Cycle Paths or Not?

[Steve C[_2_]]

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

[Paul Boyd[_2_]]

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/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

[Steve C[_2_]]

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

[Terry Duckmanton[_2_]]

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

[Tom Crispin]

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.

[Sir Jeremy]

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

[Martin[_2_]]

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.

[Daniel Barlow]

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

[Martin[_2_]]

Steve C wrote:
> 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 block spam from Google groups, but try to let legitimate posts
through. There are quite a few posters that use googlegroups.

>
> My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
> infrastructure (no argument there).

The Dutch have had these facilities for years, and are used to them.
Motorists are used to having a lot of cyclists, and so keep their eyes
open for them. They are used to segregation.

> 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.

A Dutch style system in this country would be impossible, we do not have
the room for it. Even if we had the room, it would cost far too much to
implement. Once implemented, not enough cyclists would use it, to make
motorists take more care at cyclepath/motor road junctions.

> 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?

To use the road. mixing bikes with pedestrians does not work.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.

[GeoffC]

Martin > wrote:
>
> A Dutch style system in this country would be impossible, we do not
> have the room for it. Even if we had the room, it would cost far too
> much to implement. Once implemented, not enough cyclists would use
> it, to make motorists take more care at cyclepath/motor road
> junctions.

Like Holland is noted for its wide open plains ????
Apathy rules?

--

Geoff

[Andy Morris]

Terry Duckmanton wrote:
>
>
> C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
> pedestrians at times and we do matter.
>

I know this is a bit OT, but your post has raised a couple of questions
in my mind.

Zebra crossings, why? Why not make every bit of road a zebra crossing,
change the rule to be:

If you see a pedestrian signalling that they wish to cross the road (by
raising an arm) you will stop and allow them.


Why do pelican crossings, miles away from traffic lights, make you wait
to cross?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), 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?

There are four broad categories of cyclist.

1. Fast commuter
2. Utility cyclist
3. Recreational cyclist
4. Sport cyclist

A fast commuter or sport cyclist is rarely going to benefit from cycle
paths.

Utility cyclists and recreational cyclists are most likely to benefit
from cycle paths and the greatest potential growth for cycling is
utility cycling, journeys between 1 mile and 5 miles: from residential
areas to schools, libraries, parks and town centres.

Build those traffic free cycle routes, build them properly and give
cyclists priority at junctions. Motorists should lean out of their
widows to push a button to cross cycle paths, or be taken under them.

This, otherwise excellent, traffic free route in Beckton is bisected
by a major road junction.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/gw
It takes six separate toucan crossings and two short sections on the
footway to cross the junction.

Absurd!

[wafflycat]

"Steve C" > wrote in message
...

>
> 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

This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..) would
like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not just
Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more courtesy &
respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of us,
when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads are
there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our way
when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in the
Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in Cologne
was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never anything
JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96 of
the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
said in >:

>Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
>hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.

I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.

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

[Brian G]

Steve C wrote:

> 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?


Here in my part of Scotland, as in many other areas with medium to low
population density, the road system provides a wonderful network of
paths between communities and through the countryside. Additionally
there are various other paths which are not suitable for motor vehicles
but can accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and horses. There is no need
for any extra provision of cycle paths, lanes, routes or whatever.

In general, the behaviour of motorists on these roads towards cyclists
and pedestrians is much less aggressive and dangerous than is reported
from the densely populated urban parts of the country. As a result I
can ride my bicycle without fear or apprehension all over the place, in
whichever direction takes my fancy, except on motorways from which bikes
are banned.

So naturally I want the status quo. The sad thing, however, is that the
fear of "dangerous roads" has spread here with the result that very few
people take the opportunities to cycle offered by the road system and
many of those who do now absurdly bedeck themselves with hi-viz yellow
vests and plastic hats. This of course re-inforces the message about
"dangerous roads" to young people and others who might want to cycle.

Further to that, the local authorities find themselves duty bound to
provide their quota distance of "cycle facilities" whether or not there
is any need for them. Novice cyclists then find themselves utterly
confused when presented with pavements they are encouraged to cycle on,
pavements they mustn't cycle on, roads with skinny tracks at the side
for bicycles which immediately turn into roads with no such tracks on
them. No wonder the vast majority give up and limit themselves to
"leisure cycling" which involves sticking their bikes on motor car roof
racks and driving them to forest parks where they can puff up a bumpy
rutted track for a mile or so then turn round and bounce back down to
the car park.


Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[Ben C]

On 2008-05-11, Brian G > wrote:
> Steve C wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> Here in my part of Scotland, as in many other areas with medium to low
> population density, the road system provides a wonderful network of
> paths between communities and through the countryside. Additionally
> there are various other paths which are not suitable for motor vehicles
> but can accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and horses. There is no need
> for any extra provision of cycle paths, lanes, routes or whatever.

Something they have in the Netherlands which is quite nice is that big A
roads and dual carriageways usually have a pretty good (mandatory) cycle
lane.

Although it's still often nicer to ride through the lanes and villages
(where you don't always get a cycle lane, but they're quiet roads), it
does give you a bit more freedom in planning your route.

They have a different infrastructure because they have more cyclists.
One could argue however that more POBs would ride to work here if
(proper) cycle lanes were provided as the perception of the man on the
Clapham omnibus is that it is too dangerous to consider getting off the
omnibus and riding alongside it on a bike.

Personally I don't see much need to encourage people onto bikes. I'm
quite happy to be in a minority. If everyone was riding them they'd
start legislating and taxing them like crazy and then they'd be just as
bad as cars.

[Richard Fairhurst]

On May 10, 10:04*pm, Daniel Barlow > wrote:
> [...]
> 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.

Absolutely agree with this.

There's a big difference between "right to use the roads" (which is
good) and "compulsion to only use roads" (which isn't).

Richard

[Zog The Undeniable]

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?

I's say roads. More than 90% of cycle paths are just awful, and no
safer or quicker than riding on the pavement, which is rightly illegal.

[Paul Boyd[_2_]]

On 11/05/2008 18:08, Zog The Undeniable said,

> .... and no
> safer or quicker than riding on the pavement, which is rightly illegal.

Unless the council use some of their magic white paint, then it's
suddenly safe and legal ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Rog]

"Andy Morris" > wrote in message
...
> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
>>
>>
>> C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
>> pedestrians at times and we do matter.
>>
>
> I know this is a bit OT, but your post has raised a couple of questions in
> my mind.
>
> Zebra crossings, why? Why not make every bit of road a zebra crossing,
> change the rule to be:
>
> If you see a pedestrian signalling that they wish to cross the road (by
> raising an arm) you will stop and allow them.

Total carnage, if they still had someone walking in front with a red flag it
would work.
You can't be serious.
Engage brain.

>
> Why do pelican crossings, miles away from traffic lights, make you wait to
> cross?
>
> --
> Andy Morris
>
> AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

rog

[Sir Jeremy]

On 11 May, 07:18, "wafflycat" > wrote:
> "Steve C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..) would
> like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
> tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not just
> Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more courtesy &
> respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of us,
> when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads are
> there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our way
> when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in the
> Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
> main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
> 'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
> riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
> do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
> which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
> facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in Cologne
> was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
> retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never anything
> JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
> terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
> wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96 of
> the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.


Time of the month is it darling?

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Sir Jeremy" > wrote in message
...
On 11 May, 07:18, "wafflycat" > wrote:
>>
>> This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..)
>> would
>> like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
>> tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not
>> just
>> Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more
>> courtesy &
>> respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of
>> us,
>> when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads
>> are
>> there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our
>> way
>> when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in
>> the
>> Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
>> main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
>> 'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
>> riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
>> do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
>> which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
>> facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in
>> Cologne
>> was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
>> retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never
>> anything
>> JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
>> terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
>> wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96
>> of
>> the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.


> Time of the month is it darling?

The fact that you have to resort to a patronising response suggests that you
don't have a valid counterargument to Wafflycats post.

[Matt B]

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.

Can you cite the law that "presumes fault" - I thought is was a *no*
fault insurance liability that they have, and only 100% if the
vulnerable road user was a minor. There, like here, criminal fault has
to be proven, based on evidence.

--
Matt B

[GeoffC]

Matt B > wrote:
> 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.
>
> Can you cite the law that "presumes fault" - I thought is was a *no*
> fault insurance liability that they have, and only 100% if the
> vulnerable road user was a minor. There, like here, criminal fault
> has to be proven, based on evidence.

Yep. Similar to the French "Loi Badinter" introduced in !985 and
predating the Dutch (and Belgian) law by about 10 years.

--

Geoff

[Paul Boyd]

Just zis Guy, you know? said the following on 10/05/2008 18:20:

> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.

It's not actually quite that straightforward, but is the essence. I
suppose a rough analogy is that of driving into the back of someone - it
may not actually be your fault[1], but you have to work quite hard to
prove that.

[1] - I always used to think it would always be your fault if you drove
into the back of someone, until I had a situation where I nearly did
through no fault of my own!!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[GeoffC]

Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? said the following on 10/05/2008 18:20:
>
>> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
>> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.
>
> It's not actually quite that straightforward,

No it's not. unless you consider fault and liability to be the same
thing.

--

Geoff

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
>said in >:
>
>>Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
>>hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.
>
>I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
>get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
>to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.

Surely that would be covered by the fact that it's a presumption of
liability, not an automatic assignment of liability regardless of
circumstances, just as a cyclist who rode fast out of a side footpath
hidden from view and across a pavement just in front of a car would
still be liable?

[Sir Jeremy]

On 11 May, 22:45, "Adam Lea" > wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 11 May, 07:18, "wafflycat" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..)
> >> would
> >> like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
> >> tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not
> >> just
> >> Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more
> >> courtesy &
> >> respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of
> >> us,
> >> when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads
> >> are
> >> there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our
> >> way
> >> when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in
> >> the
> >> Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
> >> main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
> >> 'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
> >> riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
> >> do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
> >> which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
> >> facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in
> >> Cologne
> >> was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
> >> retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never
> >> anything
> >> JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
> >> terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
> >> wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96
> >> of
> >> the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.
> > Time of the month is it darling?
>
> The fact that you have to resort to a patronising response suggests that you
> don't have a valid counterargument to Wafflycats post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


It was a suitable response to an irrational rant

[Clive George]

"Sir Jeremy" > wrote in message
...
On 11 May, 22:45, "Adam Lea" > wrote:

>> The fact that you have to resort to a patronising response suggests that
>> you
>> don't have a valid counterargument to Wafflycats post.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>
>It was a suitable response to an irrational rant

Time of the month is it darling?

[Jeremy Parker]

"Steve C" > wrote

[snip]

> 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 remember, back in the 1970s, when I worked for the Communications
Satellite Corp (Comsat) in Washington DC, a bunch of Comsat people
went over to the Netherlands to help design a satellite that never
happened. All were enthusiastic about being able to ride a bike,
rather than drive a car, to get to work.

Their efforts to use Dutch bike facilities legally lasted about a
fortnight, I was told. What really got to them was making left
turns, and having to wait all those light cycles before they had
completely negotiated a turn.

A separated system is not separated if it is not separated where the
accidents happen, i.e at intersections. At intersections cars can be
separated from bikes either by space, or by time. Separation by time
implies lots of red traffic lights. Presumably the proportion of
green time each kind of vehicle gets would be roughly in proportion
to their amount of the traffic. Bikes are a smaller fraction of the
traffic in the UK than they are in the Netherlands, so the proportion
of green time would likely also be less in the UK

Jeremy Parker.

[Jeremy Parker]

"Matt B" > wrote

[snip]

> Can you cite the law that "presumes fault" - I thought is was a
> *no* fault insurance liability that they have, and only 100% if the
> vulnerable road user was a minor. There, like here, criminal fault
> has to be proven, based on evidence.

Britain has a law rather like that. If a motorist is in collision
with a cyclist, the motorist pays the cyclist's medical expenses, no
matter who is at fault. The law, which applies to pedestrians, too,
of course, has been in existence ever since car insurance became
compulsory, in 1929. [ref. Plowden, "The Motor Car and Politics in
Britain" p263]

It's not the NHS that is supposed to pay, although the motor
insurance companies tend to keep quiet if the NHS forgets to send out
a bill

Jeremy Parker

[Mark[_3_]]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:48:42 +0100, Paul Boyd >
wrote:

>On 11/05/2008 18:08, Zog The Undeniable said,
>
>> .... and no
>> safer or quicker than riding on the pavement, which is rightly illegal.
>
>Unless the council use some of their magic white paint, then it's
>suddenly safe and legal ;-)

Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?

My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

The ones I have seen are often narrow, cross right in front of
driveways with poor visibility and suddenly end at a road junction,
often with no dropped kerb. How can these be useful to cyclists.

Another worrying trend is that, the more cycle "facilities" there are,
the more motorists are calling for cyclists to be banned from the
road. One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[Jeremy Parker]

"Ben C" > wrote i
>
> Something they have in the Netherlands which is quite nice is that
> big A
> roads and dual carriageways usually have a pretty good (mandatory)
> cycle
> lane

Somehow I doubt if they ever have bike lanes on such roads in the
Netherlands, although I can believe in cycle tracks/paths/trails.

In the USA they don't have bike lanes on freeways either, but it is
often legal to cycle on the shoulder. New Jersey is unique in that
to ride on the shoulders of their interstate highways requires a
licence. I have one.

Some bike paths alongside freeways in the USA are fantastic. The
bike path alongside interstate 70 over Vail Pass is worth crossing
the Atlantic to ride, as is the path between Ventura and Santa
Barbara in California, alongside US 101.

Among experienced cyclists in Britain enthusiasm for facilities seems
to be diminishing at the moment, with the result that enthusiasm for
lanes seems to be left to those who know so little about cycling that
they don't even know what a lane is. That diminishes my confidence
in their judgement about what might be a "proper" lane.

Jeremy Parker

[Jeremy Parker]

"Steve C" > wrote

[snip]

> 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?

No matter what you think, my advice is to say that you don't like
faculties. As you get older and slower, like me (I'm 66) that gets
ever more important. If you disparage lanes, everybody will
immediately assume that you are a super fast rider. You might be
able to convince the more impressionable women that you always keep
up with the other traffic, even where the speed limit is 70 mph.

Say you don't like lanes, and you will never have to admit how slowly
you actually do ride.

Actually counterflow lanes might occasionally be useful, although
slightly riskier than a normal road. Bike paths can be ok, too, so
long as they were originally designed for trains, not bicycles. It's
only bicycle facilities designed for bicycles that are bad

Jeremy Parker

[GeoffC]

Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
> said in >:
>
>> Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too,
>> i.e. bike hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.
>
> I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
> get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
> to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.
>

Well no, the law is intended to provide some measure of protection for
vulnerable (ie. non-motorised) traffic in the event of a collision
with a motor vehicle.
So pedestrians and cyclist actually reside in the same category and
shouldn't need protecting from each other.
TBO if pedestians and cyclists can't get along amicably then I think
this may point to a more fundamental social problem which cannot be
solved by laws.

--

Geoff

[Steve C[_2_]]

Jeremy Parker wrote:

>
> Their efforts to use Dutch bike facilities legally lasted about a
> fortnight, I was told. What really got to them was making left
> turns, and having to wait all those light cycles before they had
> completely negotiated a turn.
>

Just reminded me of a trip to Belgium about ten years ago, where a local
looking cyclist tried to cross at a red cycle light. He was stopped by a
police office, hand ready on holster, and made to wait. Police in
Belgium can be very strict...

[Terry Duckmanton[_2_]]

Rog wrote:
> "Andy Morris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
>>>
>>> C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
>>> pedestrians at times and we do matter.
>>>
>> I know this is a bit OT, but your post has raised a couple of questions in
>> my mind.
>>
>> Zebra crossings, why? Why not make every bit of road a zebra crossing,
>> change the rule to be:
>>
>> If you see a pedestrian signalling that they wish to cross the road (by
>> raising an arm) you will stop and allow them.
>
> Total carnage, if they still had someone walking in front with a red flag it
> would work.
> You can't be serious.
> Engage brain.

Working in 'Engaged-Brain' mode as much as is possible in my case, I can
see sense in what Andy is proposing. One of the problems with crossings
is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
contain fast moving traffic. In this case it is unreasonable to expect
traffic to stop in time and pedestrians who want to cross safely should
allow some stopping time.

What if we alter the scenario slightly by removing all crossings and
road markings and stating that no-one has priority on this stretch of
road. This effectively lowers the speed of traffic and gives the
pedestrian the ability to cross the road where and when he/she wishes.
It is up to the parties involved to sort out who goes first. I'm just
not sure if the go-fast brigade could cope with old-fashioned "after
you" manners.

Obviously we would still need fast trunk roads to move traffic around
the country, but is it essential for trunk roads to pass through the
middle of towns?

Terry

[Andy Morris]

Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> One of the problems with crossings
> is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
> contain fast moving traffic.

Are they really?

They could be construed as being the only places where pedestrians are
allowed to cross the road. If my mother in law is walking home in the
rain with her shopping, why should she go out of her way cross on the
crossing so that someone in a heated car can save a couple of seconds.


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

[Andy Morris]

Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
> Time of the month is it darling?


******

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

[Paul Boyd]

Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:

> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?

I expect so.

> My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
> path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
> one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
> which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.

....which was precisely my point. I'm not sure if you missed it or not :-)

> One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
> asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!

S'OK - and at the same time, we'll fine motorists who use country lanes
instead of motorways and dual-carriageways :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Mark[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:42:42 +0100, Paul Boyd
<usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:

>Mark said the following on 12/05/2008 16:44:
>
>> Do they buy it from the same man who sells the magic beans?
>
>I expect so.
>
>> My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
>> path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
>> one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
>> which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.
>
>...which was precisely my point. I'm not sure if you missed it or not :-)

No, I was agreeing with you ;-)

>> One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
>> asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!
>
>S'OK - and at the same time, we'll fine motorists who use country lanes
>instead of motorways and dual-carriageways :-)

Or fine them for not using the bus or train?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[seveniron[_2_]]

On May 12, 11:32 pm, Andy Morris > wrote:
> Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> > One of the problems with crossings
> > is that they are designed to allow pedestrians to cross roads which
> > contain fast moving traffic.
>
> Are they really?
>
> They could be construed as being the only places where pedestrians are
> allowed to cross the road. If my mother in law is walking home in the
> rain with her shopping, why should she go out of her way cross on the
> crossing so that someone in a heated car can save a couple of seconds.
>
> --
> Andy Morris
>
> AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Andy, do you find yourself the butt of jokes, not taken seriously
etc??
Just asking
rog

[Danny Colyer]

On 13/05/2008 22:34, seveniron wondered:
> Andy, do you find yourself the butt of jokes, not taken seriously
> etc??

Quite possibly by idiots, but I don't think that's anything to worry about.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

[tenspeed]

Mark wrote:

>My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
>path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
>one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
>which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.
<SNIP>
>Another worrying trend is that, the more cycle "facilities" there are,
>the more motorists are calling for cyclists to be banned from the
>road. One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
>asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!


There's an interesting debate going on in Sydney at the moment.
Council are about to put a two-way "bicycle road" through some narrow
parts of the inner city after running focus group sessions with
noncyclists - who were shown photos of cycleways and thought they
looked safer than the existing shoulder lanes. The new bike road will
run between the old kerb and the parking lane with a new 400mm wide
kerb to separate them

Would welcome UK input:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/browse_thread/thread/52c4a5d6b36e9b05

All is made the more complicated by a recent pile-up on an arterial
road which has produced a lot of anti-bike "letters to the editor":

http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6071

It's my impression that there's still a lot of confusion here in
noncyclists' (and planners') minds between "what looks safe" and "what
the stats show to be safe".

[Mark[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:12:37 -0700 (PDT), tenspeed
> wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>
>>My opinion is that I would have no objection to a well designed cycle
>>path. One that was designed by someone who has actually ever ridden
>>one. However 99% of the cycle paths I have seen have serious flaws,
>>which make then _more_ dangerous and inconvenient than roads.
><SNIP>
>>Another worrying trend is that, the more cycle "facilities" there are,
>>the more motorists are calling for cyclists to be banned from the
>>road. One petrolhead actually wrote a letter to the local paper
>>asking why cyclists are not being fined for using the road!
>
>
>There's an interesting debate going on in Sydney at the moment.
>Council are about to put a two-way "bicycle road" through some narrow
>parts of the inner city after running focus group sessions with
>noncyclists - who were shown photos of cycleways and thought they
>looked safer than the existing shoulder lanes. The new bike road will
>run between the old kerb and the parking lane with a new 400mm wide
>kerb to separate them
>
>Would welcome UK input:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/browse_thread/thread/52c4a5d6b36e9b05
>
>All is made the more complicated by a recent pile-up on an arterial
>road which has produced a lot of anti-bike "letters to the editor":
>
>http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6071
>
>It's my impression that there's still a lot of confusion here in
>noncyclists' (and planners') minds between "what looks safe" and "what
>the stats show to be safe".

Looks like the Aussies have their share of ignorant & misguided
"do-gooders" too.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

[Sue White]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > whizzed past me shouting
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
>said in >:
>
>>Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
>>hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.
>
>I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
>get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
>to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.
>

Be fair - I was riding across the open area between the Civic and the
street market this evening when without warning the one pedestrian
whipped round ninety degrees and strode smack into my path -
I missed her, but if I'd been looking anywhere else I might not have.
I don't for a moment think she did it on purpose; I think she suddenly
remembered something!

--
Sue ]:(:)

Why aren't we demanding regular retests for motor drivers?
It's obvious a lot of them would fail so that'd solve the congestion problem too.

[Ben C]

On 2008-05-12, Jeremy Parker > wrote:
>
> "Ben C" > wrote i
>>
>> Something they have in the Netherlands which is quite nice is that
>> big A
>> roads and dual carriageways usually have a pretty good (mandatory)
>> cycle
>> lane
>
> Somehow I doubt if they ever have bike lanes on such roads in the
> Netherlands, although I can believe in cycle tracks/paths/trails.

I don't know the difference between a lane/track/path or trail so I'm
sorry if I used the wrong term.

What you get is a strip of tarmac quite a few feet wide and separated
from the road by quite a few more feet of grass with trees growing out
of it. That kind of thing.

[...]
> Among experienced cyclists in Britain enthusiasm for facilities seems
> to be diminishing at the moment, with the result that enthusiasm for
> lanes seems to be left to those who know so little about cycling that
> they don't even know what a lane is. That diminishes my confidence
> in their judgement about what might be a "proper" lane.

I think the reality is it's the budget. To build a proper
lane/track/path/trail costs I should think about as much as adding
another car lane.

In the UK they just slosh a bit of paint on the pavement (sidewalk)
that's already there as if that would make it a good place to ride a
bike.