Cycling wrong way up one way street

[Brimstone]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>>>> The next thing the USA did, in Davis, California, in 1966, was
>>>>> invent
>>>>> the bike lane.
>>>>>
>>>> Errr, not quite.
>>>>
>>>> The Great West Road (A40) has/had cycle lanes from Chiswick
>>>> roundabout to its junction with the A30. It was built in the
>>>> early
>>>> 1920s.
>>>
>>> No it didn't, It had cycle tracks, the bike facility with such a
>>> bad
>>> reputation, that it dare not speak it's name
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate?
>
> Groan. I wish this newsgroup had a FAQ, although I'm not able to set
> one up myself.

Which NG are you referring to? I'm from uk.transport.

> Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
> cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
> motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
> are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
> where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
> useful objectives.
>
> They are bicycle bantustans for fietsaparthied, proving that
> "separate but equal" never is.
>
> From the traffic engineer's point of view, I suppose the problems are
> that they produce embarrassing numbers of dead or injured cyclists,
> they fail to increase cycling, and they make all the supposed
> beneficiaries hate them.
>
That strikes me as an opinion born out of frustration at the ineptitude of
our planners (I use the term as a job title not as a description of their
talents) rather than as an explanation of the difference between a "cycle
lane" and a "cycle track".

On the basis of your comments I'm assuming that the difference, in your eyes
at least, is that a "lane" is a part of the main carriageway with a white
line seperation whereas a "track" is seperated by a kerb or other physical
obstruction?

 

[Daniel Barlow]

"Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> writes:

> We badly need a word for those stupid lines councils have started
> painting on pavements, to encourage pavement riding.

"Daft" pretty much covers it, I reckon


-dan

 

[mike]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:23:28 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>>>> The next thing the USA did, in Davis, California, in 1966, was
>>>>> invent
>>>>> the bike lane.
>>>>>
>>>> Errr, not quite.
>>>>
>>>> The Great West Road (A40) has/had cycle lanes from Chiswick
>>>> roundabout to its junction with the A30. It was built in the
>>>> early
>>>> 1920s.
>>>
>>> No it didn't, It had cycle tracks, the bike facility with such a
>>> bad
>>> reputation, that it dare not speak it's name
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate?
>
>Groan. I wish this newsgroup had a FAQ, although I'm not able to set
>one up myself.
>
>Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
>cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
>motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
>are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
>where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
>useful objectives.


I am glad you elaborated as requested. It is a pity that you could
only post a load of shite in response.
Unless you are trolling? Are you? If so - not a bad effort - you
nearly caught me.

 

[dkahn400]

On May 24, 9:05 pm, mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:23:28 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"

> >Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
> >cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
> >motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
> >are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
> >where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
> >useful objectives.
>
> I am glad you elaborated as requested. It is a pity that you could
> only post a load of shite in response.
> Unless you are trolling? Are you? If so - not a bad effort - you
> nearly caught me.

Jeremy Parker is not a troll. I think he may have misunderstood what
it was he was being asked to elaborate upon though. A cycle track is a
separate facility provided alongside the carriageway; a cycle lane is
a marked area on the carriageway itself. They're both dangerous places
to ride.

--
Dave...

 

[Mortimer]

"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1e2404a4-ad6c-46f1-998d-4a603f175871@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:05 pm, mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:23:28 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
>
>> >Cycle tracks are more dangerous, more tiring, slower, they harm even
>> >cyclists who don't use them, they encourage harassment of cyclists by
>> >motorists, they send out false messages about cycling's hazards, they
>> >are discriminatory, they cost cyclists their rights, in practice even
>> >where supposedly not in theory, they divert public spending from more
>> >useful objectives.
>>
>> I am glad you elaborated as requested. It is a pity that you could
>> only post a load of shite in response.
>> Unless you are trolling? Are you? If so - not a bad effort - you
>> nearly caught me.
>
> Jeremy Parker is not a troll. I think he may have misunderstood what
> it was he was being asked to elaborate upon though. A cycle track is a
> separate facility provided alongside the carriageway; a cycle lane is
> a marked area on the carriageway itself. They're both dangerous places
> to ride.

But maybe less dangerous than being in amongst faster traffic.

I prefer to cycle on a cycle track rather than a road - with three provisos:
a) the track must be continuous without frequent shifts from one side of the
road to the other or side roads where you must give way to traffic
entering/leaving; b) pedestrians must be segregated from the cycle track and
not permitted to walk n-abreast across both the pedestrian part and the
cycle track part of the pavement; c) the surface must be non-skid - no loose
gravel! Anything which physically segregates a vehicle travelling at 10-20
mph from vehicles that are travelling at maybe 60 mph has got to be a good
thing for both parties!

Cycle lanes can be a bugger, no least because they force cars to position
themselves to the right of where they should be when they are turning left
and allow/encourage cyclists to overtake cars on the cars' left. I'd like to
see cycle lanes discontinued within n metres of every junction to allow
left-turning cars to position themselves hard left, rather than putting them
in a lane to the right of cycles which may be going straight on.

Some cycle tracks suffer from not having the dropped kerb in a sensible
places: there's one near me where you are initially on a road (the pavement
is for pedestrians only) and then the track starts where a side road comes
in. There's no dropped kerb just beyond the lights so you can switch easily
from road to track; instead you must turn into the side road a few yards and
cycle across the pelican crossing where there is a dropped kerb - or else
you must stop and walk across the crossing.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/616/cycletrackct3.png

 

[Steve Firth]

Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

> They are bicycle bantustans for fietsaparthied, proving that
> "separate but equal" never is.

Perhaps you could now wipe the drool off your chin and the spittle off
your monitor. While you're busy cleaning up, I'll simoply express my
amazement that you have obviously either never used a properly designed
cycle track or that you simply have a knee-jerk reaction to the
existence of such facilities based on a political prejudice on your
part.

I used to use a cycle track in the City of Leicester regularly. It had,
I think, been designed and installed around the second world war and
provided access to industrial estates to the north of the city. It was
popular and well used, providing express access from city centre and
housing estates to the biggest employers in the region.

The "track" was in fact wider than the road that it ran parallel to, and
provided the fastest route free from traffic lights.

I can't see how such a facility would attract the unhinged rant you just
emitted.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

"Mortimer" <[email protected]> writes:

> But maybe less dangerous than being in amongst faster traffic.
>
> I prefer to cycle on a cycle track rather than a road - with three provisos:
> a) the track must be continuous without frequent shifts from one side of the
> road to the other or side roads where you must give way to traffic
> entering/leaving; b) pedestrians must be segregated from the cycle track and
> not permitted to walk n-abreast across both the pedestrian part and the
> cycle track part of the pavement; c) the surface must be non-skid - no loose
> gravel!

As far as I am aware, your proviso (b) excludes all cycle provision in
the UK. Pedestrians, by and large, can walk wherever they wish

> Anything which physically segregates a vehicle travelling at 10-20
> mph from vehicles that are travelling at maybe 60 mph has got to be a good
> thing for both parties!

It may give you a perception of safetly, but most accidents happen at
junctions.

If the vehicles travelling at 60mph are determined to kill you, a
little thing like a kerb is not going to stop them.

If they're not determined to kill you, a road wide enough that they
can safely travel at 60mph is wide enough to allow safe overtakes with
little delay or inconvenience to either party.

If they're merely incompetent not malicious, deal with that by
appropriate driver training/law enforcement, not by pandering to their
crapness by spending taxpayers money on fences.


-dan

 

[Mortimer]

"Daniel Barlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mortimer" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> As far as I am aware, your proviso (b) excludes all cycle provision in
> the UK. Pedestrians, by and large, can walk wherever they wish

Yes, pavement markings and common sense notwithstanding. I find that even
when I *walk* on a pavement, it's not uncommon to meet a group of people
walking n-abreast across the whole width, forcing me to step into the road
or crush up against a wall/fence. I always think of a pavement as having an
invisible white line down the middle and I keep well to my side of it
(usually the left since that's also the side we drive on). Ditto for a
marked cycle track: I keep within the cycle part and over to the LHS of it.

>> Anything which physically segregates a vehicle travelling at 10-20
>> mph from vehicles that are travelling at maybe 60 mph has got to be a
>> good
>> thing for both parties!
>
> It may give you a perception of safetly, but most accidents happen at
> junctions.
>
> If the vehicles travelling at 60mph are determined to kill you, a
> little thing like a kerb is not going to stop them.
>
> If they're not determined to kill you, a road wide enough that they
> can safely travel at 60mph is wide enough to allow safe overtakes with
> little delay or inconvenience to either party.

The problem is roads which aren't wide enough for a large vehicle like a
lorry or bus to overtake without getting very close to the white line and
the oncoming traffic: either they have to slow down or else they give you
very little room - and the draught from a bus or an HGV when it passes 3
feet from you is enough to make you swerve off course towards them.

If I'm on a separate track, then traffic can continue as if I wasn't there,
without danger to me or inconvenience to them.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

"Mortimer" <[email protected]> writes:

> The problem is roads which aren't wide enough for a large vehicle like a
> lorry or bus to overtake without getting very close to the white line and
> the oncoming traffic: either they have to slow down or else they give you
> very little room - and the draught from a bus or an HGV when it passes 3
> feet from you is enough to make you swerve off course towards them.

So we're talking about different things, basically. I usually plan my
journeys to avoid roads with both 60mph lorries and a continuous
stream of oncoming traffic that stops them from using the other side
of the road to overtake, but I can see your point about the
unpleasantness where they're unavoidable. I guess we're mostly
talking about suburban and rural single-carriageway A-roads - in fact,
mostly rural, even big roads like the A40 tend to have 40 limits in
suburban areas.

The problem is in extrapolating from that case to say that cycle
tracks (or any kind of cycle provision) are a good idea _in general_.
I would wager that most cycle journeys are in urban areas which are
30-limited by law and further limited by traffic congestion, and we
shouldn't set policy affecting those by reference to another kind of
road completely. And most cycle miles outside of urban areas (where
the distance per trip tends to be longer) are tourers, club cyclists,
Audax and similar, and my gut feeling is that they'll tend to prefer
B roads and lanes where possible.

Remember that Jason MacIntyre was killed by a driver turning right
across his path who allegedly thought Jason was on the cycle track and
that therefore he need not give way as he would do for another
vehicle. Yes, it's anecdata, but it is consistent with the "junctions
are more dangerous" view and it does show that cycle paths are not an
unalloyed good even when you think they ought to be.


-dan

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:50:05 +0100, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Mortimer" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The problem is roads which aren't wide enough for a large vehicle like a
>> lorry or bus to overtake without getting very close to the white line and
>> the oncoming traffic: either they have to slow down or else they give you
>> very little room - and the draught from a bus or an HGV when it passes 3
>> feet from you is enough to make you swerve off course towards them.
>
>So we're talking about different things, basically. I usually plan my
>journeys to avoid roads with both 60mph lorries and a continuous
>stream of oncoming traffic that stops them from using the other side
>of the road to overtake, but I can see your point about the
>unpleasantness where they're unavoidable. I guess we're mostly
>talking about suburban and rural single-carriageway A-roads - in fact,
>mostly rural, even big roads like the A40 tend to have 40 limits in
>suburban areas.
>

It may not be immediately obvious from the way they drive, but lorries
over 7.5 tonnes have a speed limit of 40mph on single carriageway
roads, 50mph on dual carriageway roads and 60mph on motorways
(although they have a limiter set to 56mph)

 

[TimB]

On 13 May, 18:09, TimB <[email protected]> wrote:
> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
> way system, on the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community
> Support Officer" in smaller writing underneath.
>
> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
> about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
> they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
> would be the best route to take to report these officers? As a
> cyclist, I despise inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but
> from people who are a) supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose
> inconsiderate cycling is much more noticable because of their
> position, it's unacceptable.
>
> If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
> caught doing this?

After an email to the Police Professional Standards department, I got
this reply today:

"Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May. As a result of your comments
I have discussed the incident with all of my staff and reiterated
their position when out and about in the public eye. Officers do
attend training for on and off road circumstances as part of a full
risk assessment prior to being allowed to use the cycles. I am pleased
to see that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and
did not appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their
training of safe cycling, safety before speed. I am very lucky here at
Western Neighbourhood Policing Unit to have so many keen Community
Support Officers willing to cycle to their respective areas. This
increases their visibility and thus public reassurance. The cycles
have increased the amount of time each officer can spend on their area
and reduced walking to and from to a minimum.
Thank you for your comments which are duly noted. "

Make of it what you will.

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 05:37:59 -0700, TimB wrote:

> On 13 May, 18:09, TimB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few days
>> ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police cycles,
>> wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back, travelling at
>> a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one way system, on
>> the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community Support Officer" in
>> smaller writing underneath.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them about
>> their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but they're
>> very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What would be
>> the best route to take to report these officers? As a cyclist, I despise
>> inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but from people who are a)
>> supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose inconsiderate cycling is
>> much more noticable because of their position, it's unacceptable.
>>
>> If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
>> caught doing this?
>
> After an email to the Police Professional Standards department, I got this
> reply today:
>
> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May. As a result of your comments I
> have discussed the incident with all of my staff and reiterated their
> position when out and about in the public eye. Officers do attend training
> for on and off road circumstances as part of a full risk assessment prior
> to being allowed to use the cycles. I am pleased to see that you observed
> the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not appear to be in a
> hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training of safe cycling,
> safety before speed. I am very lucky here at Western Neighbourhood
> Policing Unit to have so many keen Community Support Officers willing to
> cycle to their respective areas. This increases their visibility and thus
> public reassurance. The cycles have increased the amount of time each
> officer can spend on their area and reduced walking to and from to a
> minimum. Thank you for your comments which are duly noted. "
>
> Make of it what you will.

Yeah, it means it's ok if they do it.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Adrian]

TimB <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.

> I am pleased to see
> that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
> appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
> of safe cycling, safety before speed.

<rolls eyes>
"They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."

TBH, I don't see any difference between cycling the right way up the
pavement of a one way street, cycling up the pavement of a two-way street
and cycling the wrong way up the pavement of a one-way street - they
shouldn't be on the pavement in the first bloody place...

When they're on the road, then we'll talk about which is the correct
direction of travel...

 

[Nick]

Adrian wrote:
> TimB <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
>> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.
>
>> I am pleased to see
>> that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
>> appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
>> of safe cycling, safety before speed.
>
> <rolls eyes>
> "They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."
>
Well it is the speed that normally causes the danger. What do you think
the danger from officers riding at a leisurely pace comes from?

 

[Me]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> TimB <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
> > footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.
>
> > I am pleased to see
> > that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
> > appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
> > of safe cycling, safety before speed.
>
> <rolls eyes>
> "They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."
>
> TBH, I don't see any difference between cycling the right way up the
> pavement of a one way street, cycling up the pavement of a two-way street
> and cycling the wrong way up the pavement of a one-way street - they
> shouldn't be on the pavement in the first bloody place...
>
> When they're on the road, then we'll talk about which is the correct
> direction of travel...
>
Well, you could always arrest them and call the Police. Community
Support Offices (and the Police) actually, IIRC, have little powers more
than we do.
Of course, this might involve you accidentally falling down the stairs
at the local Station, but there we go.

 

[dkahn400]

On May 28, 4:33 pm, Me <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, you could always arrest them and call the Police. Community
> Support Offices (and the Police) actually, IIRC, have little powers more
> than we do.

Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
qualify.

--
Dave...

 

[Me]

In article <7432cbb8-2c9f-47bc-ada1-06bfbea52408
@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On May 28, 4:33 pm, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, you could always arrest them and call the Police. Community
> > Support Offices (and the Police) actually, IIRC, have little powers more
> > than we do.
>
> Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
> qualify.
>
Um, my understanding is that a citizen's arrest has the same legality as
a Police arrest. But, and a big but, you must call the Police to take
over.

 

[Alasdair]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
>qualify.

I thought *all* offences were now arrestable.
--
Alasdair.

 

[Brimstone]

Alasdair wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
>> qualify.
>
> I thought *all* offences were now arrestable.

Put a terrorist slant on it and it's a dead cert.

 

[®i©ardo]

dkahn400 wrote:
> On May 28, 4:33 pm, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, you could always arrest them and call the Police. Community
>> Support Offices (and the Police) actually, IIRC, have little powers more
>> than we do.
>
> Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
> qualify.
>
> --
> Dave...


....despite being against the law and dangerous.

--
Moving things in still pictures!