|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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 | |
|
|
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 |