Do You Ever Not Use Cycle Paths Just to Obstruct Motorists?

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:44:13 -0000, Guy Cuthbertson
wrote:

We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?

You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?

Let me ask a question. Do you ever ask a question on this NG that you
really want to know the answer to, or is it always just to start a
fight?

wrote:

On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?

You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?

The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:

"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.

--
Simon Mason

yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.

thats not to say there aren't ones i'll use, such as the one down
hampton court road to kingston which is fine.

it is slower surface but inspite of being a shared footpath very rare to
see any one walking, and it has no turning into it so safe.

plus if the road backs up as it does. you can roll quicker past the cars
on the path than filtering past on the road safely.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 12 Jan, 11:54, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? *Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?

You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?

The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:

*"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.

--
Simon Mason

yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.

Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice as
outlined he

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/c.../culture-clash

"Nonetheless, Morgan J convicted Cadden on the basis that it was
inconsiderate to ride on the road at all, rather than on a separate
cycle path. The Department of Transport advises: “As a general rule,
if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18mph/30kph, then you
should be riding on the road.”

The conviction was overturned on appeal, but there remains a striking
contrast between the police, prosecution and judicial time and effort
directed towards the harmless Mr Cadden and that directed towards
motorists who have run down cyclists."

--
Simon Mason

"Peter Grange" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:44:13 -0000, Guy Cuthbertson
wrote:

We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?

You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?

Let me ask a question. Do you ever ask a question on this NG that you
really want to know the answer to, or is it always just to start a
fight?

Fight! Gwaarn...

wrote:
On 12 Jan, 11:54, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
--
Simon Mason
yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.

Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice...

I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
advice then.

I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
item to add to the urc list of urban myths.

--
Matt B

Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?

You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?


Who needs loads more off-shore windfarms when we have the ever-present
incandescent rage of the Nuxx puppet to be tapped?
If more power is required just show him a picture of a bike or (better
still) a picture of a cyclist going past a speed camera and a decent
head of steam is reached almost immediately (once the coughing and
spluttering stage is passed)


--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On 12 Jan, 12:57, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Jan, 11:54, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? *Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
*"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
--
Simon Mason
yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.

Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice...

I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
advice then.

I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
item to add to the urc list of urban myths.

LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
Cyclists.
Published in 2004.
Archived in Jun 09.

http://qurl.com/hwbny

--
Simon Mason

wrote:
On 12 Jan, 12:57, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Jan, 11:54, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
--
Simon Mason
yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.
Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice...
I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
advice then.

I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
item to add to the urc list of urban myths.

LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
Cyclists.
Published in 2004.
Archived in Jun 09.

http://qurl.com/hwbny

Published as part of a _consultation_ though, and rejected.

It was published with "LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for
Pedestrians and Cyclists" which was intended to replace "LTN 2/86 Shared
Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians". The latter though is still current,
"LTN 2/04..." never saw the light of day. It was archived, as you say.

Time to stop quoting it then, eh?

--
Matt B

On 12 Jan, 13:24, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Jan, 12:57, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Jan, 11:54, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? *Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
*"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
--
Simon Mason
yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.
Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice...
I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
advice then.

I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
item to add to the urc list of urban myths.

LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
Cyclists.
Published in 2004.
Archived in Jun 09.

http://qurl.com/hwbny

Published as part of a _consultation_ though, and rejected.

It was published with "LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for
Pedestrians and Cyclists" which was intended to replace "LTN 2/86 Shared
Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians". *The latter though is still current,
"LTN 2/04..." never saw the light of day. *It was archived, as you say.

Time to stop quoting it then, eh?

--
Matt B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not at all - it would seem to fit in with the current HC rule 61:

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is
unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is *not compulsory* and will
depend on your *experience and skills*, but they can make your journey
safer.

And if legal firms are still quoting it, all the better!

--
Simon Mason

wrote:
On 12 Jan, 13:24, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Jan, 12:57, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 12 Jan, 11:54, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan, 23:44, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
We all know it goes on, but is anyone going to be man enough to own up
to it? Does anyone here ever avoid using a perfectly good and
accessible cycle path when cycling, partly or wholly because they want
to reduce the width of the road for motorists (perhaps because they
dislike cars and want to make the driving experience less pleasant)?
You've done that at least once, haven't you carburner?
The current Dept for Transport guidelines state:
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop
in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in
excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
Since I ride at speeds of over 18 mph, I tend to follow their advice.
--
Simon Mason
yup thats normally my reason, the other being that at the moment they
are covered in ice, when the road is clear.
Luckily, some law firms are using the Dept for Transport's advice...
I take it that you can't find where they actually publish that "current"
advice then.
I wonder if it /was/ ever published - and that that is not just another
item to add to the urc list of urban myths.
LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
Cyclists.
Published in 2004.
Archived in Jun 09.
http://qurl.com/hwbny
Published as part of a _consultation_ though, and rejected.

It was published with "LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for
Pedestrians and Cyclists" which was intended to replace "LTN 2/86 Shared
Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians". The latter though is still current,
"LTN 2/04..." never saw the light of day. It was archived, as you say.

Time to stop quoting it then, eh?

Not at all - it would seem to fit in with the current HC rule 61:

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is
unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is *not compulsory* and will
depend on your *experience and skills*, but they can make your journey
safer.

And if legal firms are still quoting it, all the better!

To quote that paragraph though as "The current Dept for Transport
guidelines state:" though was, at best, mistaken. To quote it again as
such, now that you know its provenance would, wouldn't you agree, be
dishonest?

--
Matt B