Are bikes the solution?

Peter said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was basically about
the road rage between cyclists. They say that accidents are
increasing because more people are going onto two wheels.

There are already a lot of accidents.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

The same is true of many road users -- it is not just limited to cyclists.
But I agree, the lack of a suitable proficiency test for cyclists needs to
be addressed. Remember, though, that cyclists in collision with pedestrians
are much less likely to kill or maim than motor vehicle in collision with
peds.

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?

If cycling were taken up in signifcant numbers, the level of pollution would
most likely be reduced due to significantly fewer motor vehicles on the
roads.

Quoted message said:

When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then acclerate past
them when it's safe.

Try accellerating less hard, or ease up to create space as you approach a
cyclist and then pass safely without increasing your speed differential so
much.

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them to a stand
still?

No. Motor vehicles do this quite well enough.

ps, trying to apply the faults associated with motor transport to cycle
transport just doesn't work.

Peter said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?
When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then acclerate past
them when it's safe. When a whole stream of cars do this then the
pollution is going to increase a lot.

More than the pollution saved by that person cycling rather than driving?

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them to a stand
still?

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument for
building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road. And
there would be fewer cars.

I'll bite...

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

Quoted message said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was basically about
the road rage between cyclists. They say that accidents are
increasing because more people are going onto two wheels. If the
government want us to go onto two wheels then there could be a lot of
accidents.

Because of stupid and/or inconsiderate road use. If people engaged their
brains these accidents wouldn't happen.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Ditto motorists - and probably to a greater extent

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?
When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then acclerate past
them when it's safe.
When a whole stream of cars do this then the
pollution is going to increase a lot.

Learn accelerator sense. Slowing gently and accelerating gently won't make
that much difference to maintaining a steady speed.

Additionally using bikes (or walking) for short journeys would negate the
effect (and some)

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them to a stand
still?

If people used bikes (or walked) for short journeys then congestion and
pollution would be reduced.

IIRC 20-ish % of car journeys are under a mile.[1] This causes alot of
congestion and pollution. These journeys are often quicker by bike or foot.
Additionally, cars are damaged by such short journeys.

[1] I can't find a reference for this, so if anyone could provide one or
correct me I'd be grateful.

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

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument for
building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use the
road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone can
point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter)

wrote in message : said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was basically about
the road rage between cyclists.

In other words, some people are arses even when you take away their
metal boxes. No big surprise there. Me, I find it hard to engage in
traffic anger on my bike. If I throw a tantrum I will probably get
flattened. One cyclist was deliberately run over and he and his
toddler daughter seriously injured simply because he shook his fist at
some git who carved him up. Life's too short.

Quoted message said:

They say that accidents are
increasing because more people are going onto two wheels.

"they" may say that, but they are essentially wrong. The number of
cyclist collisions per mile travelled drops as the number of cyclists
increases. This is the experience everywhere, as far as I can tell.
So...

Quoted message said:

If the
government want us to go onto two wheels then there could be a lot of
accidents.

But actually every cyclist will, on average, be a bit safer for every
additional cyclist who starts. And since a regular cyclist lives two
years or more longer than average, the risk of crashes can't be quite
as bad as they would like you to think.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Correct - a statement which also applies to many drivers, of course.

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of CO2 per km
travelled, and this comes from non-renewable sources. A typical
cyclist emits significantly less, and all comes from renewable
sources. Bicycle emission of particulates is zero. Also bicycle
emission of NOx is zero. No benzene is released in fuelling the
bicycle.

Nope, can't see what you're getting at ;-)

Quoted message said:

When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then acclerate past
them when it's safe. When a whole stream of cars do this then the
pollution is going to increase a lot.

This effect is negligible by comparison with temissions due to idling
engines in traffic jams, and the reduced efficiency of engines in
urban cycle to start with.

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them to a stand
still?

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the roads to a
standstill...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road.

Quoted message said:

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use the
road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone

can

Quoted message said:

point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

I would rather see offroad cycle paths than "cycle lanes" anyday as an
on-road cycle lane offers 0% protection to a cylist, who may think that a
white painted line will protect them from traffic. At least if the path is
offroad then you are not expected to use it if you don't want to. I saw a
particularly bad example on the outskirts of Exeter recently which was a
glass strewn kerbside lane with a metre wide section of white hatching
separating it from the main traffic lane - there is no way i would cycle in
the cycle lane because of the debris, and there is no way i would cycle on
the hatchings due to both debis and bumpy white lines, yet cycling on the
traffic lane would probably get me honked and shouted at (better than
puntures but still annoying).

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road.

Quoted message said:

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use the
road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone

can

Quoted message said:

point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

I would rather see offroad cycle paths than "cycle lanes" anyday as an
on-road cycle lane offers 0% protection to a cylist, who may think that a
white painted line will protect them from traffic. At least if the path

is

Quoted message said:

offroad then you are not expected to use it if you don't want to. I saw a
particularly bad example on the outskirts of Exeter recently which was a
glass strewn kerbside lane with a metre wide section of white hatching
separating it from the main traffic lane - there is no way i would cycle

in

Quoted message said:

the cycle lane because of the debris, and there is no way i would cycle on
the hatchings due to both debis and bumpy white lines, yet cycling on the
traffic lane would probably get me honked and shouted at (better than
puntures but still annoying).

I think thats a fair point - but the ideal situation is where motorists (and
others) are considerate enough for cyclists to be able to use the road.

Adrian Boliston said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road.

Quoted message said:

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use the
road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone

can

Quoted message said:

point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

I would rather see offroad cycle paths than "cycle lanes" anyday as an
on-road cycle lane offers 0% protection to a cylist, who may think that a
white painted line will protect them from traffic. At least if the path is
offroad then you are not expected to use it if you don't want to. I saw a
particularly bad example on the outskirts of Exeter recently which was a
glass strewn kerbside lane with a metre wide section of white hatching
separating it from the main traffic lane - there is no way i would cycle in
the cycle lane because of the debris, and there is no way i would cycle on
the hatchings due to both debis and bumpy white lines, yet cycling on the
traffic lane would probably get me honked and shouted at (better than
puntures but still annoying).

Hi there,

New to the group, but not to cycling. I have to say that I agree with
you there Adrian. Having just moved up to the North East, I am amazed at
the far superior cycling facilities we have here. Perhaps it's being
near a university town, or perhaps it's due to the massive investment
the local councils have put in up here. Certainly the council tax here
is higher, but for the facilities we have I'm happy to pay for it.

Anyway, that's another issue. Not more than a mile from our front door
we have a lovely network of converted railway lines, all made into
foot/cycle paths. They are wide enough to allow both pedestrians and
cyclists to coexist, and long enough to be able to make a reasonable
journey - we managed ten miles on Saturday after buying Emily's new bike
that day.

Not only that, but it has given me somewhere to take our daughter out
riding without the risk of being mashed by a dozy motorist [1]. It has
also given me somewhere to go to get back some of my past fitness too.
Having not ridden that much myself for some time [2], I am enjoying the
ability to go cycling at a fairly easy pace and enjoy the countryside as
well. As I work some 22 miles [3] from home cycling to work isn't a
consideration, so riding for leisure is my only purpose.

[1] I am a motorist too, but my main mileage is covered on two wheels
still.
[2] I am a past member of the CTC, but since have done more offroading,
mainly to avoid contact (sorry!) with cages.
[3] along some of the most inhospitable roads I have ever seen.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid
> argument

for

Quoted message said:

> building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the
> road.

Quoted message said:

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to
use the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure
Guy or someone

can

Quoted message said:

point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

I would rather see offroad cycle paths than "cycle lanes" anyday as
an on-road cycle lane offers 0% protection to a cylist, who may
think that a white painted line will protect them from traffic. At
least if the path

is

Quoted message said:

offroad then you are not expected to use it if you don't want to. I
saw a particularly bad example on the outskirts of Exeter recently
which was a glass strewn kerbside lane with a metre wide section of
white hatching separating it from the main traffic lane - there is
no way i would cycle

in

Quoted message said:

the cycle lane because of the debris, and there is no way i would
cycle on the hatchings due to both debis and bumpy white lines, yet
cycling on the traffic lane would probably get me honked and shouted
at (better than puntures but still annoying).

I think that's a fair point - but the ideal situation is where
motorists (and others) are considerate enough for cyclists to be able
to use the road.

Hear feckin' hear!
<standing ovation>

Having followed the Fred Whitton Challenge by motorbike earlier this year
(how else could I zoom ahead to take pictures?) I have to add that the vast
majority of motorists I saw did give way politely but some seemed oblivious
through sheer incompetence to heroically struggling cyclists and one [censored] in
a huge company car on Hardknott Pass seemed extremely annoyed that these
sub-humans[1] were in his way and dared to slow him down. A definite Mr
Dursley if ever there was one!

If anyone on the uk.rec.cycling newsgroup knows a Mr P Kirk who went through
a drystone wall on Kirkstone Pass during the FWC, wearing nothing more
protective than skin-tight lycra and a baseball cap, please post a reply or
de-mung my email to let me know how he was as I was the biker who stopped to
help.

[1] my guess at his thoughts on cyclists.

--
FZS600 - Silver/Black
GS125 - Black/Rust
Ford 100E Prefect - Black, naturally
Whisky - Aberlour Cask Strength

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:35:39 +0100, Nathaniel Porter
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

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

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument for
building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use the
road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone can
point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

Dedicated cycle paths aren't actually all that bad in and of themselves, it
is the interaction with normal roads bit that thesefall down on, especially
where they try to make cyclists cross side-roads a few hundred metres back
from a junction (i.e. right where motor traffic isn't expecting them).

On the other hand, fake cycle paths on the lines of "Oh look, painting some
silly lines on the roads for everyone to take no notice of at all is JUST THE
THING to really make our council look all green and bike-friendly, and fulfil
this obligation to be nice to bikes" sort of variety is at best silly, and at
worst downright dangerous.

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD [email hidden]
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:12:27 +0100, [email hidden] (my
bro-in-law) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

New to the group, but not to cycling.

But not been on yer bike for a while, not without a hengine thobut ;-)

Quoted message said:

Anyway, that's another issue. Not more than a mile from our front door
we have a lovely network of converted railway lines, all made into
foot/cycle paths. They are wide enough to allow both pedestrians and
cyclists to coexist, and long enough to be able to make a reasonable
journey -

And flat. Don't forget flat :-D

When I get my copy of Cyclecraft back from Arnold I'll post it up :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Nathaniel Porter said:

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

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid
argument for building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate
from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use
the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or
someone can point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated
cycle lanes?

I was just thinking about the pollution argument of cars having to go around
bikes on the road. If there were enough bikes then the cars and bikes could
be separated, hence removing the need for cars to navigate their way around
bikes and vice-versa.

Dan Holdsworth said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:35:39 +0100, Nathaniel Porter
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

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

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid
argument for building more dedicated cycle paths that were
separate from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to
use the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure
Guy or someone can point you to a reference here). So why have
dedicated cycle lanes?

Dedicated cycle paths aren't actually all that bad in and of
themselves, it is the interaction with normal roads bit that
thesefall down on, especially where they try to make cyclists cross
side-roads a few hundred metres back from a junction (i.e. right
where motor traffic isn't expecting them).

Yep, I often use the road instead of cycle paths just for this reason, I
don't particularly want to slow and look at every single road that joins the
main road.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, fake cycle paths on the lines of "Oh look,
painting some silly lines on the roads for everyone to take no notice
of at all is JUST THE THING to really make our council look all green
and bike-friendly, and fulfil this obligation to be nice to bikes"
sort of variety is at best silly, and at worst downright dangerous.

Indeed, I have always thought that. When I was at school the council said
they didn't have enough money to paint a zebra crossing outside our school
on the busy road. However they then went and painted cycle lanes for miles
down the road (and boasted about how much money they were spending). *THEN*
they repainted them because they weren't wide enough the first time!!!
Stupid, absolutely stupid.

Now if you drive down there you either have to have one wheel in the cycle
lane or be partially in the opposite lane of traffic. How exactly are you
meant to drive or cycle any differently because of the painted cycle lane
lines?

Just zis Guy said:

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter)

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be
effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of CO2 per km
travelled, and this comes from non-renewable sources. A typical
cyclist emits significantly less, and all comes from renewable
sources. Bicycle emission of particulates is zero. Also bicycle
emission of NOx is zero. No benzene is released in fuelling the
bicycle.

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle rather than drive?

If so and a significant proportion of people started cycling the amount of
food (+packaging, transportation etc) would need to increase. This would
increase pollution ... a bit :-)

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:35:39 +0100, Nathaniel Porter
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

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

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use the
road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

Dedicated cycle paths aren't actually all that bad in and of themselves,

it

Quoted message said:

is the interaction with normal roads bit that thesefall down on,

especially

Quoted message said:

where they try to make cyclists cross side-roads a few hundred metres back
from a junction (i.e. right where motor traffic isn't expecting them).

On the other hand, fake cycle paths on the lines of "Oh look, painting

some

Quoted message said:

silly lines on the roads for everyone to take no notice of at all is JUST

THE

Quoted message said:

THING to really make our council look all green and bike-friendly, and

fulfil

Quoted message said:

this obligation to be nice to bikes" sort of variety is at best silly, and

at

Quoted message said:

worst downright dangerous.

It seems to me that it would be better if we had a rule of through traffic
having priority over cross traffic. That way turning traffic (cyclists and
motor vehicles) would have to give way to through traffic (i.e. cyclists on
a cycle path or pedestrians on the footpath).

I think it would be alot safer, and wouldn't cause much inconvienience to
anyone.

Just thinking aloud again :-)

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:12:27 +0100, [email hidden] (my
bro-in-law) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

New to the group, but not to cycling.

But not been on yer bike for a while, not without a hengine thobut ;-)

Very true, it's much harder work without those 125 horses ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, that's another issue. Not more than a mile from our front door
we have a lovely network of converted railway lines, all made into
foot/cycle paths. They are wide enough to allow both pedestrians and
cyclists to coexist, and long enough to be able to make a reasonable
journey -

And flat. Don't forget flat :-D

Ah! you spotted that then did you ;-)

Actually not all that flat. You might have heard about Emily's little
incident. Strangely enough I found your article about helmets
interesting because of this.

Bought her a shiny new bike on Saturday, crashed it on Sunday. We did a
lovely few miles on Saturday too. Went for a slightly shorter run on
Sunday, [1] and found this (from where we were standing) steep but short
looking slope. Turned out not to be so short a slope though, and I had
to watch as Em went hurtlign down the slope, ignoring my 'USE THE
BRAKES' being yelled at her. I got down the slope to find her in a bit
of a dusty heap. She'd forgotten that I'd told her to use the back brake
first, and grabbed a handful of front brake.

Not too bad, thankfully, a few bruises and a nasty graze on her right
thigh, but she managed to walk back home. I also managed to get her back
on the bike on the way back too [2]. It's bad enough for a couple of
days off school and a couple visits to the practice nurse though.

Ob: Helmets, there are a couple of grazes on the lid too, nothing that
would have caused an injury, but probably saved a couple of small
scrapes. It was actually proof of the kind of thing you mention.

Quite a bit my fault really, as I'd omitted to instruct her on how to
negotiate a steep slope :-(

Quoted message said:

When I get my copy of Cyclecraft back from Arnold I'll post it up :-)

Ta. I think I'll make Em read that!

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

Nathaniel Porter said:

It seems to me that it would be better if we had a rule of through
traffic having priority over cross traffic. That way turning traffic
(cyclists and
motor vehicles) would have to give way to through traffic (i.e.
cyclists on
a cycle path or pedestrians on the footpath).

I think it would be alot safer, and wouldn't cause much
inconvienience to anyone.

The rule already exists, it's just that most car drivers are too arrogant to
observe it.

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of CO2 per km
travelled, and this comes from non-renewable sources. A typical
cyclist emits significantly less, and all comes from renewable
sources. Bicycle emission of particulates is zero. Also bicycle
emission of NOx is zero. No benzene is released in fuelling the
bicycle.

I think you misread that. He said how will pollution be _effected_ not how
will it be _affected_. He clearly thinks the missing pollution will need to
be made up for in some way or other ;-)

Tony

Peter said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was basically about
the road rage between cyclists. They say that accidents are
increasing because more people are going onto two wheels. If the
government want us to go onto two wheels then there could be a lot of
accidents. Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?
When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then acclerate past
them when it's safe. When a whole stream of cars do this then the
pollution is going to increase a lot.

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them to a stand
still?

[censored] off, put some decent tyres on your car, and get someone with a clue to
fix the ignition system on your car.