[censored] cycle path

"davek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know some of you are interested in these things so
here's a cutting from my local rag:
tinyurl.com3xk3jOpen ↗

The pic isn't very good, but you get the idea. I often use
that road and

you

Quoted message said:

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™
simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

"davek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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
[email hidden]

less the Misdirections (and note the underscore after r246)

Gippledocks said:

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

"Gippledocks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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...

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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...

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.

Dave Kahn said:

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.

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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
simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

Dave Kahn said:

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

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote: (
"davek" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message ) "]news:[email hidden]... ( > I
know some of you are interested in these things so here's a
cutting from ) > my local rag: ( > tinyurl.com3xk3jOpen ↗
) > ( > 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 !

There is a stretch of NCN5 in North Oxford that runs on the
pavement of the Woodstock Road, and which is punctuated by
give way markings at a succession of substantial trees (and
a bus stop). I don't know how long I am expected to wait
while giving way to a tree. Further up the route, near
Woodstock there's a contra-flow cycle lane that drops off
the pavement into and though the bus-stop lay-byes
alongside the A44.

NCN5 runs parallel to the section of route 51 on the Banbury
Road where Oxford (having taken over a pre-existing
Oxfordshire facility -- Oxford and Oxfordshire had
mismatched conventions about these things leading to odd
chicanes at the one-time City/County boundary) has swapped
the cycle and non-cycle halves of a pavement with a kerb
along the middle (that makes it dangerous to swerve from one
onto the other) leaving all the street furniture on the
cycle path.

And then there's the green kryptonite mandatory lane
running up and down the A420 Headington Hill between high
stone walls, where the street lamps stand on the
carriageway side of the walls, and are marked by vee-shaped
narrowings of the mandatory cycle lane to about one foot
wide. I say about because it's far too dangerous to get
near enough to measure them.

We've all got these things.

"Richard Bullock" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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.

Brilliant! Do these people know what a bike is? Is it a
cycle track specifically for trials riders?

Richard Bullock said:

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.

There was one such farcility near me when I first moved in.
The steps on one side of the incline have since been
replaced by a ramp, but it's still quite a climb and I
certainly wouldn't want to meet someone coming the other
way. Needless to say, I use the road: <url:http://www.speed-
y5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/cycling/farce/wraxall1.jpg>

or the 7th picture down at <url:http://www.speedy5.freeserv-
e.co.uk/danny/cycling/farcilities.html>

--
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

Iain Jones said:

"Richard Bullock" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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.

Brilliant! Do these people know what a bike is? Is it a
cycle track specifically for trials riders?

Prabably had a surplus of Cyclist Dismount signs they were
hoping to use up.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Prabably had a surplus of Cyclist Dismount signs they were
hoping to use up.

Tee-hee!

I have been using a short stretch of Sustrans path to avoid
Nastiness. I'm going to have to stop usig it; it was
marginal on the tourer but is bloody unpleasant on the
'bent. Why? Because Sustrans, in their infinite wisdom, have
chosen to spread loose gravel over the tarmac surface.
Somebody really out to point out to them that the "trans"
part means "transport", which means that you can't assume
balloon-tyred MTBs will be the only bikes.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

in message <[email hidden]>, Geraint Jones

(') said:

Further up the route, near Woodstock there's a contra-flow
cycle lane that drops off the pavement into and though the
bus-stop lay-byes alongside the A44.

When (not if) someone gets killed there, is it murder or
manslaughter the planners should be charged with?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could
do but wait patiently for the RAC to arrive.

Tony Raven said:

Prabably had a surplus of Cyclist Dismount signs they were
hoping to use up.

William. I think they gave a job lot to British Waterways
too - on a whim I rode home up the tow path (Regent's
Canal, Hertford Union Canal, river Lea) yesterday and there
were a profusion of signs forbidding the riding of bicycles
under bridges.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Quoted message said:

I have been using a short stretch of Sustrans path to
avoid Nastiness.

I'm

Quoted message said:

going to have to stop usig it; it was marginal on the
tourer but is bloody unpleasant on the 'bent. Why? Because
Sustrans, in their infinite

wisdom,

Quoted message said:

have chosen to spread loose gravel over the tarmac
surface. Somebody

really

Quoted message said:

out to point out to them that the "trans" part means
"transport", which means that you can't assume balloon-
tyred MTBs will be the only bikes.

I took an old MTB along to do short sections of the Trans-
Pennine Trail - I've done the bit from Spike Island, Widnes
to somewhere East of Stockport - and the quality varies
enormously. The section along the former railway between
Altrincham and Lymm is actually quite good (although has
annoying gates where it meets a couple of minor roads) - and
certain bits in Warrington are ok - the section past
Fiddlers Ferry power station was almost impassable on foot
let alone on a bike - it was so overgrown. The bit from the
end of the end of the railway to the east of Stockport is
generally quite [censored] - the surfacing is very poor - I
certainly wouldn't recommend doing it on anything with
smaller wheels than my MTB - and one particular section East
of Stockport - I wouldn't recommend doing it on a bike at
all - I nearly broke a wheel. I hope that bit has been
properly surfaced now/ or an alternative route found -
rather than just saying that large loose rocks are an
adequate surface.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been using a short stretch of Sustrans path to
avoid Nastiness. I'm going to have to stop usig it; it was
marginal on the tourer but is bloody unpleasant on the
'bent. Why? Because Sustrans, in their infinite wisdom,
have chosen to spread loose gravel over the tarmac
surface. Somebody really out to point out to them that the
"trans" part means "transport", which means that you can't
assume balloon-tyred MTBs will be the only bikes.

But that would involve them having some knowledge of what
they were doing. Interested to see John Grimshaw in a
letter to AtoB saying no-one in Sustrans "has any knowledge
that trikes cannot be used on bridleways". So no one is
Sustrans has heard of that fundamental piece of rights of
way for cyclists legislation, The Countryside Act 1968,
which only allows bicycles and not tricycles or unicycles
on bridleways then.

Tony

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

When (not if) someone gets killed there, is it murder or
manslaughter the planners should be charged with?

Is idiocy a crime? If not, how about "spending one's
allowance before the end of the financial year"?

James