|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Worst Streets to Cycle in America
"donquijote1954" wrote [snip] Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of bike routes - we call them "streets". But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on London states? [snip] Er, what article? Large numbers of articles, and books too, about London get written, of varying degrees of sense. I suppose you could try to operate by the law of the jungle, but generally in Britain it's considered better to operate in a civilized manner. Following the rules is especially important if you are the most vulnerable vehicle on the road. We have a book here, John Franklin's "Cyclecraft", to tell you how to do it. Besides, if you break the rules, you might get a ticket. The risk's low, I grant you, but occasionally they do have a crackdown. The laws in Britain are much the same as the laws anywhere else, except that there's no nonsense about having to use bike facilities. A "mandatory" bike lane is mandatory for cars to stay out, not mandatory for you to stay in. Do remember, though, that we drive on the left. If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than walking. Jeremy Parker |
Ads |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Worst Streets to Cycle in America
On Mar 5, 12:48*pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote: "donquijote1954" wrote [snip] Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of bike routes - we call them "streets". But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on London states? [snip] Er, what article? *Large numbers of articles, and books too, about London get written, of varying degrees of sense. See below. I suppose you could try to operate by the law of the jungle, but generally in Britain it's considered better to operate in a civilized manner. *Following the rules is especially important if you are the most vulnerable vehicle on the road. *We have a book here, John Franklin's "Cyclecraft", to tell you how to do it. *Besides, if you break the rules, you might get a ticket. *The risk's low, I grant you, but occasionally they do have a crackdown. The UK has one of the best road safety records. Still few cyclists seem to be comfortable among the big predators (not because they are bad, but because they are big). The laws in Britain are much the same as the laws anywhere else, except that there's no nonsense about having to use bike facilities. A "mandatory" bike lane is mandatory for cars to stay out, not mandatory for you to stay in. *Do remember, though, that we drive on the left. I agree with that concept: no mandatory bike lanes, but bike lanes in places where it would increase ridership. If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than walking. Jeremy Parker I'm glad it works for you, but ridership seems to be ridiculously low in the UK. This article states its dangers... Cyclists are Victims of the Law of the Jungle And in reference to the above article about London, this reader states that cyclists should not have equal rights as automobiles, but actually MORE rights. Again, before there's war, it's better to separate. Velorution in the mind The Financial Times has a worthy but dull article on the resurgence of urban cycling in the UK, with a focus on London. It cannot escape from the cliche' of the number of people riding through red lights; it is like if every article about digital photography mentioned people taking illegal pictures at museums. Of course figures of injuries caused by riding through red lights are never offered. The torpor in the journalist's mind is evident in the last few paragraphs: There's no doubt that car drivers need to clean up their act. Taking speed limits down to 20mph in built-up areas will make the roads safer for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Enforcing the ban on mobile phone use will help drivers become more attentive. And applying the Highway Code more strictly will make many people think twice about engaging in the current bully-boy hierarchy of bigger is better. ... Now, saying that motor vehicles should have the same rights as pedestrians or cyclists is like saying that water skiers should be allowed on all waters in front of a popular beach. The Highway Code by instigating this non-sensical equality status, that inevitably leads to the law of the jungle, is bunk. It has the same moral standing as the South African Pbutt Law. It is not abiding to rules that we should exhort, but consideration to all other people and especially to those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. Yes there are definitely inconsiderate bicycle riders in London, and it is absolutely no excuse to say, 'It is a jungle out there, I need to defend my self'. We need to raise the level of social responsibility, starting by ourselves. The roads are a commons to be enjoyed by everyone, starting by people on foot. Then the greater or more dangerous the vehicle one chooses to use, the fewer rights one has and the more consideration one needs to give to more vulnerable people. (http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclis...he-Law-of-the- Jungle-4890.html) |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Worst Streets to Cycle in America
"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message ... On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, "Jeremy Parker" wrote: "donquijote1954" wrote [snip] Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of bike routes - we call them "streets". But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on London states? [snip] Er, what article? Large numbers of articles, and books too, about London get written, of varying degrees of sense. See below. ------------------------- OK, article noted. That article is one of the less sensible ones, to my mind. Perhaps it was planted by some disgruntled motorist hoping to scare a few of the more suggestable cyclists off the road It makes sense to do one's scaring on the internet - there's less chance of encountering a policeman than if you actually tried to use a car to do it ------------------------ The UK has one of the best road safety records. Still few cyclists seem to be comfortable among the big predators (not because they are bad, but because they are big). ------------------------ They must be reasonably comfortable, or they wouldn't be cyclists. Hundreds of thousands of people cycle the streets of London every day. There are enough different ways of getting round London that nobody has to cycle in London if they don' t want to. The best reason for riding a bike in London is because it's fun ----------------------- [snip] I agree with that concept: no mandatory bike lanes, but bike lanes in places where it would increase ridership. --------------------- Well, a third of a century of building the things have pretty much proven that there's no such place. It's time to stop building them, and then spend an equal amount of effort to remove the things that haven't worked ---------------------- If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than walking. Jeremy Parker I'm glad it works for you, but ridership seems to be ridiculously low in the UK. This article states its dangers. --------------------------- Actually, when you look at the article (http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclis...ngle-4890.html) it doesn't mention any dangers at all. You don't say what you mean by "ridership seems (to you) to be ridiculously low" Thus it says more about you, and not to your credit, than it does about cycling. Ridership in Cambridge is higher than Amsterdam. Is that "ridiculously low? Jeremy Parker |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Worst Streets to Cycle in America
On Mar 8, 2:16*pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote: "ComandanteBanana" wrote in message ... On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, "Jeremy Parker" wrote: "donquijote1954" wrote [snip] Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of bike routes - we call them "streets". But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on London states? [snip] Er, what article? Large numbers of articles, and books too, about London get written, of varying degrees of sense. See below. ------------------------- OK, article noted. *That article is one of the less sensible ones, to my mind. *Perhaps it was planted by some disgruntled motorist hoping to scare a few of the more suggestable cyclists off the road *It makes sense to do one's scaring on the internet - there's less chance of encountering a policeman than if you actually tried to use a car to do it That would have been very deceitful, but the article is genuinely suggesting lower speed limits to 20MPH, which should be a pre- requisite for safe biking. Perhaps *you* are the disgruntled motorist. Just kidding. ------------------------The UK has one of the best road safety records. Still few cyclists seem to be comfortable among the big predators (not because they are bad, but because they are big). ------------------------ They must be reasonably comfortable, or they wouldn't be cyclists. Hundreds of thousands of people cycle the streets of London every day. *There are enough different ways of getting round London that nobody has to cycle in London if they don' t want to. *The best reason for riding a bike in London is because it's fun London is leading in eliminating traffic congestion in the city. Good for you. ----------------------- [snip]I agree with that concept: no mandatory bike lanes, but bike lanes in places where it would increase ridership. --------------------- Well, a third of a century of building the things have pretty much proven that there's no such place. *It's time to stop building them, and then spend an equal amount of effort to remove the things that haven't worked ---------------------- Lanes would certainly bring a lot of people out, but I can live without them if other arrangements are made, particularly lowering the speed limit and placing speed cameras all over the place. If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than walking. Jeremy Parker I'm glad it works for you, but ridership seems to be ridiculously low in the UK. This article states its dangers. --------------------------- Actually, when you look at the article (http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclis...he-Law-of-the-...) it doesn't mention any dangers at all. You don't say what you mean by "ridership seems (to you) to be ridiculously low" *Thus it says more about you, and not to your credit, than it does about cycling. *Ridership in Cambridge is higher than Amsterdam. *Is that "ridiculously low? Jeremy Parker Cambridge is not London, nor it's the UK. My number for the UK is 4%... compared to a 30% for the Netherlands. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reckless Endangerment and Violence by Mountain bikers | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 18 | August 18th 06 07:22 AM |
Reckless Endangerment and Violence by Mountain bikers | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 12 | July 22nd 06 02:30 AM |
Sebastien Hinault most aggressive? | Mike2 | Racing | 24 | July 24th 05 05:03 PM |
Dan Bowman: Most Aggressive or Assclown? | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 2 | April 21st 05 04:29 AM |