Another Farcility

At Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:34:11 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by druidh
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Surely you'd see the sign as you approach the end of the cycle path? You
then have a choice (a) cross the carriageway and cycle along the road or
(b) push your bike along the footpath.

Exactly.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

in message <[email hidden]>, druidh

(') said:

Tony Raven said:

Scene elsewhere.

http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

You couldn't make it up!

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

Cycling on a pavement or shared use path against the flow of the traffic
in the adjacent carriageway lane is the single most dangerous way to
cycle, with approximately three times as many fatalities and serious
injuries per unit distance as cycling normally on the carriageway. It's
even twice as dangerous as cycling up the wrong side of the road! Don't
do it, folks; it's equivalent to suicide.

See <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>
especially table 5.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Simonb" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

Quoted message said:

Why have we have got it so utterly, utterly wrong in this

country?

Quoted message said:

Because generations have not cycled for normal transport and

cycling &

Quoted message said:

cyclists are despised (except when it makes a pretty story for the

local

Quoted message said:

paper).

The problem is not new. Nearly half a century ago, in 1958,
Professor Sir Colin Buchanan wrote, in his book "Mixed Blessing, The
Motor in Britain"

"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have
failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at
junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude
of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has
not been as helpful as it might have been."

Jeremy Parker

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why bother putting a cycle lane in the first place if it ends

prematurely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

meaning that a cyclist must "Proceed on foot" if he's to continue

to use it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can you see anyone who might already be on it actually obeying

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

instruction?

Yes - why wouldn't they?

druidh

I suppose that's one of those questions where, if you have to ask the
question, you will never know the answer.

It can't be a silly question, or the facility would never have gone
in in the first place.

Jeremy Parker

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

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Yes but I think they are covering themselves (even though it is
obvious that the cycle path ends at the sign)

Of course they are. It's an admission of their failure to supply a decent
facility.

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay for it.

Cycle tax.

ian henden said:

Quoted message said:

Of course they are. It's an admission of their failure to supply a
decent facility.

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay for
it.

Cycle tax.

Churchill abolished road tax in the 1930's. Yawn.

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay for
it.

Cycle tax.

Churchill abolished road tax in the 1930's. Yawn.

ps. Perfectly good cycling facilities in this country running door to door
to practically all houses. Paid for from general taxation.
They're called roads.

ian henden said:

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

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Yes but I think they are covering themselves (even though it is
obvious that the cycle path ends at the sign)

Of course they are. It's an admission of their failure to supply a
decent
facility.

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay for
it.

Cycle tax.

Of course you're aware that cyclists on average tend to be higher earners
than non-cyclists, so we already contribute relatively more to the road
system than motorists.

I predict that the above statement is so out of alignment with your
world-view that you are simply incapable of assimilating it.

--
jc

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:24:40 GMT, "ian henden" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay for it.

We already have paid for it, and it's already been built, and most of
us are quite happy using it along with all the other vehicles. But
for some reason people don't seem to like us using it so try to banish
us into little bicycle Bantustans full of broken glass and deadly
no-priority junctions.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

Jeremy Collins said:

Of course you're aware that cyclists on average tend to be higher earners
than non-cyclists, so we already contribute relatively more to the road
system than motorists.

I'd be interested to find out what proportion of the additional cost
of TROs, signage and lost road space given over to bus lanes is
covered by the VED paid by buses.

A reduced pollution bus pays no more than £165 per year, and even the
big old three-axle 90+ seaters the local bus company use for
transporting school kids only pay £500 per year; according to CfIT the
amportized weekly cost of a kilometre of bus lane is £515.38. They
also estimate diesel revenues of 4.68p/kilometre. So it looks like in
a place like Southampton, with lots of bus lanes, the bus drivers are
a bunch of freeloaders :-)

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 CHS, Puget Sound

ian henden said:

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

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Yes but I think they are covering themselves (even though it is
obvious that the cycle path ends at the sign)

Of course they are. It's an admission of their failure to supply a
decent facility.

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay
for it.

The irony is that cyclists already have perfectly good facilities (roads).
It's just that misguided councils think they need to provide separate (and
often sub-standard) facilities for cyclists.

Just zis Guy said:

Jeremy Collins said:

Of course you're aware that cyclists on average tend to be higher earners
than non-cyclists, so we already contribute relatively more to the road
system than motorists.

I'd be interested to find out what proportion of the additional cost
of TROs, signage and lost road space given over to bus lanes is
covered by the VED paid by buses.

none, VED doesn't go into roads remember ;-)

MartinM said:

Just zis Guy said:

Jeremy Collins said:

Of course you're aware that cyclists on average tend to be higher earners
than non-cyclists, so we already contribute relatively more to the road
system than motorists.

I'd be interested to find out what proportion of the additional cost
of TROs, signage and lost road space given over to bus lanes is
covered by the VED paid by buses.

none, VED doesn't go into roads remember ;-)

I know what you mean Guy but it's important to divorce VED from what is
spent on the roads or else we are going down the "cycle tax" slippery
slope. BTW I would imagine must bus operatirs would be perfectly happy
without any of the extra bus-lanes and signage etc. were it not for the
congestion of bus routes by other motor vehicles.

MartinM said:

I know what you mean Guy but it's important to divorce VED from what is
spent on the roads or else we are going down the "cycle tax" slippery
slope.

Oh I know,. I'm just inviting Henden to judge his own transport by the
same standards he proposes for others.

In the end what most motorists want is for driving to be free for
those who really need it (i.e. them) and unfeasibly expensive for
those who delay their important journeys (i.e. everyone else).

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 CHS, Puget Sound

in message <[email hidden]>, ian henden

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Yes but I think they are covering themselves (even though it is
obvious that the cycle path ends at the sign)

Of course they are. It's an admission of their failure to supply a
decent facility.

If you cyclists want a decent facility, then perhaps you should pay
for it.

We don't want a 'decent facility'. We don't want /any/ special facility.
We've got the roads, and they're what we want.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

Tony Raven said:

Scene elsewhere.

http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

You couldn't make it up!

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

But, the points here are:
- Surely it is an offence to PUSH a vehicle along a pavement
- A cycle being pushed along a pavement takes up more width than one
being riden.

Philip Bird

Quoted message said:

But, the points here are:
- Surely it is an offence to PUSH a vehicle along a pavement
- A cycle being pushed along a pavement takes up more width than one
being riden.

As long as you are pushing and not scooting the bike it is not an
offence on the pavement. The wonderfully appropriately named Crank vs
Brooks (1980) applies. As long as your feet are off the cranks and bum
off the Brooks, you are a pedestrian.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Interesting ... but, if that is the case why is there one road sign
for "No entry for vehicular traffic" (which presumably prohibits all
vehicles) and one for "No vehicles except bicycles being pushed" (which
presumably prohibits all vehicles except bicycles being pushed)?

Quoted message said:

Interesting ... but, if that is the case why is there one road sign
for "No entry for vehicular traffic" (which presumably prohibits all
vehicles) and one for "No vehicles except bicycles being pushed" (which
presumably prohibits all vehicles except bicycles being pushed)?

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm

The "No entry for vehicular traffic" sign does not prohibit cyclists
pushing bikes either: they are not vehicular traffic, they are foot
traffic. It would be nice to know the exact legal distinction though.

I suspect the (rare, round here) NVEBBP sign may be more of a weight or
wear restriction than a limitation on direction of travel.

--
Andrew Chadwick

Quoted message said:

Scene elsewhere.

http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

You couldn't make it up!

Abandon cycle, proceed on foot.