Walking & cycling action plan published

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...vel_029204.pdf



--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:46:16 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...vel_029204.pdf


Every single cyclist pictured is wearing a helemt, bar one. Mind you all
the pedestrians are wearing shoes.

Colin

Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word. It's the same as the
trend to use the words "vehicle" or "traffic" to mean "not bicycles".

The announcement talks about the record of the government's cycle
strategy in increasing cycling as "mixed". That's bull****. It
hasn't been mixed, it's been a total failure, except in central
London. In Central London the increase in cycling is attributed to
the congestion charge. That could be partly true, but a few other
factors like the Central Line and Northern Line tube being disrupted
or totally out of service for months might be a factor, as might he
fact that we have had the best summer since the bronze age, and that
the tube, even when it's working, and Ken Livingstone's wonderful new
buses - with no opening windows - are totally unbearable in warm
weather.

The government's strategy is essentially nothing but to give cyclists
lots of farciliities, designed by idiots, for idiots, to get cyclists
away from where they will bother proper road users, and to
demonstrate that cycling on an unchanged road is terribly dangerous
and therefore "something must be done", even if it costs the poor
overtaxed motorist even more money. That the facilities don't
actually help cyclists is of no concern to anybody, as anyone who
complains soon finds out. The farcilities strategy continues
because, from the government's point of view, it's a success

Jeremy Parker

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:08:41 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
wrote in message
:

Every single cyclist pictured is wearing a helemt, bar one.

Not a surprise - official DfT policy following RR30 (and not changed
despite the gradual retraction some of the more ludicrous claims in
RR30)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Jeremy Parker wrote:

Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word. It's the same as the
trend to use the words "vehicle" or "traffic" to mean "not bicycles".


It is a well known fact that cyclists are just peds-on-wheels who keep
their maximum speed below 12 mph at all times to make sure that their
expanded polystyrene headwarmers will work properly. :-)

The announcement talks about the record of the government's cycle
strategy in increasing cycling as "mixed". That's bull****. It
hasn't been mixed, it's been a total failure, except in central
London. In Central London the increase in cycling is attributed to
the congestion charge. That could be partly true, but a few other
factors like the Central Line and Northern Line tube being disrupted
or totally out of service for months might be a factor, as might he
fact that we have had the best summer since the bronze age, and that
the tube, even when it's working, and Ken Livingstone's wonderful new
buses - with no opening windows - are totally unbearable in warm
weather.

The government's strategy is essentially nothing but to give cyclists
lots of farciliities, designed by idiots, for idiots, to get cyclists
away from where they will bother proper road users, and to
demonstrate that cycling on an unchanged road is terribly dangerous
and therefore "something must be done", even if it costs the poor
overtaxed motorist even more money. That the facilities don't
actually help cyclists is of no concern to anybody, as anyone who
complains soon finds out. The farcilities strategy continues
because, from the government's point of view, it's a success

Jeremy Parker


The plan goes into great detail about how the numbers of cyclists &
pedestrians should best be counted to produce the required outcome of
the plan, i.e. a demonstrable increase in the number of people cycling &
walking.
cynic
So, all the gubbymint have to do is make a super-deluxe shared use route
from a large housing estate straight into the playground of a local
school and close off all routes to the school which are accessible by
four wheel drive jobbies. The before and after counts will show a
massive increase in pupils cycling and walking which is obviously
representative of the effect of the plan on a national level.
/cynic

Terry Duckmanton

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ...
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...vel_029204.pdf


Interested to see the bit in the Press Release :


2. The Traffic Management Bill amendment will provide local
authorities with a power to impose penalty charges when vehicles are
driven in lanes reserved for cyclists and when pedestrian and cycle
crossings are blocked by parked vehicles. These are not new offences:
police already have the power to enforce these offences, but this
amendment would extend those powers to local authorities.

3. The Department intends to introduce this new power next year.
Guidance will be issued for local authorities enforcement officers in
advance of the introduction of the new powers.

I'm still trying to find out if anyone has ever been prosecuted for
infringing a bike lane. Anyone know ?

Tim

(Tim Henderson)typed


I'm still trying to find out if anyone has ever been prosecuted for
infringing a bike lane. Anyone know ?

I don't know, but from the ads in the local Press and the reasonably
pro-cycling stance of the council, it might yet happen in Camden...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On 17 Jun 2004 14:05:20 -0700, Tim Henderson wrote:

I'm still trying to find out if anyone has ever been prosecuted for
infringing a bike lane. Anyone know ?

I doubt it. This isn't a totally one sided argument though. In two places
mandatory cycle lanes on my way to work reduce the width of the road to
less than a car width. I've always wondered the legal way to deal with
these, do I stop before it gets narrow, wait for traffic to clear in the
other direction, and overtake the cycle lane???

Steve

"Jeremy Parker" wrote:
Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word.

I think you are overreacting in the case of this document. The focus
is clearly on health and reduction in private motor traffic; in those
contexts it makes perfect sense to lump cycling and walking together.

In general, I though it was a pretty decent document. Though I have to
admit the pictures of people wearing silly plastic hats to ride
utility bikes at low speeds made me a bit nauseous. I am inured to
seeing "serious"/"real" bike riders wear helmets (heck, I even do it
myself), but somehow helmets just don't seem to fit with the idea of
bike-as-transport for the masses.

--
Peter Headland

On 18 Jun 2004 13:39:58 -0700, (Peter Headland)
wrote (more or less):

"Jeremy Parker" wrote:
Is anyone else as disturbed as I am to see this new trend towards
thinking about cyclingandwalking as one word.

I think you are overreacting in the case of this document. The focus
is clearly on health and reduction in private motor traffic; in those
contexts it makes perfect sense to lump cycling and walking together.

In general, I though it was a pretty decent document. Though I have to
admit the pictures of people wearing silly plastic hats to ride
utility bikes at low speeds made me a bit nauseous.

Why? Silly plastic hats are pretty much only useful at low speeds.
As can be seen by the recent sad news of racing cyclist deaths on a
fast downhill decent while wearing a helmet.

I am inured to
seeing "serious"/"real" bike riders wear helmets (heck, I even do it
myself), but somehow helmets just don't seem to fit with the idea of
bike-as-transport for the masses.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk