Why we need bike paths.

Mastuna wrote:
I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.

"They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.

The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.

No to me, they're not. *I* don't want to be banned from cycling on the
roads. The more cycle paths there are, the more likely that is.

This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
get people to cycle. All else is secondary.

You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
*perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
other) disadvantages they may have.

Very alturistic, but it's not the only way to be. Making the roads seem
safer would also encourage more people to cycle.

And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
spew out.

That's all very well where there is room for wide paths, and if ever there
is the will and skill to make them truly good. Dream on.

~PB

I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.

"They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.

The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.

This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
get people to cycle. All else is secondary.

You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
*perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
other) disadvantages they may have.

And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
spew out.

Your opinion?

The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them. Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

You think there is a lack of space? Have you seen how much public
space is devoted to free parking in British cities? If only a third of
that space was converted to bike paths there would be more than enough
space.

GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:

The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

The more people that cycle, the better, but I don't think paths are the
answer. With the exception of about one cycle lane and one path in
Bristol, all the local cycle lanes and paths are useless.

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them. Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

I regularly cycle on A-roads. I could not get to work if I did not.
On one road, it takes twice as long to cycle on the adjacent path, as it
takes using the road.
Also we simply do not have the room in this country to create lots of
extra paths.


You think there is a lack of space? Have you seen how much public
space is devoted to free parking in British cities? If only a third of
that space was converted to bike paths there would be more than enough
space.

And where would all the cars magically go?

GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:
I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.

"They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.

The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.

No they are not.

A cycle lane/path is about twice as dangerous (for distance) as cycling
on the road.
It would take a huge amount of extra cyclists to negate that.

A cycle path doubles the time it takes me to ride down the road.
When I am going to work I don't want that delay.
When I am cycling for fitness I want to be able to pick up speed, and
get a good workout, not keep slowing when I would not need to in the road.

This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
get people to cycle. All else is secondary.

People cycle because they want to.

You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
safe than cycling on the road.

Yes it does.

What matters is that bike paths are
*perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
other) disadvantages they may have.

I don't like being lied to by governments. And claiming cycle lanes are
safer is like claiming cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.

And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
spew out.

Your opinion?

"Mastuna" wrote in message
...


The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them.

I'm not a racing biker, but I'm pretty sure I'd find any cycling facilities
provided under your scheme to be slow and irritating.

Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

I cycle on A-roads daily.

One of them is even a trunk road. Remove that option, and quite a lot of
routes round here become rather hard.

As the saying goes, beware what you wish for - you might just get it. And if
we get what you're wishing for, life as a cyclist will get very tedious.

clive

Mastuna wrote:
The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

The conditions for the kind of cycling I mostly enjoy - road - won't improve
if I'm not allowed on the road.

I also enjoy cycing on quiet paths for a short while occasionally.
Conditions won't improve on them for me if there are millions of cyclists
clogging them up :-)

Seriously, yes I would like more people to cycle, but I don't get this
religion that all that's important in life is the total number of people
cycling and that anything should be done to maximise it.

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them.

As if the authorities give a **** about racing bikers!

Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

I predict that it will happen on many ordinary main roads if there is a
significant increase in cycle paths and lanes in the area.

I also want to continue to be allowed to cycle on dual-carriageways - which
I guess you are calling "A-roads". In fact A-roads include many ordinary
single-carriageway roads as well.

You think there is a lack of space? Have you seen how much public
space is devoted to free parking in British cities? If only a third of
that space was converted to bike paths there would be more than enough
space.

Car parks tend to be square and rectangular things that don't go anywhere.
Bike paths would have to go everywhere if they are going to be a substantial
alternative to cycling on the road. Yes I think there is a lack of space
for that.

~PB

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Mastuna wrote:

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them. Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

What a bizarre assumption.

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:13:04 +0100, Martin
wrote:


GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:

The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

The more people that cycle, the better, but I don't think paths are the
answer. With the exception of about one cycle lane and one path in
Bristol, all the local cycle lanes and paths are useless.

That's Mastuna's point. Where *good* cycle paths are provided more
people cycle.

Also we simply do not have the room in this country to create lots of
extra paths.

That may be more of an issue in towns and cities than between towns
and cities.

I think that the problem is more that in this country we do not have
the *will* to create good cycle paths.

Perhaps when fuel reaches the same price as beer people will start to
use their bikes.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:47:26 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mastuna" wrote in message
...


The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them.

I'm not a racing biker, but I'm pretty sure I'd find any cycling facilities
provided under your scheme to be slow and irritating.

Would that route be slow and irritating to someone travelling to the
loacl library - or school children on their way to school?

Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

I cycle on A-roads daily.

One of them is even a trunk road. Remove that option, and quite a lot of
routes round here become rather hard.

Mastuna's proposal is not to ban cyclists from more roads, just to
give new and returning cyclists a motor traffic free option.