BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 00:56, Martin wrote:
Doug wrote:
That's what it says in this Times article;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281...

And it also says:

"...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more
risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes.

I don't think that is a new idea, various other research shows the
same.

On
average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a
cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing
a road. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out
from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows...

This is not well written. He is writing one thing, but implying
another. 18cm closer than (e.g.) 118cm is 100cm, not 18 cm.

....And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains
perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..."

What is lunatic is after reading research that shows "cyclists are at
significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include
cycle lanes." He then goes on to suggest that we need more lanes and
facilities.

We need proper, segregated lanes and facilities within towns and
cities. Like they have in Holland. Most of the urban cycle lanes we
have in the UK are worse than useless, as the article points out.

Where within the towns are you going to put them?

The problem is that it is like MattB and his motorway utopian dream, there
just isn't the land availabilty in urban areas to do a proper job of it.