|
|
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:07:10 +0100, Tumbleweed wrote:
One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, why not get off before it and walk past that bit? Surely its madness to cycle on a bit of road you believe to be dangerous, just because someone painted the words 'cycle lane' on it? True. However, I've commuted in London a lot, and I have used that lane when I've gone over that bridge (not commuting). I remember thinking it was pretty dangerous. The reason you do want to stay in that lane is the junction at the end. There are three lanes, the left one is a left-turn-only onto Embankment. So you stay in the lane to avoid a late cross over to the right. Another point to make is about beginning cyclists - they will naturally follow the cycle lanes. They won't have your level of experience in deciding yay or nay to ignore the lane to keep yourself safe. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote: | MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up like Holland and Denmark. Because if the drivers know there's a cycle lane and you're on the road, they'll hurl abuse at you (get on the cycle path you ****ing ****er etc) and occasionally one'll run you off the road just for good measure... And most off-road cycle ways are bumpier, ruttier, full of glass/thorns/other muck, badly maintained, and force you to cycle very slowly for fear of a reversing out the drive accident, and to stop every time you get to a side road. The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. -- Velvet |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Patrick Herring wrote:
"John Mallard" not_me@all wrote: | MSeries wrote: | Nathaniel Porter wrote: | I find it worrying that the article suggests segregation is the | solution. Dedicated cycleways have their place, but we must never | lose sight of the fact that all vehicles (regardless of their means | of propultion) have equal rights to use the road. | | Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used | and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Also in Holland IIRC. | This has always been my greatest fear. That one day the buggers will | realise that they only need to spend a bit more money on cycle farcilities | and then vote us off the road altogether. But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). Not at all - see the report into, eg, the Milton Keynes off-road bike paths. Crime is higher. Accidents are higher at junctions. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Velvet wrote:
The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. While not in any way disagreeing with your point, it should be pointed out that "tourer" and "suspension" need not be mutually exclusive terms, and you don't even need to get a recumbent. Moulton T21 and R&M Delite Black (or Grey) are both full-sus dedicated touring uprights, for example. Pete. -- Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
|
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be "Tumbleweed"
wrote this:- One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, All sections of road are dangerous, not in themselves but because of the people using them. The question is relative danger. why not get off before it and walk past that bit? I'm sure the road builders would love that. Another way to get these dammed cyclists off the road. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:43:19 +0100 someone who may be "MSeries"
wrote this:- Thing is in Denmark when a cycle lane is provided, they MUST be used and you don't have the right to ride on the road. Germany changed that rule. I thought similar consideration was being given in Denmark and the Netherlands. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
in message , Patrick Herring
') wrote: But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway). No, it won't. On average, cycle ways are very much _less_ safe for cyclists than normal roads. Read the research. Of course there may be some cycle ways which are safer, but at present they;re the exception not the rule and I think that's true for every country in which the issue has been studied. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us ;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. ;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art. ;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
One must also take responsibility for ones own safety. If there was a section of road that you believe was dangerous, why not get off before it and walk past that bit? Surely its madness to cycle on a bit of road you believe to be dangerous, just because someone painted the words 'cycle lane' on it? If I walked every stretch of unsuitable cycle lane it would convert about 6 miles of my daily total from cycling to walking. I'm sure one of the reasons we see so many pavement cyclists these days is that that is the solution they have adopted to these dangerous cycle lanes. -- Dave... |
The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes
Peter Clinch wrote:
Velvet wrote: The condition of the cycle path might be of no consequence to those with suspension or mtb's, but on a tourer they're a bloody pain in the neck to ride any distance at all on. While not in any way disagreeing with your point, it should be pointed out that "tourer" and "suspension" need not be mutually exclusive terms, and you don't even need to get a recumbent. Moulton T21 and R&M Delite Black (or Grey) are both full-sus dedicated touring uprights, for example. Pete. True, but even so, I'm not sure the majority of tourers that are about on the roads actually have full-sus.. and I fail to see why I should have to buy a bike with suspension just to be able to ride on shoddy tarmac. If they're going to put in cycle facilities then at the very least the surface should mean all bikes should be able to use them, not just a sub-set of bikes. IMNSHO :-) -- Velvet |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com