|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is understandable. My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are banned from the road. So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? Steve |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
On 10/05/2008 15:17, Steve C said,
So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? OK - this is my own personal opinion and nothing more. I haven't been to Holland, so I can only go on what my brother has said - he lives there. However, it seems that there the cycling infrastructure is planned and much more of it is actually usable for its intended purpose. There is also a law that pretty much says that if a car driver hits a cyclist, it's the driver's fault (that is a gross simplification, by the way, but is the gist). Whether it's that, or the fact that the Dutch are generally a much more pleasant group of people (in my experience), but cyclists are not treated as a mobile obstacle to be shoved out of the way. The general standard of driving is also much better (according to my brother), without the aggression and impatience we get in many parts of the UK. In the UK, we get a token effort so that some civil servant can tick a box and say "x miles of cyclepath - done.". Whether or not the cyclepath is actually usable by those for whom it is intended is not a factor in the "design". Therefore there are very few that can be safely used. We also have on one hand cyclists being prosecuted for riding on the pavements, and on the other hand councils encouraging cyclists to ride on the pavements. Until cycling is seen as a realistic and practical means of transport and facilities instead of just a toy and not be considered seriously, and the facilities are given at least the same level of care and consideration as is given to motor vehicle facilities, then I will not use many cycle lanes. Having said all that, there are a good few useful cycle paths in Weston that are very usable, but there are also some bloody awful ones that I won't use for my own and for pedestrian's safety. Which idiot put a "cycle lane" on a pavement running in front of a bus stop???? -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C
said in : So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
I hope you'll forgive me for reposting my own message but I was feeling
lazy earlier and posted through Google groups. Didn't realise that my own usernet provider blocks Google groups by default... I really would like people's opinions on this and as I guess most people also block Google groups to avoid spam I'll risk your wrath and repost! I said before I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is understandable. My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are banned from the road. So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? Steve |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
Steve C wrote:
I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is understandable. My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are banned from the road. So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? Steve The problem in this country, as I see it, is that planners make two wrong assumptions when "designing" a traffic system: 1. The main aim of any such system is to get motor vehicles from point A to point B as rapidly as possible. 2. Cyclists are wheeled pedestrians. A possible third assumption is that: 3. Pedestrians can be ignored. My cycle computer tells me that I regularly reach speeds of 30+ mph (ok, only when going downhill, but it's still 30mph) and that I average 15mph over an undulating 11 mile commute. As a pedestrian, I am not sure that I would want _me_ cycling on the footpath. As a motorist I would imagine that (I do own a car, I just don't use it much) being overtaken regularly by the same ancient looking cyclist as I try to drive through town would be a bit depressing. From this I see the planning needs as: A. Keep cyclists away from pedestrians. B. Persuade motorists to cycle through town, it's quicker! C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all pedestrians at times and we do matter. Terry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:40:18 +0100, Terry Duckmanton
wrote: Steve C wrote: I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is understandable. My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are banned from the road. So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? Steve The problem in this country, as I see it, is that planners make two wrong assumptions when "designing" a traffic system: 1. The main aim of any such system is to get motor vehicles from point A to point B as rapidly as possible. 2. Cyclists are wheeled pedestrians. A possible third assumption is that: 3. Pedestrians can be ignored. My cycle computer tells me that I regularly reach speeds of 30+ mph (ok, only when going downhill, but it's still 30mph) and that I average 15mph over an undulating 11 mile commute. As a pedestrian, I am not sure that I would want _me_ cycling on the footpath. As a motorist I would imagine that (I do own a car, I just don't use it much) being overtaken regularly by the same ancient looking cyclist as I try to drive through town would be a bit depressing. From this I see the planning needs as: A. Keep cyclists away from pedestrians. B. Persuade motorists to cycle through town, it's quicker! C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all pedestrians at times and we do matter. I've seen a massive improvement in road crossings for pedestrians at junctions over the last ten years in London. Blanket crossings, clearly indicating pedestrian priority, are common alongside red routes and outside schools. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
On 10 May, 18:20, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C said in : So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. *Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound Typically selfish attitude- Chapman wants his own cake and will eat all himself- and sod everybody else |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
said in : Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user. Typically selfish attitude- Chapman wants his own cake and will eat all himself- and sod everybody else Typically fatuous riposte. Chapman is a driver, and is perfectly willing to be bound by that self-same law himself. The comment was mostly prompted by a discussion with the leader of my choir, JanJoost van Elburg, who noted that this law is responsible for an enormously more careful attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists by Dutch drivers. He is right, and it's been noted by many others, including John Adams. It is merely an expression of natural justice: the presumption that the burden of responsibility applies most to those who bring most danger. Bike v bike, bike v ped and ped v ped collisions have an extremely low fatality rate by comparison with car v bike and car v ped. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
Paul Boyd wrote: In the UK, we get a token effort so that some civil servant can tick a box and say "x miles of cyclepath - done.". I sometime look through Hansard, and I receive emails on key words, and MPs/Lords regularly ask "How many miles of cycle lanes/paths have been built in xxx since yyy". Whether or not the cyclepath is actually usable by those for whom it is intended is not a factor in the "design". Therefore there are very few that can be safely used We also have on one hand cyclists being prosecuted for riding on the pavements, and on the other hand councils encouraging cyclists to ride on the pavements. Yes, that really irks me. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Paths or Not?
Steve C writes:
So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for cycle paths? I suspect your confusion (if it is indeed confusion, and notr just a hook to hang a discussion off) arises from an assumption that the newgroup as a whole has a consensus opinion on either of these subjects. I think closer study would reveal that most of the people calling for Dutch style cycling infrastructure are by and large not the same people chanting "cyclists are traffic too". There is more than one constituency involved - average cycling speeds may vary between 8mph and 25-30mph depending on the cyclist and the circumstances, so trying to find a "one-size fits all" consensus is like trying to design a facility for motorbikes that's equally as advantageous for the 50cc scooter rider and the Hayabusa owner. First rule of internet forums: the apparent consensus of posters on any given thread is /not/ indicative of general consensus among all the posters across all threads. Most people would rather ignore a thread they don't agree strongly with than start an argument. Exceptions exists, of course. -dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycle paths or psyclepaths? | Tom Crispin | UK | 58 | April 13th 08 12:22 PM |
cycle paths on BBC1 now | John | UK | 0 | March 29th 06 08:19 AM |
Unite Against Cycle Paths! | Steve McGinty | UK | 8 | August 15th 04 10:12 PM |
Cycle paths in Perth | Joop | Australia | 7 | March 29th 04 07:38 AM |
"cycle paths are dangerous" | IanB | UK | 36 | August 12th 03 04:00 PM |