To Those who Don't Want Cycle Lanes

What would you prefer in this case? To share lane 1 with traffic?
What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here? How about worrying less about
cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being
practical and actually staying safe?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...ctober2008.htm

(I'm not talking about the sign, although I think its purpose - to
warn motorists to expect cyclists on the sort of road where there
wouldn't normally be many - is valid. Obviously it shouldn't be where
it is though.)

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
What would you prefer in this case? To share lane 1 with traffic?
What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here? How about worrying less about
cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being
practical and actually staying safe?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...ctober2008.htm

Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane on
every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a lane too? I
think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it would have the cagers
whinging...

On 8 Feb, 13:18, Nuxx Bar wrote:

What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here? *How about worrying less about
cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being
practical and actually staying safe?

The cycle lane on my route to work does the opposite - it segregates
very slow or stopped motor traffic from commuter cyclists nipping
along at 12-15mph.
The problem is that being next to the kerb it places the moving
cyclists on the inside of the stopped/crawling cars, vans , etc and
that pedestrians crossing the road between these stopped cars, etc,
often do not take account of this and step out from being hidden
behind vans or busses into the path of cycles in the cycle lane. After
several emergency stops because of this I have taken to ignoring the
cycle lane and riding down the outside of the queue along the centre
of the road. Pedestrians crossing usually do look before steping out
from behind vans, etc, there as they are more aware of the presence of
motorcycles doing the same as I am and of vehicles going the other
way.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 10:42:16 -0800 (PST), Jon
said in
:

The problem is that being next to the kerb it places the moving
cyclists on the inside of the stopped/crawling cars, vans , etc and
that pedestrians crossing the road between these stopped cars, etc,
often do not take account of this and step out from being hidden
behind vans or busses into the path of cycles in the cycle lane. After
several emergency stops because of this I have taken to ignoring the
cycle lane and riding down the outside of the queue along the centre
of the road. Pedestrians crossing usually do look before steping out
from behind vans, etc, there as they are more aware of the presence of
motorcycles doing the same as I am and of vehicles going the other
way.

Absolutely. Though these days there are so many scooters driving
along the cycle lanes that peds are finally beginning to start
looking before stepping out. I wish the scooters would look before
nipping into the cycle lane, really - I have had to do rather too
may emergency stops to avoid them just lately.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

"AndyC" wrote in message
...

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
What would you prefer in this case? To share lane 1 with traffic?
What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here? How about worrying less about
cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being
practical and actually staying safe?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...ctober2008.htm

Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane on
every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a lane too?
I think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it would have the
cagers whinging...

They already are. We have many roads in Hull like this:

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/images/hull.jpg

Which the website describes thus in an "anti car measures" gallery:

"This major radial dual-carriageway in Hull has been reduced from two lanes
to one by turning the left lane into parking bays and a cycle lane. This is
a widespread trend on four-lane urban main roads, and inevitably reduces
capacity and increases congestion."

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason wrote:

"AndyC" wrote in message
...



Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane
on every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a
lane too? I think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it
would have the cagers whinging...

They already are. We have many roads in Hull like this:

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/images/hull.jpg

Which the website describes thus in an "anti car measures" gallery:

"This major radial dual-carriageway in Hull has been reduced from two
lanes to one by turning the left lane into parking bays and a cycle
lane. This is a widespread trend on four-lane urban main roads, and
inevitably reduces capacity and increases congestion."

Cunning - to argue for a return to 2 lanes would involve loss of parking
spaces. Cagers squeal even louder about parking spaces than they do
about road space.

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

In article , AndyC wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
What would you prefer in this case? To share lane 1 with traffic?
What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here?

Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane on
every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a lane too? I
think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it would have the cagers
whinging...

Why restrict it to "which has more than one"? If Nuxx doesn't want to share,
he can avoid single lane roads and leave them to cyclists. His chances of
persuading drivers in general are small, but so long as he lives in a world
of his own, that needn't be a problem.

Jon wrote:
On 8 Feb, 13:18, Nuxx Bar wrote:

What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here? How about worrying less about
cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being
practical and actually staying safe?

The cycle lane on my route to work does the opposite - it segregates
very slow or stopped motor traffic from commuter cyclists nipping
along at 12-15mph.
The problem is that being next to the kerb it places the moving
cyclists on the inside of the stopped/crawling cars, vans , etc and
that pedestrians crossing the road between these stopped cars, etc,
often do not take account of this and step out...

This is because of the plain idiocy of allowing privileged overtaking
(whether by buses or bicycles/motor-bikes)on the nearside - it's crazy.

Overtaking should be done on the offside.

You know it makes sense.

On Feb 8, 7:44*pm, "Simon Mason" wrote:
"AndyC" wrote in message

...



"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
....
What would you prefer in this case? *To share lane 1 with traffic?
What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here? *How about worrying less about
cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being
practical and actually staying safe?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...he-month/Octob....

Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane on
every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a lane too?
I think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it would have the
cagers whinging...

They already are. We have many roads in Hull like this:

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/images/hull.jpg

Which the website describes thus in an "anti car measures" gallery:

"This major radial dual-carriageway in Hull has been reduced from two lanes
to one by turning the left lane into parking bays and a cycle lane. This is
a widespread trend on four-lane urban main roads, and inevitably reduces
capacity and increases congestion."

All true. The author of that site is a very sensible man. Hand on
heart, how do you *honestly* think measures like the above come about?

1. "How can we make things easier for cyclists? I know, let's put in
a cycle lane which none of them want or will use."

2. "How can we make things harder for motorists? I know, let's reduce
their roadspace by putting in a cycle lane/putting in a bus lane/
creating a buildout/changing the road markings/etc/etc."

How else can you explain why there have been examples of bus lanes
being put in on routes where there were *no* buses? If the
authorities wanted to, they could use roadspace a hell of a lot more
efficiently so that motorists *and* cyclists had what they wanted.
But they don't want to.

On Feb 8, 9:51*pm, (Alan Braggins) wrote:
In article , AndyC wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
....
What would you prefer in this case? *To share lane 1 with traffic?
What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles
in the way that they have done here?

Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane on
every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a lane too? I
think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it would have the cagers
whinging...

Why restrict it to "which has more than one"? If Nuxx doesn't want to share,
he can avoid single lane roads and leave them to cyclists. His chances of
persuading drivers in general are small, but so long as he lives in a world
of his own, that needn't be a problem.

I'm not saying I "don't want to share", and I don't care about
cyclists being on urban roads, or even (sporadically) on single-
carriageway rural ones. But it's daft to have them sharing rural dual
carriageways with traffic. And if you think otherwise, you're daft as
well (as if that wasn't already apparent).