#1
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
I know some of you are interested in these things so here's a cutting from
my local rag: http://tinyurl.com/3xk3j The pic isn't very good, but you get the idea. I often use that road and you won't be surprised to learn that I have never used the cycle path. d. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
"davek" wrote in message ... I know some of you are interested in these things so here's a cutting from my local rag: http://tinyurl.com/3xk3j The pic isn't very good, but you get the idea. I often use that road and you won't be surprised to learn that I have never used the cycle path. At first I thought what was the fuss as I thought all of the path was a cycle path and then I saw the paint. What a joke ! -- Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W™ http://www.simonmason.karoo.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
"davek" wrote in message ... I often use that road and you won't be surprised to learn that I have never used the cycle path. And in general, isn't this always the way in Britain? Apart from the issue of street funiture, here's a few more reasons. Typically roads go directly where you want to go, unlike cycle tracks. Typically roads continue uninterrupted across junctions, unlike cycle tracks. Typically roads have a smooth-ish surface, unlike cycle tracks. Typically roads are devoid of smashed alco-pop bottles, unlike cycle tracks. Typically roads get gritted, unlike cycle tracks. Typically roads have generous minimum turn radii, unlike cycle tracks. Typically pedestrians on roads watch out for wheeled vehicles, unlike on cycle tracks. I could go on... Really I agree with the oft repeated sentiment that most cycle tracks exist to be mapped rather than to facilitate cycling. Most cycle track builders would rather flourish their network's map than its usage figures or impact on cycle journey times. -- Individual replies to less the Misdirections (and note the underscore after r246) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
Gippledocks wrote:
Really I agree with the oft repeated sentiment that most cycle tracks exist to be mapped rather than to facilitate cycling. Most cycle track builders would rather flourish their network's map than its usage figures or impact on cycle journey times. Most cycle tracks are built to achieve the targets for cycle provision set by Government at minimum possible cost. How good they are is irrelevant provided you can tick the box on a few more meters of provision. Personally I am all in favour of that approach as I consider any money spent on cycle tracks is a waste of money and people should be encouraged to cycle where they belong on the roads. The less money spent and the less attractive the result is, the better it is for what I want - cyclists using the roads. Tony |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
"Tony Raven" wrote in message ...
Most cycle tracks are built to achieve the targets for cycle provision set by Government at minimum possible cost. How good they are is irrelevant provided you can tick the box on a few more meters of provision. Personally I am all in favour of that approach as I consider any money spent on cycle tracks is a waste of money and people should be encouraged to cycle where they belong on the roads. The less money spent and the less attractive the result is, the better it is for what I want - cyclists using the roads. Surely it would be better not to spend the money in the first place. I disagree that bad cycling provision encourages cyclists to use the roads. It simply discourages cycling. Even if you try to ignore the provision you are affected by it. Cycling outside the lane often provokes aggression from motorists, and cycling in it is difficult and sometimes even dangerous. As far as inexperienced cyclists go, they assume quite reasonably that the cycle lanes are there to help them. They try to use them and find the whole experience is unpleasant and threatening. It's all too easy to make the incorrect assumption that cycling away from the "protection" of the farcilities must be even worse. No wonder the numbers cycling seem to fall in direct proportion to the amount spent on provision. -- Dave... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
"Gippledocks" . com wrote in message ...
Typically roads have generous minimum turn radii, unlike cycle tracks. I love some of those 6" wide lanes that bend through 90 degrees with a radius of about 18". It would tax Danny to stay in them on his uni-cycle. There's one at the entrance to Syon Park which I used to go through regularly. As a challenge I occasionally tried to stay in the lane just to see if I could. No matter how slowly I rode, and I have a good track stand, I never managed to keep both wheels perfectly in the lane. A skilled rider on a trials bike could probably do it. -- Dave... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
Dave Kahn wrote:
A skilled rider on a trials bike could probably do it. Well, that's alright then 'cos there are loads of trials riders around; judging by the number of bikes I see with the tiny, lowered, upward-pointing saddles. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
The local paper in Wilmslow, Cheshire reported on a cycle track which was in
planning - which would be a designated "local cycle route" on the Sustrans scheme. The planning permission was overturned because it was too dangerous - the reason? A set of 80 or so steps was to form an integral part of the cycle route where the cycle track came up against a 1:12 incline which rises a total of 23 metres. Apparently, the council want to put the revised plan back up for planning permission. What was the revision I hear you asking? There would be a little "gutter" style thing where you could walk your bike up whilst using the steps. I think I'll be sticking to the road on this bit then. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
"Dave Kahn" wrote in message As far as inexperienced cyclists go, they assume quite reasonably that the cycle lanes are there to help them. They try to use them and find the whole experience is unpleasant and threatening. It's all too easy to make the incorrect assumption that cycling away from the "protection" of the farcilities must be even worse. No wonder the numbers cycling seem to fall in direct proportion to the amount spent on provision. Hull must be an exception. Our council have spent many millions on cycling (and anti-car measures)and now we are up from 6 to number 3 as a "cycling city". Six times the national average now cycle to work. -- Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'WT http://www.simonmason.karoo.net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
crap cycle path
Dave Kahn wrote:
I love some of those 6" wide lanes that bend through 90 degrees with a radius of about 18". It would tax Danny to stay in them on his uni-cycle. Not on the 20" it wouldn't :-P -- Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address) url:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who is going to Interbike? | Bruce Gilbert | Techniques | 2 | October 10th 03 09:26 PM |
Pick 'n Pay Cape Argus Cycle Tour - Cape Town, South Africa, 2004 | David Cowie | UK | 0 | August 28th 03 10:29 PM |
Another cycle farcility | Tim Hall | UK | 6 | August 26th 03 10:14 PM |