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

The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 25th 04, 09:43 PM
Ningi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
snip
I honestly believe no traffic engineer should be allowed anywhere near
designing cycle facilities until he or she has used a pedal cycle as their
*only* form of transport for a minimum of a year, in all weathers... and then
they should have to spend at least six months of the year where the bike is
their only form of transport...


A few years ago they implemented a disastrous one-way system in St
Albans. It was dismantled after a few weeks. The word on the street
was that the traffic engineer who designed it couldn't drive. I think
the principle is similar

Pete
Ads
  #82  
Old May 25th 04, 09:55 PM
burt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes



"Michael MacClancy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:51:35 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
(and there's a large feature in the local rag entitled 'Cycle lane has
hit profits, angry traders tell minister')


Here's a link to the story:
http://tinyurl.com/3ezt3


"Michael Michael, whose family has run the Look Smart dry-cleaners in
Station Road for 32 years,....."

Did his parents have a stutter?
--
cheers

Rich




--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter
saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk



  #83  
Old May 25th 04, 10:03 PM
burt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes



--
cheers

Rich
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:36:58 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

Evidence? Edinburgh spent large sums and the number of utility
cyclists apparently dropped.


I find this difficult to believe, but am amenable to convincing. The
North Edinburgh path network, for all its faults, seems to have
encouraged a fair number of people to try cycling.


I can recall reading a synopsis of a report which showed that a new section
of segregated cycle path hadn't increased the number of people cycling, but
existing cyclists changed their route if it was convenient. Southampton?
Plymouth?

--
cheers

Rich

.



  #84  
Old May 25th 04, 10:45 PM
Ambrose Nankivell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

In ,
Chris Malcolm typed:
But how much are their journeys slowed? People get the subjective idea
that if something slows them down, like a bicycle or a speed limit,
thry're losing valuable time, get annoyed, get perception of having
been slowed down a lot. But in the typical urban environment the
actual amount of time you spend in excess of 20mph is sufficiently
small that if there were a 20mph limit the difference in total journey
time would be negligible. What contributes most to your average speed
are the times you are stopped or going very slowly.


I think that the problem with cycle paths is that in general, they don't
just slow down the average (modal, I guess) speed, they also greatly
increase the number of times it's necessary to slow right down or stop,
which of course also increases the amount of effort needed for the trip and
increases mental effort as well as having a big effect on average speed.

A


  #85  
Old May 25th 04, 11:17 PM
Patrick Herring
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

"Tony Raven" wrote:

| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the
| road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway).
| I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to
| think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but
| separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up
| like Holland and Denmark.
|
|
| Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Vejdirekforatet, Denmark, 1988
|
| Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities.
| Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81,
| totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of
| paths.
|
| Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV, Netherlands, 1992.
| Originally presented to Roads and Traffic 2000 conference, Berlin, 1988;
| Revised version included in Still more bikes behind the dikes, CROW, 1992.
|
| In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between
| junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous
| between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if
| tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities. Cycle lanes narrower than
| 1.8m particularly hazardous.
| Outside towns, cycle track safety depends on car and cycle numbers.
| New cross-town routes in Den Haag and Tilburg had produced no safety gain and
| had not encouraged much new cycling.

I might have known it. Thanks for the references.

yours sitting correctedly,
--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk
  #88  
Old May 26th 04, 12:07 AM
Gawnsoft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

On Tue, 25 May 2004 14:05:40 +0100, David Hansen
wrote (more or less):

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:03:30 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
wrote this:-

....
opefully Guardbridge will see
similar upgeading, though in that case you could achieve everything
required by just taking out any attempt at cycle paths.


That would be ideal, but would reduce their "km of cycle facility"
figure.


Yes - that km figure really should cover displacement rather than
distance.

Which would also mean that long, indirect, windy 'facilities' would
have a much higher £/km build cost than direct ones.

--
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
  #89  
Old May 26th 04, 12:16 AM
Patrick Herring
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

| David Arditti wrote:
|
| The major deterrent to more cycling is laziness. Bulding new roads
| spreads out the congestion; building cycle paths does not amke people
| less lazy.
|
| So the British just happen to be the laziest nation in Europe, hence
| low cycling levels? I doubt it.
|
| How else would you explain people who live less than 15 minutes' ride from
| an office but choose to spend 25 minutes driving it instead?
|
| I would have thought it was pretty
| generally accepted that the reason more people do not cycle is the
| environment.
|
| That's one of the excuses. Remove that and it becomes the hills. Or the
| weather. Or the lack of changing facilities at the office. Or they ran
| outta gas. Had a flat tyre. Didn't have enough money for cab fare. Their tux
| didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from outta town.
| Someone stole their bike. There was an earthquake, a terrible flood,
| locusts. It isn't their fault, they swear to God!

IMHO a major unacknowledged factor is wanting to prolong personal
space for as long as possible, particularly when commuting to work.
Houses and cars are personal space; bikes, pavements, buses, offices
are not.

| Virtually every household has a bike but few people
| cycle regularly. Many British people on holiday cycle in continental
| cities when they would not dream of cycling at home. If we created
| the right environment in British cities we would get high levels of
| cycling.
|
| It's conceivable but not terribly likely; I have lived in places which are
| quite bike-friendly and people still drive.

I suspect a main reason why people just don't see cycling as an
obvious solution for short utility trips isn't that they don't see
their bike as a solution but that they just don't see their car as a
problem. And even if they do everyone else is doing it too...

| A part of that is to create the motor traffic-free cycle
| routes that most people who don't currently cycle say are what it
| would take to get them cycling.
|
| But you can't have a traffic free route door to door. All you do by trying
| is put off the inevitable: at some point cyclists have to take to the roads.
| So my view of good cycle provision is roads which don't leave you feeling
| squeezed out and marginalised, so that you can just ride from A to B and not
| plan your journey around somebody else's vision of which way you would like
| to go (which is generally around the houses in the little bits of land left
| over after the cars have had first, second and third choice).

But roads also are the result of somebody else's vision of which way
you would like to go, or else a relic of which way was to the pig
market and which to the grazing meadows.

| You might say they are lying - that
| they are just lazy, and wouldn't cycle anyway. But evidence of the
| few places in the UK where it has been well-done suggests to me this
| is wrong.
|
| Cycling levels in these places still doesn't get anywhere close to bike
| ownership levels.
|
| I don't think we'll be winning until riding half a mile to the shops becomes
| the norm instead of a Big Deal, showing your fgreen credentials so you can
| brag to your mates when you drive to the pub later in your 4x4.

If it's to be the norm you wouldn't want them to be doing it for
"special" reasons like being green or getting them bragging points,
they'd be doing it without thinking, or is that what you meant?

....
| Sure. There is very limited capacity to add such provision where I live and
| work. Better to make the roads less hostile.

Actually, that was going to be my follow-up point after the "obvious"
one about segregated cycle ways [1] being good things.

An easy solution to the whole thing would be to make the speed limit
in built-up areas 12mph, practically everywhere. Almost everyone can
cycle at 12mph. Cyclists could in general move out into the main flow
of traffic without holding it up. Complete integration of modes of
transport. Heck, fit runners could join in too. It would even give
some point to wearing helmets, though I still wouldn't. Trouble is
there would be less point in having a 'bent...

[1] Shall we call them segways, just to stir the plot to make it
thicker?

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk
  #90  
Old May 26th 04, 12:16 AM
Gawnsoft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The _Observer_ on "deadly" bike lanes

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:36:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less):

Evidence? Edinburgh spent large sums and the number of utility
cyclists apparently dropped.


Hmm - as a current Edinburgh cyclist, who has seen cycling facilities
in Edinburgh for over 20 years, I'd still like to see the details of
the study that concluded this.

The monetary figure I've seen means that this study could not be a
study of the long-run provision of facilities in Edinburgh, and so
given that it is a more restricted study, I'd like to know quite what
it was restricted to the study of.


--
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
 




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
if you wanted maximum braking, where would you sit? wle Techniques 133 November 18th 15 03:10 AM
buying my first road bike Tanya Quinn General 28 June 17th 10 10:42 AM
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale Marilyn Price Marketplace 0 June 1st 04 04:52 AM
Convert Hybrid to Touring bike Willy Smallboy Techniques 23 March 26th 04 02:03 PM
FAQ Just zis Guy, you know? UK 27 September 5th 03 10:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 PM.


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.