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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

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

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.

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".

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