|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
On 10 Feb, 10:47, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" wrote in ... "Doug" wrote "I think separating out cyclists can only be good for everyone..." Good for motorists he means. Just last week you were bellyaching when you were hit by a car. So why would separating cars and bicycles not be good for cyclists? As a cyclist and a driver, I think keeping powered vehicles and bikes separate from each other is a good thing, especially in heavy traffic where the alternative is a cycle lane painted on the left-hand side of the road which prevents cars taking up the correct left-hand position for turning left and allows bikes going straight on to overtake cars turning left. On a faster road, I am well aware that at 15 mph I will cause an obstruction to traffic that wants to go much faster: if there's a lot of oncoming traffic and/or the road is narrow and/or the vehicle wanting to overtake is a lorry or bus, they could be stuck behind me, so I always try to pull off the road into a gateway for a second if possible - I'm out for a leisurely pleasure ride and a delay of a few seconds to me is much better than delaying loads of other vehicles. The main problem with cycle tracks is that pedestrians don't respect them and will walk n-abreast across the whole width of the path (both on the pedestrians and cycle track part of the path) and get annoyed if a cyclist comes along. Mind you, I have that problem as a pedestrian: when there's only one of me and a group of people coming towards me, it's blindingly obvious that they should regroup to leave half the width of the path clear for me to pass them. I think I must be invisible ;-) Cycle provision as it stands is utter crap and there is no reason to suppose it will ever be anything else in a world dominated by the car culture. You mention cycle lanes, which are invariable invaded by drivers rendering them next to useless. Then there are ASLs which are also invaded by drivers and seldom policed. The proposed scheme is just another excuse to avoid making drivers drive more safely, which will fool most of the people most of the time but never all of the people. What is wrong with cyclists making traffic go slower and therefore safer? -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic". |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Doug wrote:
On 10 Feb, 10:47, "Mortimer" wrote: "Knight Of The Road" wrote in ... "Doug" wrote "I think separating out cyclists can only be good for everyone..." Good for motorists he means. Just last week you were bellyaching when you were hit by a car. So why would separating cars and bicycles not be good for cyclists? As a cyclist and a driver, I think keeping powered vehicles and bikes separate from each other is a good thing, especially in heavy traffic where the alternative is a cycle lane painted on the left-hand side of the road which prevents cars taking up the correct left-hand position for turning left and allows bikes going straight on to overtake cars turning left. On a faster road, I am well aware that at 15 mph I will cause an obstruction to traffic that wants to go much faster: if there's a lot of oncoming traffic and/or the road is narrow and/or the vehicle wanting to overtake is a lorry or bus, they could be stuck behind me, so I always try to pull off the road into a gateway for a second if possible - I'm out for a leisurely pleasure ride and a delay of a few seconds to me is much better than delaying loads of other vehicles. The main problem with cycle tracks is that pedestrians don't respect them and will walk n-abreast across the whole width of the path (both on the pedestrians and cycle track part of the path) and get annoyed if a cyclist comes along. Mind you, I have that problem as a pedestrian: when there's only one of me and a group of people coming towards me, it's blindingly obvious that they should regroup to leave half the width of the path clear for me to pass them. I think I must be invisible ;-) Cycle provision as it stands is utter crap and there is no reason to suppose it will ever be anything else in a world dominated by the car culture. You mention cycle lanes, which are invariable invaded by drivers rendering them next to useless. Then there are ASLs which are also invaded by drivers and seldom policed. The proposed scheme is just another excuse to avoid making drivers drive more safely, which will fool most of the people most of the time but never all of the people. What is wrong with cyclists making traffic go slower and therefore safer? Because slower is not necessarily safer. People driving slowly get bored and start turning their attention to other things than driving. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote: snip The proposed scheme is just another excuse to avoid making drivers drive more safely, which will fool most of the people most of the time but never all of the people. What is wrong with cyclists making traffic go slower and therefore safer? Because slower is not necessarily safer. People driving slowly get bored and start turning their attention to other things than driving. How often do I have to read this argument? The cyclists don't have a problem maintaining concentration at that speed so why should a motorist? Roger Thorpe |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Brimstone wrote: Doug wrote: snip The proposed scheme is just another excuse to avoid making drivers drive more safely, which will fool most of the people most of the time but never all of the people. What is wrong with cyclists making traffic go slower and therefore safer? Because slower is not necessarily safer. People driving slowly get bored and start turning their attention to other things than driving. How often do I have to read this argument? The cyclists don't have a problem maintaining concentration at that speed so why should a motorist? Because riding a bicycle is different from driving a car. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
There's no evidence that drivers are suddenly afflicted with
narcolepsy at low speeds, this is made-up safespeeding twaddle. Since we know that a thrid of accidents have speed as a factor and the accidents in Hull's 20mph zones have decreased by more than a third with no displacement it's clear brimstone's cutting and pasting from that lunatic website. Provide your evidence, prove me wrong. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Roger Thorpe said the following on 11/02/2008 12:12:
How often do I have to read this argument? The cyclists don't have a problem maintaining concentration at that speed so why should a motorist? Do you drive? -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Paul Boyd wrote:
Roger Thorpe said the following on 11/02/2008 12:12: How often do I have to read this argument? The cyclists don't have a problem maintaining concentration at that speed so why should a motorist? Do you drive? No. Roger Thorpe |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Brimstone wrote: Doug wrote: snip The proposed scheme is just another excuse to avoid making drivers drive more safely, which will fool most of the people most of the time but never all of the people. What is wrong with cyclists making traffic go slower and therefore safer? Because slower is not necessarily safer. People driving slowly get bored and start turning their attention to other things than driving. How often do I have to read this argument? The cyclists don't have a problem maintaining concentration at that speed so why should a motorist? Roger Thorpe Easy. You're comparing apples and oranges. A given speed does not feel the same on or in every sort of vehicle. I remember having an A30 van where 45mph felt (or perhaps sounded) as though you were shattering the land speed record. In my current car, that speed feels like nothing. On a bike, 20mph may give the rider the same sort of impression of progress as 50mph in a modern car. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
spindrift wrote:
There's no evidence that drivers are suddenly afflicted with narcolepsy at low speeds, this is made-up safespeeding twaddle. Since we know that a thrid of accidents have speed as a factor and the accidents in Hull's 20mph zones have decreased by more than a third with no displacement it's clear brimstone's cutting and pasting from that lunatic website. Provide your evidence, prove me wrong. Isn't it so true that a little learning so often makes the writer look pretentious? Take this case, where the PP (a Hyacinth Bucket or Hilda Baker clone obviously) was determined to get the word "narcolepsy" in depite its lack of relevance to what was being discussed. His total snipping of context didn't serve to cover that up - the correct context was "attention wandering", not "falling asleep". |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
And your evidence that drivers' attention wanders at lower speeds?
If this were true, how do you explain the much lower accident rates in 20mph zones, opposed by the dead Smith, remember: http://www.publications.parliament.u...57/557ap80.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Public information announcement for 'well equipped' cyclists in fog | Peter Fox | UK | 14 | January 1st 07 11:56 PM |
More Cyclists on the Roads | oilfreeandhappy | Marketplace | 0 | February 17th 06 01:10 AM |
Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads? | RipVanWinkle | UK | 1256 | June 4th 05 01:41 AM |
A public city bike hire scheme will be launched in Adelaide today | Marty | Australia | 0 | May 22nd 05 01:45 AM |
Cyclists driven from Peterborough roads | Tony W | UK | 7 | August 8th 03 05:36 PM |