>
>Pah!
Accident Analysis & Prevention provides wide coverage of the general
areas relating to accidental injury and damage, including the
pre-injury and immediate post-injury phases. Published papers deal
with medical, legal, economic, educational, behavioral, theoretical or
empirical aspects of transportation accidents, as well as with
accidents at other sites. Selected topics within the scope of the
Journal may include: studies of human, environmental and vehicular
factors influencing the occurrence, type and severity of accidents and
injury; the design, implementation and evaluation of countermeasures;
biomechanics of impact and human tolerance limits to injury; modelling
and statistical analysis of accident data; policy, planning and
decision-making in safety.
Obviously not a suitable journal at all.
Jim A
> Obviously not a suitable journal at all.
Correct.
JMS
wrote:
>JMS wrote:
>
>> Obviously not a suitable journal at all.
>
>Correct.
Fell free to educate me - as to why that Journal is not suitable for
publishing that research.
Are you saying that the research is invalid because of where the
results were published?
Feel free to let your prejudices show.
(Is it the Journal you dislike - or the fact that they published
results which you don't like?)
Jim A
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:04:46 +0000, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> JMS wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously not a suitable journal at all.
>> Correct.
>
>
> Fell free to educate me - as to why that Journal is not suitable for
> publishing that research.
I already have.
> Are you saying that the research is invalid because of where the
> results were published?
I refer you to my earlier reply.
> Feel free to let your prejudices show.
Ok JMS. You're a troll.
> (Is it the Journal you dislike - or the fact that they published
> results which you don't like?)
I haven't read it. It's not for me to like or dislike it. It's simply
not in scope for this discussion and therefore irrelevant.
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>
>I haven't read it. It's not for me to like or dislike it. It's simply
>not in scope for this discussion and therefore irrelevant.
In summary - the research was valid research which was peer reviewed
in a neutral academic journal with no axe to grind.
You do not like the author's findings - therefore the fact that it
appeared in the particular journal invalidates the research.
So a research paper on the proximity of cyclists to motorists is "not
in scope for this discussion " - where the discussion is proximity of
cyclists to motorist.
Many thanks - I now understand your point of view.
Here's some of the conclusions for you as have not read it
"Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road he
was."
"The closer a driver is to the cyclist, the greater chance of a
collision."
ie Keep well in to the curb side.
Jim A
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:48:27 +0000, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I haven't read it. It's not for me to like or dislike it. It's simply
>> not in scope for this discussion and therefore irrelevant.
>
>
> In summary - the research was valid research which was peer reviewed
> in a neutral academic journal with no axe to grind.
An American journal - their road system, their vehicles (and their
drivers!) are hardly comparable to ours.
> You do not like the author's findings
Wrong. I neither know nor care what the author's findings were, they
are not relevant here in the UK.
> - therefore the fact that it
> appeared in the particular journal invalidates the research.
>
> So a research paper on the proximity of cyclists to motorists is "not
> in scope for this discussion " - where the discussion is proximity of
> cyclists to motorist.
This is _uk_.rec.cycling in case you hadn't noticed.
> Many thanks
You're welcome.
> - I now understand your point of view.
No you don't. If you did, you would agree with it.
> Here's some of the conclusions for you as have not read it
>
> "Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road he
> was."
>
> "The closer a driver is to the cyclist, the greater chance of a
> collision."
>
> ie Keep well in to the curb side.
>
When you get around to doing some cycling you do that if you wish, and
at your own risk. Here in the UK it's dangerous advice.
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride, and don't take JMS' advice!
Dave Larrington
Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
Perhaps you /should/ read it. While it may have been published in the US,
the data was collected by Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath and, as
this entry in Dr. Walker's blog attests:
http://bamboobadger.blogspot.com/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html
was done in the UK.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Although the hippopotamus hath no sting in its tail, the wise
man would rather be seated upon the back of a bee.
Peter Grange
wrote:
There is an overview avaiable at
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
which doesn't mention any increased likelihood of being hit. Maybe the
full text does.
The overview does, however, mention that motorists overtake closer if
the cyclist wears a helmet, yet you still seem to be in favour of
helmets. I read elswhere that Dr Walker was struck twice during his
research, both times whilst wearing a helmet.
Jim A
I'll give it a miss thanks.
Did you see that article in the news today about the explosive detector
developed in Sparkford near Wincanton? Lots of people bought that one too!
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>Wrong. I neither know nor care what the author's findings were, they
>are not relevant here in the UK.
Excellent - so research carried out by a UK University professional
on UK roads if not relevant to here in the UK.
I take it you are not actually part of academia - or have ever had
anything to do with it? Limited education perhaps?
>> So a research paper on the proximity of cyclists to motorists is "not
>> in scope for this discussion " - where the discussion is proximity of
>> cyclists to motorist.
>
>This is _uk_.rec.cycling in case you hadn't noticed.
I had noticed - are you trying to say something, perhaps make a point?
>> "Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road
he
>> was."
>>
>> "The closer a driver is to the cyclist, the greater chance of a
>> collision."
>>
>> ie Keep well in to the curb side.
>>
>
>When you get around to doing some cycling you do that if you wish, and
>at your own risk. Here in the UK it's dangerous advice.
OK - so the researcher was wrong.
What particular part of the research do you think was faulty?
Oh - sorry - I forgot - this UK research, on UK roads, with UK traffic
is not relevant in uk.rec.cycling.
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Jim A
Too late JMS. You're rumbled. You hadn't read it either.
JMS
wrote:
Wrong - given that I have posted direct quotes from it on a number of
occasions previously - how do you think I did that without reading it.
So now you know that it is directly relevant to UK cycling how are you
going to try and dismiss it now?
(I personally think that his research *is* crap. Many people hold it
up when talking about helmets - but then shy away when the conclusions
I have pointed out to you are quoted)
Jim A
Same as ever - I'm going to ignore it.
> (I personally think that his research *is* crap.
Glad that's settled then.
> Many people hold it
> up when talking about helmets - but then shy away when the conclusions
> I have pointed out to you are quoted)
I don't talk about helmets.