Are bikes the solution?

In article <[email hidden]>,=20
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I can't help but think that idiots would assume if lanes
are marked peopl=

e

Quoted message said:

will believe that they're wide enough to pass
=20
Perhaps it would be best to remove the markings altogether
in this instan=

ce?

Quoted message said:

It's been tried in some parts, and I believe it has been
successful.
=20 20

You fail to understand the real reason for "cycle
farcilities". Tey are there ...
1) To show how " green" the council is , and to to collect
EU money for=20 every yard of farcility provided ( to
spend on roads)
2)To have a sink to put labour against in the budget.
"lay cycle=20

"

=20

Total cost.. Whatever we can justify

Peter said:

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

Well, quite a few cyclists are vegetarians, so I suppose
they'll fart.

Some of the more exhuberent may cycle fast, and start
sweating, leading to a potential build up of BO.

I'm sure that we'll all be able to do our bit to ensure that
pollution levels stay the same! :-p

Regards,

Pete.

Dave J said:

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within

uk.rec.driving said:

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?

It can be argued that if the road space is genuinely
limited (either by geography or council stingyness) that
is better to have cycle lanes wide enough to cycle safely
regardless of the fact that a car won't quite fit on its
designated section.

The result of it is that car drivers are forcibly made
aware of the fact that there is insufficient room to drive
past a cycle without slowing down, and to not try to
overtake whilst something is passing in the opposite
direction.

The result of the cycle lane being slightly too narrow for
the pushbike would be for the drivers to assume that there
was adequate room and to fail to slow down at all.

Just a thought..

Hmm, but from my experience on that road both as a cyclist
and a driver, the behaviour of drivers hasn't changed. You
have to drive along with one wheel in the cycle lane
(otherwise you hit oncoming cars), and then when you get to
a bike you wait for a gap coming the other way and pull
around it. This is exactly the same as what happened before.

Andy Hewitt said:

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.

Weeeelllll.... when we got Pete's new bike I checked the
brakes and they were fine, but first time he tried to stop
on a slope they did nowt. Turns out his hands are not quite
strong enough. The shop spent about 2 hours fettling them
(new cables, Kool-Stop pads, all sorts) before he could stop
confidently on a decent slope.

So maybe the brakes are not working as progressively as
they should.

Or maybe Em needs to get used to V-brakes, on accounta they
work rather better than the old-fashioned sort :-)

Michael has been trained to use the front brake for stopping
and the rear brake for "drag" on slow hills (to avoid
cooking the front), and both for emergency stops.

--
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 article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

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.

CO2 would increase, as would Methane and sulphur dioxide as
you munched your way through extra veggies for enmergy.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot. bouncing-bouncing-Open ↗
czechs.com

scott said:

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

A brief glimpse at the waistlines in your High Street on a
Saturday will tell you that no, cyclists do not eat more
than average, they just burn it off rather than converting
it to fat :-)

--
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!

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the roads (I assume that you mean the traffic on the
roads...) are at a standstill, it is hard to see how they
present a danger to a right-thinking cyclist.

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Cycling between lanes of standstill or crawling traffic
is actually quite hazardous for a cyclist due to obscured
turning vehicles, hidden peds, and the risk of doors
being opened.

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

That may be now, but I'm not entirely convinced that life
would be much better if hordes of cyclists were to take
to the road, given my experience doing the London to
Brighton ride.

Quoted message said:

An exceptional case, imagine that many people trying to
get from London to Brighton by car in one day.

You don't need to imagine: look at the coast roads on an
average bank holiday.

--
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!

Jon Senior said:

Andy said:

It's even worse than that for cars. Catalystic converters
are one of the biggest loads of [censored] there are for
reducing emissions.

Quoted message said:

I can't help feeling that you've missed the point of Cat
converters here.

Andy knows the point of Cats. They are there to level the
playng field for the big car makers who could not meet the
emissions standards without bolting lumps of precious
metals to their cars. Honda made an engine whose measured
emissions were essentially the same before and after
fitting of a cat. What they should have done was legislate
an emissions standard, not legislate one of the ways of
achieving that standard.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To cap it all, there is more pollution caused in simply
finding the precious metals used in the cat than it will
ever save in its entire life on the car, and that's even
before we go into the pollution caused during
manufacture.

Quoted message said:

This I agree with entirely. Although precious metal
(singular) since when I learnt about them, the catalyst
was platinum. ISTR that they can be recycled, but presume
that the cost is higher than simply using raw materials.

IOW, we are merely exporting our pollution.

--
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!

Just zis Guy said:

scott said:

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

A brief glimpse at the waistlines in your High Street on a
Saturday will tell you that no, cyclists do not eat more
than average, they just burn it off rather than converting
it to fat :-)

But isn't it dangerous for car drivers to gaze around them
when careering along the High Street at 40mph on a
Saturday morning? They'll probably clout a cyclist and say
"I didn't see you".

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

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Al C-F"
<[email hidden]>
wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Unless you're in an ambulance in need of urgent care...
(for example)

Cyclists can get off and lift their bikes onto the
pavement to get out of its way. Can motorists do the same
with their cars?

They don't seem to have any problem down my way, judging
from the number of cars on the pavement. They've obviously
picked them up and carried them there as they constantly
tell us they never drive on the pavement.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy said:

scott said:

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

A brief glimpse at the waistlines in your High Street on a
Saturday will tell you that no, cyclists do not eat more
than average, they just burn it off rather than converting
it to fat :-)

Personally I suspsect that they eat more than average and
they burn it off...

Adrian Boliston said:

"Al C-F"
<[email hidden]> wrote
in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the roads (I assume that you mean the traffic on the
roads...) are at a standstill, it is hard to see how they
present a danger to a right-thinking cyclist.

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Cycling between lanes of standstill or crawling traffic is
actually quite hazardous for a cyclist due to obscured
turning vehicles, hidden peds,

Obscured turning vehicles, hidden peds? My head is
comfortably above the roof of most cars, and I can see peds
as they dart injudiciously between vehicles in good time.
I'm extra careful when overtaking buses, vans, etc, when I
can't see.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

observe it.

Does it?

I don't believe you are obliged to give way to pedestrians
unless they are in the road [1] - and cyclists on
segregated cycleways are usually (but not always) made to
give way (I don't think there is a general rule for this).

The general rule is to give way when crossing a (dashed)
white line. Generally this is when turning onto or off a
main (through) road. Cycle paths along side roads usually
have dashed white lines across them at junctions, meaning
the cyclists give way; sometimes there are several white
lines across the sideroad.

[email hidden] (Andy Hewitt) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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].

Excellent. It's important to get them back on quickly. When
my daughter was small she just needed a cuddle and a tear
wipe and she'd be straight back on. My son was much more
easily deterred and would sometimes take some cajoling.

--
Dave...

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes, but there won't be any fewer lorries and vans. To
create a cycle path you usually need to either narrow the
road, or narrow the pavement. If the roads are narrow then
it's going to make it hard for lorries etc.

Also, cycle lanes will get congested. How would you
overtake in a cycle lane? If there's an old granny in front
of you doing 10mph you're gonna be stuck until you can go
onto the road.

If you consider the amount of space needed then it will also
probably be more. Imagine 5 bikes, in length they're going
to take up more space than a car with 5 people in (at least
when moving).

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within uk.rec.driving,

scott said:

Hmm, but from my experience on that road both as a
cyclist and a driver, the behaviour of drivers hasn't
changed. You have to drive along with one wheel in the
cycle lane (otherwise you hit oncoming cars), and then
when you get to a bike you wait for a gap coming the
other way and pull around it. This is exactly the same as
what happened before.

My point was that cycle lanes wide enough for safe cycling
underline the fact that your behaviour is correct, and may
imprint it on some people who tend to play sardines with
cyclists as they overtake.

Cycle lanes that have been made narrower because the road is
narrow have the opposite effect.

--
Dave Johnson - [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

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

Cyclists tend to be worse, many of them have never done any
form of test or training. I do agree that motorist are bad,
but cyclists don't make it easy for us.

Quoted message said:

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.

Accelerate gently to overtake! When there's going to be
something comming the other way in the near future you've
got to accelerate fairly quick. If you don't then you'll get
road rage from the person behind. By the time you've slowed
down to the cyclists speed you'll already have the driver
behind up your bumper anyway. I'm not talking about
overtaking dangerously, but I'm talking about taking
oppourtunities.

Quoted message said:

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

Maybe you're right. It will negate it a lot, but it is
causing this problem and I'm talking about extreme
situations. ie. in the future when there maybe almost as
many bikes as there are cars.

Quoted message said:

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.

:-o that's terrible, I didn't know that. Something really
:should be
done about these short trips!

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

If you consider the amount of space needed then it will
also probably be more. Imagine 5 bikes, in length they're
going to take up more space than a car with 5 people in
(at least when moving).

Imagine 5 cars, or maybe 4 - average occupancy is 1.2
or similar.

clive

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

Quoted message said:

If you consider the amount of space needed then it will
also probably be more. Imagine 5 bikes, in length they're
going to take up more space than a car with 5 people in
(at least when moving).

Moving cars need a gap of a few to many car lengths for
safety but bikes can travel much closer yet stay safe, so
the throughput per road width will be more with bikes.