in message , Neil Williams
') wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:31:28 +0100, Peter Amey
wrote:

Lanes, even shared use ones, might genuinely help a "little old lady"
potter to her local shop but they are no good for a 10 mile fast commute
to work. I suspect the latter group are disproportionately represented
in u.r.c

Quite probably. And is it not the former group who we want to
encourage to take up cycling as a means of transport rather than using
their cars?

My view is that sensibly-designed facilities should be built
(preferably in the kind of way the Dutch do where they are wide enough
and properly laid out - or in any new development things like the
Milton Keynes Redways which, like it or not, do result in quite a bit
of leisure cycling that you don't as much get elsewhere) but it should
remain optional to use them, as the former group will be more at home
on the road.

It's worth pointing out that, according to John Franklin who has studied
them extensively, substantially more dangerous for cyclists than the
Milton Keynes road network. See

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/redway.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html

Milton Keynes was a new town built on a greenfield site with provision of
cycle lanes as part of the original design. If it doesn't work there, it
isn't going to work an cities which have grown organically. A cycle
network separate from the roads is not generally possible.

Furthermore I'd argue very strongly that it's not desirable. The more
cyclists are persuaded not to use the roads, the more dangerous the roads
will be for cyclists. The way to make roads safer, as London has amply
demonstrated, is to get more cyclists on them, not get cyclists off them.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.