Ouch @ Feltham

"nully" a écrit:

The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln
city. Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to
mark the boundary between the two. Since the main carraigeway is
interrupted for junctions which are all traffic lighted, even the ones
that are only on one side, it stands to reason that the cyclepath must be
faster - their 'road' doesn't have a traffic light where the junction only
serves the other side of the road, if you see what I mean. Its perhaps 3
miles long, and the cyclepath runs the complete length of it. It has no
'obscure' junctions or tight turns, but most cyclists use the main
carraigeway - 30mph near junctions, but 40 and 50 elsewhere.

It's not generally safe to ride much above 10mph when pedestrians are
present: even when theoretically separated by a white line, they can change
direction quickly. That immediately places a constraint on cyclists using
the path.

There are many examples along the length of the road where a cyclist on the
path will have to give way to a turning vehicle from the road, while a
cyclist on the road could continue unaffected.

The junction treatments here are horrible:

http://maps.google.fr/maps?hl=fr&saf...07349&t=k&z=17

Far easier and safer to merge with traffic on the road at the approach to
the roundabout.

There are sections to the south where it doesn't look as though using the
path would be a great inconvenience, but the road is broad and straight, and
passing opportunities don't appear to be few. I find it hard to believe that
cyclists in single file would present an inconvenience to motorists using
the road.

Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the
cyclists, although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone
who said it was. But it is certainly no *less* selfish than car
drivers who fail to afford cyclists reasonable care.

Of course it is. The duty to avoid injury to a third party is paramount. The
duty to avoid inconvenience to a third party by inconveniencing onself is at
best debatable.

Cyclists (at least seem to) regularly chastise motorists for not seeing
them or cutting them up or whatever, and
often that criticism is justified. But (where a cycle path
exists) the cyclist seems to be the master of his own
misfortune - he has the opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose not to
for the sake of convenience.

Cycle paths commonly multiply points of conflict.

Put it this way - would cyclists have any sympathy for car
drivers who campaigned against articulated trucks simply
on the premise that the car was more vulnerable than the
truck?

Or put it this way: would motorists have any sympathy for lorry drivers who
believe that private car traffic should be relegated to a slower, less
convenient secondary network *for its own safety*?

James Thomson

"nully" writes:

The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln city.
Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to mark the
boundary between the two.

So it's a shared use path. Are you aware that nothing (either in law
or in custom) prevents pedestrians from using either side of it as
they see fit? If there are any users on foot, it is very unlikely in
practice to be faster than the road due to the necessity for riding
slowly to anticipate pedestrians doing odd things.

Would you rather drive a car on the road or on the pavement?

Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But it
is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford cyclists
reasonable care.

Not meaning to have a go at you, but do you really mean that? An
inconsiderate cyclist may slow a motorist down slightly: a car driver
who fails to afford a cyclist reasonable care may leave him in a
hospital or a box. There seems to be a question of proportion there.

While there are a exceptions, generally segregated cycle paths are more
dangerous to cycle on than the roads, mainly because of dangerous
junctions and crossings with roads along the way.

Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, the same applies to car drivers. I can
think of many roads that would be far safer if they didn't have junctions
with other roads along them! Where a dangerous junction occurs, the
traveller is rightly expected to take extra care and attention, and if
necessary stop. Why should cyclists be 'immune' to that
responsibility?

Who said they should be? The question is not whether cyclists should
take due care on dangerous cycle facilities (of course they should,
when they use them) but whether cyclists should be made to use those
dangerous facilities when safer roads exist. You wouldn't drive
through a town if the bypass was better, would you?


-dan

"James Thomson" wrote in message
...
"nully" a écrit:

Okay, I accept that some may not be fit for purpose. I was actually
thinking of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide
enough for two cyclists alongside each other and still room for one
the other way, is pretty much arrow straight for the length of the road
(its certainly straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't *look* to
have any glass or hills on it.

Where cycle paths provide a benfit to the cyclist, cyclists will use them.
The law allows cyclists to judge for themselves.

But where the beneficiary of such lenient rules of the highway chooses to
exploit that leniency, motivated only by selfishness, it cant come as a
surprise when the law considers that removing said leniency might be a
positive move - hence the appearance of that ominous word 'mandatory' that
appears to have cropped up recently.

To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such
trouble with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish
comments as the one above.

If you'd spent any time reading this group, you'd be aware that this is a
bone of contention. Aggression from motorists who feel inconvenienced,
rightly or wrongly, by cyclists who choose not to use cycle paths is
common, and faux naiveté is a common trolling tactic.

Hell, I've nothing to hide. I'm a confirmed 'cager' (isn't that the phrase
of choice here?). I usually have a minimum of four cars, often six or more.
I do have a bike, a good one (I think) but I doubt I've done more than fifty
miles on it in the two years I've had it. I came across this group following
cross-posts to uk.transport, mostly those of Duhgtard. Okay, no 'hidden
agendas' there then.

I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite opinion from
a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five boys
aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am
most definitely thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.

The needs of adolescents don't always coincide with those of the
population at large.

Experienced cyclists often find that cycle paths are slower and less
convenient than roads, and increase the risk of collision by multiplying
the number of crossing points with roads, speed differential being a
lesser hazard than crossing trajectories without clear lines of sight.

The pedestrian precinct through the middle of Lincoln city is more
"convenient" than the roads which go round it, so should I be allowed to
drive along them? Of course not, which is why I'm confused by the argument
that the carraigeway is more convenient than a cyclepath.

judith wrote:

I was told that this group was well known for the "zealots and ****wits" it attracted

Ah, so you decided to join them.

On Aug 6, 11:21*am, judith wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:23:48 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall

wrote:
But don't get too close to the car in front before filtering, especially
if you're looking over your shoulder to check if there's a motorbike
coming down the outside.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20080805/

I've asked before - are you putting together a compilation of
appalling cyclists?

You seem to have many examples - keep it up.

Were you in a hurry - why not wait in the lane with the other
vehicles?

-- *
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Offence Wording:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) opened a door of a
vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), on a
road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..), so as to injure or
endanger a person.

Legislation
Contrary to regulation 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986, section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule
2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Notes
(i) Statement of Facts procedure applies - see end of document for
wording.
(ii) See also offence wordings: H2533 and H2534.
(iii) In the Statement of Facts detail may be given as to the
circumstances in which the danger arose or the injury was caused, e.g.
"Mrs Ann Smith, who was riding a bicycle alongside the defendant's
car."
(iv) Fixed penalty scheme may be applied

Powers Of Arrest
Arrest without warrant
Mode Of Trial
SUMMARY MINOR TRAFFIC
Time Limit For Prosecutions 6 months
Penalty Field
A fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale if in respect of
goods vehicle or vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers.

A fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale in any other
case.

Fixed penalty ticket - thirty pounds.

Time limit for prosecutions:
6 months

The law applies to everyone using the roads, not just drivers - it
doesn't need to say it applies to passengers, as it doesn't refer to
driving behaviour.

There is no offence of passing within range of extending car parts, so
the cyclist is not guilty of anything.

nully wrote:

White lines don't stop people walking on the cycling side.

Yeah, well, a curb doesn't stop them stepping in the road either! Of
course, YMMV

A curb doesn't stop them stepping off the road (and I ride further out into
the carriageway when there are people close to the edge of a payment), but
it does disuade them more so than a white line. That is what I see.

Parents also take less care with their young children on shared paths than
they do on pavements besides roads, letting them toddle about all over the
place - a natural thing to do in a park-like environment. I generally have
to ride more slowly on shared paths because of all this. It's something I
don't mind doing because I expect paths to be slow. Roads are usually
faster, in my experience.

....
No, I dont want cyclists off the road. Cross my heart, too. I *do*
want them to be safe, not least because its a hell of a lot of
paperwork if one of them is injured. On that basis, and that alone, I
think that where a cycle path exists it should be used. But that goes
with my understanding that the path is safer than the carraigeway, so
if thats an incorrect assumption lets look at that bit alone and
ignore tenuous motivational factors.

OK, thanks for making that plain. The safety issues will indeed continue to
be discussed on this thread.

~PB

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:11:25 +0200, "Pete Biggs"
wrote:

judith wrote:

Any chance of repeating any "anti-cycling" opinions I have made.
(PS You may not be able to find one. You may find ones where I have
criticised cyclists or come up with an alternative point of view -
that does not make me anti-cycling.)

Those interested in reading your **** can dig it up via Google Groups. I
remember that you lost control of yourself at a couple of points in "that"
thread and made your opinions quite obvious.

~PB



Excellent - you don't have any examples then.

You can always tell when someone is lying - when they accuse someone
of doing or saying something - but they cannot provide the evidence.
It really shows that they are the ****wit - rather than the accused.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:33:32 +0100, "nully" wrote:

snip

To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such trouble
with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish comments as the one
above. I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite opinion
from a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five boys aged
between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am most definitely
thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.


Unfortunately Nully, you are not allowed to post here if you criticise
a cyclist in any way whatsoever; the venom soon starts.



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

"nully" wrote in message
...

Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But it
is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford
cyclists reasonable care.

Would you care to revisit that statement? It looks pretty insane from here,
and I'm rather hoping you mean something else.

I'm *sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign which said something like
"cyclists dismount" and I cant see a distinction between a cyclist who
ignores that requirement and a car driver ignoring a red traffic light.

Highway code will help you here. "Cyclists Dismount" is a hint, not a law.

"Nigel Cliffe" wrote in message
...
nully wrote:
"elyob" wrote in message
...
Not sure where you seem to think that the 'end' is to seperate
traffic from each other.

Because, as I said before, the speeds of the two forms of transport
are disparate. It stands to reason that there is increased potential
for accidents where that condition occurs.

Not according to the accident data. The accidents happen at junctions and
other "conflict" points. They are rare along an ordinary plain road.


I do often ignore the segregated cycle paths as they often have bits
and pieces across them thrown up from the road. On a road [1] bike,
this is something we don't wish in our tyres.

Perhaps this is why this word 'mandatory' has suddenly occurred?

The word "mandatory" originated at the Department for Transport many many
years ago, and is explained in DfT official books including "know your
traffic signs". It describes lanes on the road where there is a mandate
(rule) applying to the lane. The rule is almost always a prohibition on
use of the lane by certain classes of vehicle (its usually done via a
Traffic Regulation Order). Typical rules would amount to "buses only",
"local buses only", "buses and taxis only", "buses, taxis and cycles
only", etc. In no case do the rules mean that a class of vehicle is
compelled to use the lane. The mandate (rule) applies to vehicles
prohibited from using the lane.


The recent fluff of crosspostings between uk.legal and uk.rec.cycling have
been caused by self-admitted troll "judith". Plus a person under the name
of Jethro who seems to refuse to accept the DfT definitions of mandatory
lanes.



I
dont know, but I would assume, that councils are a tad miffed that
they've spent lots of taxpayers money on providing cycle lanes and
then seeing cyclists ignore them because they apparently 'dont want
bits and pieces in their tyres'.

Councils get brownie points and central grants for providing a certain
amount of cycle "facilities". That those "facilities" are often
"farcilities" is not checked.


As a car driver, would you choose to use a road with a Give-Way sign every
seventy yards on a 1 mile journey when there is another road alongside
where the traffic moves at a steady pace ?

Obviously I would choose the route that offered me the most convenience and
safety. The railway goes *directly* through my town centre, but even were it
permitted to drive on it I think I'd rather take the meandering road
instead, because my safety would be compromised more than the gain in time.
If a cyclist wishes to exercise his right to use the main carraigeway rather
than the potentially slower cyclepath, he has made that choice and accepted
a higher degree of risk in exchange for the speedier journey. Fine, no
problems. Until the cyclist begins to bemoan his fate on the highway...

this is somehow a reason by which you [cyclists] should be permitted to
ignore
specialist carraigeways designed for your use?

Just as motor vehicle drivers are permitted to ignore the special
carriageways (motorways) designed for their use.

Why would a car driver ignore a motorway? Its faster, and the safest road
available. If a motorway goes where I want to go, I'll take it. And so will
99% of other motorists (I'm excepting the dizzy old bat who wont go on a
motorway in her Austin 1100 because "its too fast").

Please get used to the idea that roads are shared by people. Those people
want to get about. They use different vehicles. The vehicles travel at
different speeds.

Without a doubt. I dont have an issue with sharing the carraigeway with
anybody else who wants to use it, be it another car, a cyclist, or a bloody
horse. I *do* have an issue with more vulnerable road users who make a
concious choice to do so despite an alternative being offered, and who then
create a fuss that they are not being afforded due care.