Where "facilities" end

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Ben C wrote:

altogether for the time being.
Another factor is how tight the roundabout is. On some the roads coming
in are too wide and the "hub" in the middle too small. This means cars
straight-line it and it's difficult to get in without feeling you're
going to get run over by traffic from the right that hasn't even entered
the roundabout yet.

Really you should only be worrying about the cars _on_ the roundabout
(otherwise it's a mini-roundabout, which only work if speeds are low).


A lot of the roundabouts in Milton Keynes are very fast to drive when
things are quiet -- very fast. They are big enough to stop
straight-lining but the approach and exit is wide allowing one to take
the roundabout without slowing down - just a wee twitch of the steering
wheel.
They also frequently have good lines of sight to spot anything about to
come on the roundabout from either side and a lot of the surrounding
vegetation is kept low.

I didn't design the things, just discovered this when I had to drive
round MK a few times. 'Blimey, there's a racing line and good vision.
nice one.' (not big or clever but great fun for the careful driver)

Yes, I quite like driving through MK. You can usually get into a bit of
a race with someone on a superbike. Better forget I said that.

Cyclists are easily spotted (especially the teenage ones).

Of course the absolute best solution to the roundabout problem, which
should be mentioned, is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.
No, the best solution would be bridges and/or tunnels for the vehicles
with engines .

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.
Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.
Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.
Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping.

Yo u get the energy back on the way down. I actually find them quite fun
to ride over, especially if there's a traffic jam on the road you're
crossing to say "so long suckers!" to.

1. you don't even at the best of times get all the energy back.
2. there is a high probability that the same "engineers" that forced the
cyclist to slog up the slope will put in something to slow down
"speeding " cyclists.

"Ben C" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.

Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.

Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the
weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.

Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping.

You get the energy back on the way down. I actually find them quite fun
to ride over, especially if there's a traffic jam on the road you're
crossing to say "so long suckers!" to.

Can you give examples? Coz every bike bridge I've ever met has also been
pedestrian, and hence not designed for speed. 30mph is easy from a bridge
big enough to go over a lorry.

Even bridges like eg Hills Road over the railway, where it is road over
railway, are definitely more of a slog than going along the flat - and you
can see by the way people slow down dramatically on them that simply
sprinting up isn't an option for the majority.

On 2009-09-29, Marc wrote:
Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.
Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.
Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.
Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping.

Yo u get the energy back on the way down. I actually find them quite fun
to ride over, especially if there's a traffic jam on the road you're
crossing to say "so long suckers!" to.

1. you don't even at the best of times get all the energy back.

Well you lose a bit of it to air resistance on the way down I suppose.
But I don't understand the objection to hills. I like riding up and down
hills.

2. there is a high probability that the same "engineers" that forced the
cyclist to slog up the slope will put in something to slow down
"speeding " cyclists.

They do sometimes put up annoying barriers and chicanery at the ends,
probably to stop motorbikes.

On 2009-09-29, Clive George wrote:
"Ben C" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.

Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.

Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the
weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.

Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping.

You get the energy back on the way down. I actually find them quite fun
to ride over, especially if there's a traffic jam on the road you're
crossing to say "so long suckers!" to.

Can you give examples? Coz every bike bridge I've ever met has also been
pedestrian, and hence not designed for speed. 30mph is easy from a bridge
big enough to go over a lorry.

There's one between Cambridge and Milton over the A14 that has a
separate pedestrian lane (with mysterious little speed-bumps on the
pedestrian bit). It's not that steep.

Even bridges like eg Hills Road over the railway, where it is road over
railway,

I quite like that one too, but don't really understand why they enclosed
it in plastic.

are definitely more of a slog than going along the flat - and you
can see by the way people slow down dramatically on them that simply
sprinting up isn't an option for the majority.

No need to sprint up, just use a low gear.

Graham Harrison wrote:

Going OT a bit I was sitting on Lawrence Hill station in Bristol
yesterday and just in my view was a bridge across which no cars passed
but lots of bikes. I'm guessing it was the Bristol/Bath bicycle
path. By coincidence I'd been listening to R4 earlier (1130?) and a
program about Bristol and its' cycling and whether the funding it
received to be a "cycling city" was being well spent. Some of the
comments in the early part of the program had been about how Bristol is
so hilly but watching the stream of bikes on that route (whatever it
was) made me think that hills are not necessarily that much of a barrier.

Mind you, it also made me think about segregated facilities. If it's
as well used as my (short) observation suggested then maybe some
(proper) segregation is the way to go.

Well yes if you have a handy abandoned railway track. Otherwise getting
a segregated route through an urban area will end up with messy
compromises. Come to think how many countryside routes even have been
built ab initio ? ( The Liebliche Tauberweg in Bavaria seems to be
partially converted railway)

Paul

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

Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.
Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.
Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.

Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping. Make
the cars either go through the holes in the ground of climb up and
over the bridge.


Actually underpasses are fine APART FROM urban areas where they do get
unpleasant. In the countryside they can be useful rain shelters.

Paul

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

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Marc wrote:
Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.
Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.
Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.
Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping.
Yo u get the energy back on the way down. I actually find them quite fun
to ride over, especially if there's a traffic jam on the road you're
crossing to say "so long suckers!" to.
1. you don't even at the best of times get all the energy back.

Well you lose a bit of it to air resistance on the way down I suppose.

More than a bit.
But I don't understand the objection to hills. I like riding up and down
hills.

You've just answered your own question and shown your lack of perspective.

2. there is a high probability that the same "engineers" that forced the
cyclist to slog up the slope will put in something to slow down
"speeding " cyclists.

They do sometimes put up annoying barriers and chicanery at the ends,
probably to stop motorbikes.

It doesn't matter what the excuse is, you used energy gaining height,
got some back losing height, and then threw the energy away as heat.

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Clive George wrote:
"Ben C" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:59 -0500, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:12:57 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

is bridges and/or tunnels for the bikes to get
around/across without going on the actual roundabout. You get those in
NL on the really big junctions.
Bridges and/or tunnels is not as good a solution. If there are to be
such things then they should be for motorists. Cyclists should be
the ones at ground level.
Why? Much easier to build a 4 metre wide bridge that supports the
weight
of bikes than a huge great car bridge.
Becasue tunnels are unpleasant and bridges are energy-sapping.
You get the energy back on the way down. I actually find them quite fun
to ride over, especially if there's a traffic jam on the road you're
crossing to say "so long suckers!" to.
Can you give examples? Coz every bike bridge I've ever met has also been
pedestrian, and hence not designed for speed. 30mph is easy from a bridge
big enough to go over a lorry.

There's one between Cambridge and Milton over the A14 that has a
separate pedestrian lane (with mysterious little speed-bumps on the
pedestrian bit). It's not that steep.

Even bridges like eg Hills Road over the railway, where it is road over
railway,

I quite like that one too, but don't really understand why they enclosed
it in plastic.


It's over a railway,it's a requirement of GWR/LNM/BR/Railtrak/whatever
they are called this week.

On 2009-09-29, Marc wrote:
Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-29, Clive George wrote:
[...]
Even bridges like eg Hills Road over the railway, where it is road over
railway,

I quite like that one too, but don't really understand why they enclosed
it in plastic.


It's over a railway,it's a requirement of GWR/LNM/BR/Railtrak/whatever
they are called this week.

In case you fall off the bridge, or throw things at the trains? Then
again both those things are bad to do on a motorway too.

They do have electric cables and stuff about the place I
suppose.