A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

(Non-) Use of cycling facilities



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 18th 08, 07:35 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.

Ads
  #2  
Old June 18th 08, 07:47 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

"judith" wrote in message
...
Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.


Oh dear.

Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.

The accident referred to in that article is a clear example of why drivers
*should* look where they're going and not run cyclists over. It's also a
clear example of why police *should* have more training in order to better
understand the problems, rather than assuming a cyclist should be in the
cycle lane.

As the council admitted, people don't necessarily want to use that cycle
lane. I probably wouldn't because it would place me in conflict with other
road users a couple of yards later, and I'm sure you agree that introducing
unnecessary conflict is a bad thing.

Cycle lanes and other such facilities are frequently less safe and slower
than using the road. This should be sufficient to persuade you why it is
important to not assume that they should be used.

clive

  #3  
Old June 18th 08, 07:55 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Shaun[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:35:54 +0100, judith
wrote:

Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.

If the car had chosen a different route then the accident wouldn't of
happened. Which is the same argument as blaming a cyclist for not
using a cycle lane
  #4  
Old June 18th 08, 08:00 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:47:42 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
.. .
Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.


Oh dear.

Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.

The accident referred to in that article is a clear example of why drivers
*should* look where they're going and not run cyclists over. It's also a
clear example of why police *should* have more training in order to better
understand the problems, rather than assuming a cyclist should be in the
cycle lane.

As the council admitted, people don't necessarily want to use that cycle
lane. I probably wouldn't because it would place me in conflict with other
road users a couple of yards later, and I'm sure you agree that introducing
unnecessary conflict is a bad thing.

Cycle lanes and other such facilities are frequently less safe and slower
than using the road. This should be sufficient to persuade you why it is
important to not assume that they should be used.

clive



Perhaps I am badly informed and you can correct this :

So in the example - why is the cyclist not using the cycling lane -
why is he in the middle of the lane used by vehicles?
  #5  
Old June 18th 08, 08:00 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Martin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 551
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities


judith wrote:
Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.


http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.


A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.


There are several reasons why cyclists do not want to use cycle lanes,
and do not want to be forced to use cycle lanes.

To sum them up a few points.

1) They are inherently unsafe.
e.g. the cycle lane in the above case gives higher priority to
motorised traffic coming up behind the cyclist than the cyclist in front
in the lane. This type of thing is very common.
e.g. they can turn a three way junction into a five way junction, with
the cyclist loosing priority over motorised traffic.

2) They encourage people to believe that cyclists should not be in the
road, again a problem in the above case.

3) They are often non-negotiable. e.g. ending in a brick wall etc.

4) They are often strewn with rubbish, dog ****, broken glass etc.

5) Many motorists seem to think that they are an extra car park.

6) They are twice as slow as using the road. When I cycle I don't want
to stop every ten yards for a driveway.

If you want some examples, look at the warrington cycle campaign FotM

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.c...y-of-the-month


  #6  
Old June 18th 08, 08:04 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Martin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 551
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities


judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:47:42 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.

Oh dear.

Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.

The accident referred to in that article is a clear example of why drivers
*should* look where they're going and not run cyclists over. It's also a
clear example of why police *should* have more training in order to better
understand the problems, rather than assuming a cyclist should be in the
cycle lane.

As the council admitted, people don't necessarily want to use that cycle
lane. I probably wouldn't because it would place me in conflict with other
road users a couple of yards later, and I'm sure you agree that introducing
unnecessary conflict is a bad thing.

Cycle lanes and other such facilities are frequently less safe and slower
than using the road. This should be sufficient to persuade you why it is
important to not assume that they should be used.

clive



Perhaps I am badly informed and you can correct this :

So in the example - why is the cyclist not using the cycling lane -
why is he in the middle of the lane used by vehicles?


The cyclist has as much right to use the lane used by OTHER vehicles, he
is using a vehicle.
If he put himself in that lane, then traffic using the other lane would
have right of way over him, even if the other traffic was directly
behind him.

The question is
Why should a cyclist use a lane designed to increase the chances of him
being hit by another vehicle?
  #7  
Old June 18th 08, 08:05 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:55:21 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:35:54 +0100, judith
wrote:

Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.

If the car had chosen a different route then the accident wouldn't of
happened. Which is the same argument as blaming a cyclist for not
using a cycle lane


You mean in the same way as if the cyclist had been in the purpose
built cycle lane, then he would have not run in to the car?

Why would the cyclist not be using the cycle lane?
Why would the cyclist be in the middle of the lane used by the car?

  #8  
Old June 18th 08, 08:09 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Pete Biggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,801
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

judith wrote:
Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes


Except where cycling is specifically prohibited, cyclists are free to use
the main carriageway instead of a cycle lane.

Cycle lanes are often dangerously positioned, dangerously narrow, and
roughly surfaced.

Riding in the centre of the lane of the main carriageway is often the safest
place to be on a narrow road or near a junction or parked cars, for
examples.

~PB


  #9  
Old June 18th 08, 08:10 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities

"judith" wrote in message
news
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).


As the council admitted, people don't necessarily want to use that cycle
lane. I probably wouldn't because it would place me in conflict with other
road users a couple of yards later, and I'm sure you agree that
introducing
unnecessary conflict is a bad thing.

Cycle lanes and other such facilities are frequently less safe and slower
than using the road. This should be sufficient to persuade you why it is
important to not assume that they should be used.


Perhaps I am badly informed and you can correct this :

So in the example - why is the cyclist not using the cycling lane -
why is he in the middle of the lane used by vehicles?


First thing you need to understand : his bike _is_ a vehicle.

I did also explain above - see, it's quoted - why a cyclist might want to
not use the cycle lane.

Bar idiot drivers who drive into things in front of them, it's safer for a
cyclist to not use it.

He's in the middle of the lane because that's the best way to prevent people
from hitting you. Didn't work in this case, but overall it does. At that
point he really doesn't want a car trying to overtake, and so the best thing
to do is ride in the middle of the lane. If you're in any doubt about this,
may I suggest you go out and buy a copy of "Cyclecraft", published by The
Stationary Office (TSO). It's the definitive guide to vehicular cycling in
this country, equivalent to "Roadcraft" for car drivers. It'll tell you
pretty much what I've said above.

Actually, that's a good general answer to your original question : read that
book. It'll tell you all you need to know. Read it, and you should come away
less badly informed than you currently are.

clive



  #10  
Old June 18th 08, 08:10 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Martin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 551
Default (Non-) Use of cycling facilities


judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:55:21 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:35:54 +0100, judith
wrote:

Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

In the post he provides a link to:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).

I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
would be interested in their views on this matter.

If the car had chosen a different route then the accident wouldn't of
happened. Which is the same argument as blaming a cyclist for not
using a cycle lane


You mean in the same way as if the cyclist had been in the purpose
built cycle lane, then he would have not run in to the car?

Why would the cyclist not be using the cycle lane?
Why would the cyclist be in the middle of the lane used by the car?


The cyclist was not in a car lane, he was in a general purpose lane.

Why should a cyclist be in a cycle lane that reduces his safety on the road?
Most cycle lanes are extremely poorly designed, and very rarely wide
enough for a bike, let alone the clearance a motorist is obliged to give
the cyclist when over taking.
The cyclist in the above case was virtually rear ended/side swiped by a
car, could you explain how this was the cyclists fault?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycle facilities increase cycling LSMike UK 19 November 2nd 07 02:38 AM
Another facilities own goal Tony Raven[_2_] UK 0 September 10th 07 08:08 AM
Facilities and farcilities Dylan Smith UK 1 July 30th 07 02:47 PM
Cycle facilities in the FT Tony Raven[_2_] UK 29 May 5th 07 02:35 PM
Hampstead Heath - increase cycling facilities? wheelist UK 34 September 12th 06 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.