"Tony Raven" wrote:

| 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).
| 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.
|
|
| Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Vejdirekforatet, Denmark, 1988
|
| Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities.
| Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81,
| totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of
| paths.
|
| Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV, Netherlands, 1992.
| Originally presented to Roads and Traffic 2000 conference, Berlin, 1988;
| Revised version included in Still more bikes behind the dikes, CROW, 1992.
|
| In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between
| junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous
| between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if
| tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities. Cycle lanes narrower than
| 1.8m particularly hazardous.
| Outside towns, cycle track safety depends on car and cycle numbers.
| New cross-town routes in Den Haag and Tilburg had produced no safety gain and
| had not encouraged much new cycling.

I might have known it. Thanks for the references.

yours sitting correctedly,
--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk