Helmets - again!

Response to Buck:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think cycle lanes are pro-cycling? I certainly don't.

Do you think they are anti-cycling?

As so often, it depends on what you mean by pro or anti.

There may - in fact, there pretty well *must* - be cycle lanes which are
pro-cycling in that they encourage newcomers to take up cycling; but
which are also anti-cycling in the sense that they are intrinsically
dangerous - besides other disadvantages. How cycle lanes balance out,
either per individual lane or en masse, is anybody's guess, but on
balance I'd suspect that on the whole they do more harm than good.

--
Mark, UK

"A wartime Minister of Information is compelled, in the national
interest, to such continuous acts of duplicity that even his natural hair
must grow to resemble a wig."

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:39:22 +0100,

Just zis Guy said:

At Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:51:29 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Buck
<ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk>, including some, all or none of the
following:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

In the end I would far rather the council subsidise adult cycle
training than send out men with pots of paint. I think that will

<snip>

I wish they would just use paint. They've use "ripplemac" for want of a
better description. And on a brand new resurfaced road. The tarmac is
fantastic for cycling on, the cycle lane (and bus stop) unridable even
if it was wider than the drain cover.

The bit they haven't resurfaced is still fine for cycling on.

Tim

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 17:54:42 JLB said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter, there are those on here who actually argue against anything pro
cycling

Quoted message said:

This "anything pro cycling" - what is this, exactly? And who decides what
is "pro cycling"? Judging by the responses so far, you have an some odd
ideas concerning what is "pro cycling", and you are more than ready ram
your opinion down the throat of anyone who disagrees. But I could be
wrong.

Yeah whatever, one of the more boring responses.

It was a serious question. There are people having some difficulty
determining what your "pro cycling" might be.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Buck said:

you know? said:

I'm with Dave: I'd quite like to know whether you are, in fact, stating
that cycle lanes are pro-cycling. Whether anyone believes they are
anti-cycling is irrelevant to that question.

Quoted message said:

Actually I don't think cycle lanes are anti-cycling; I think they are very
often the result of cluelessness on the part of people who have been asked
to "do something" about cyclists and have no idea what the "something"
should be. I have seen good cycle provision. But not often, and I have
certainly seen the existence of cycle lanes lead to some profoundly
anti-cycling behaviour.

I think cycle lanes are pro-cycling, while I accept that they could often
use some common sense, but in essence they are a positive thing. To say
something is "often" a result of cluelessness or "often" a token gesture,
does not mean it is always the case. I t is up to us as cyclists to get
involved with our local authorities to make sure these facilities are
wisely administered.

They are not pro-cycling. They are get out of the cars way measures and
why do we need any steenking facilities when we have rights?

JLB said:

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 17:54:42 JLB said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Peter, there are those on here who actually argue against anything pro
> cycling

Quoted message said:

This "anything pro cycling" - what is this, exactly? And who decides
what
is "pro cycling"? Judging by the responses so far, you have an some odd
ideas concerning what is "pro cycling", and you are more than ready ram
your opinion down the throat of anyone who disagrees. But I could be
wrong.

Yeah whatever, one of the more boring responses.

It was a serious question. There are people having some difficulty
determining what your "pro cycling" might be.

Catshite?

On 06/08/2005 23:07:55 'Clive George said:

"Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is up to us as cyclists to get involved with our local authorities to
make sure these facilities are wisely administered.

Quoted message said:

Have you ever tried doing this? My recent experiences in the area have
been less than positive.

Quoted message said:

cheers, clive

I do it on a regular basis, and am having good success.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

you know? said:

And fundamentally I don't think we need special provision. There is
plenty of room on the roads for all, provided everybody is sensible.

But there is the problem, the average car driver cannot see past the
end of the bonnet. Or does not care to.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 15:45:44 "dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think cycle lanes are pro-cycling? I certainly don't.

Do you think they are anti-cycling?

It's a complicated issue, but in general yes I do. If you google back
through this group I think you'll find enough to explain my views on
them. Dangerous places, cycle lanes.

--
Dave...

On 06/09/2005 01:43:43 Vincent Wilcox said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 06/08/2005 19:40:39 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm with Dave: I'd quite like to know whether you are, in fact, stating
that cycle lanes are pro-cycling. Whether anyone believes they are
anti-cycling is irrelevant to that question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually I don't think cycle lanes are anti-cycling; I think they are
very often the result of cluelessness on the part of people who have
been asked to "do something" about cyclists and have no idea what the
"something" should be. I have seen good cycle provision. But not
often, and I have certainly seen the existence of cycle lanes lead to
some profoundly anti-cycling behaviour.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think cycle lanes are pro-cycling, while I accept that they could often
use some common sense, but in essence they are a positive thing. To say
something is "often" a result of cluelessness or "often" a token gesture,
does not mean it is always the case. I t is up to us as cyclists to get
involved with our local authorities to make sure these facilities are
wisely administered.

Quoted message said:

They are not pro-cycling. They are get out of the cars way measures and
why do we need any steenking facilities when we have rights?

Because sometimes it is enjoyable to ride without dualing with cars.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Tim Woodall said:

I wish they would just use paint. They've use "ripplemac" for want of a
better description. And on a brand new resurfaced road. The tarmac is
fantastic for cycling on, the cycle lane (and bus stop) unridable even
if it was wider than the drain cover.

The bit they haven't resurfaced is still fine for cycling on.

I can't tell you how irritating I find that.

--
Dave...

On 06/09/2005 09:43:59 'dkahn400 said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 06/08/2005 15:45:44 "dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think cycle lanes are pro-cycling? I certainly don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think they are anti-cycling?

Quoted message said:

It's a complicated issue, but in general yes I do. If you google back
through this group I think you'll find enough to explain my views on them.
Dangerous places, cycle lanes.

I take you have applied this to a more developed model and been proved
correct, like say the Netherlands or Denmark?

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

Quoted message said:

They are not pro-cycling. They are get out of the cars way measures and
why do we need any steenking facilities when we have rights?

Because sometimes it is enjoyable to ride without dualing with cars.

So why not remove the problem (cars) instead of spending lots of money
on a solution which a) increases the risk of injury to cyclists using
it, b) encourages the mindset (amongst car drivers and others) that
cyclists shouldn't be on the road, c) encourages the mindset (amongst
less confident/less informed cyclists) that cyclists shouldn't be on the
road), d) is generally slower and less convenient than being on the road.

R.

in message <[email hidden]>, Buck

('ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk') said:

you know? said:

I'm with Dave: I'd quite like to know whether you are, in fact,
stating
that cycle lanes are pro-cycling. Whether anyone believes they are
anti-cycling is irrelevant to that question.

Quoted message said:

Actually I don't think cycle lanes are anti-cycling; I think they are
very often the result of cluelessness on the part of people who have
been asked to "do something" about cyclists and have no idea what the
"something"
should be. I have seen good cycle provision. But not often, and I
have certainly seen the existence of cycle lanes lead to some
profoundly anti-cycling behaviour.

I think cycle lanes are pro-cycling, while I accept that they could
often use some common sense, but in essence they are a positive thing.
To say something is "often" a result of cluelessness or "often" a
token gesture, does not mean it is always the case. I t is up to us as
cyclists to get involved with our local authorities to make sure these
facilities are wisely administered.

Well, I think exactly the opposite from you. I think cycle
lanes /in/ /general/ are anti-cycling. They are instituted, where they
are instituted, to get cyclists out of the way of cars, with virtually
no thought to their safety or practicality. There are occasional
exceptions to this, but as a rule cycle lanes are a way for local
authorities to discharge their government-imposed responsibility to
'encourage cycling' by pushing bicycle off the relatively safe roads
into relatively dangerous gutters and onto dangerous and impractical
'shared use' paths.

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

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous

Buck said:

On 06/09/2005 09:43:59 'dkahn400 said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think they are anti-cycling?

Quoted message said:

It's a complicated issue, but in general yes I do. If you google back
through this group I think you'll find enough to explain my views on them.
Dangerous places, cycle lanes.

I take you have applied this to a more developed model and been proved
correct, like say the Netherlands or Denmark?

While it is true that both those countries have better safety records
than we do, and it is also true that their facilities are generally
much better thought out and implemented than ours are, it may be that
their better safety is in spite of rather than because of their cycle
lanes.

Take a look at the following page of John Franklin's.
<http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html> A bit less
than half way down you will find the phrase "Dutch and Danish casualty
statistics". Have a read of the following two paragraphs.

--
Dave...

On 06/09/2005 10:29:20 Richard said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why not remove the problem (cars) instead of spending lots of money
on a solution which a) increases the risk of injury to cyclists using
it, b) encourages the mindset (amongst car drivers and others) that
cyclists shouldn't be on the road, c) encourages the mindset (amongst
less confident/less informed cyclists) that cyclists shouldn't be on the
road), d) is generally slower and less convenient than being on the
road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

R.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Established models in other countries prove your arguments to be
unfounded.

Quoted message said:

Which models?

Off carriageway cycle routes

Quoted message said:

Which countries?

Netherlands? Denmark?

Quoted message said:

Which arguments?

Did you not read your own post?

Quoted message said:

R.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why not remove the problem (cars) instead of spending lots of
money on a solution which a) increases the risk of injury to cyclists
using it, b) encourages the mindset (amongst car drivers and others)
that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, c) encourages the mindset
(amongst less confident/less informed cyclists) that cyclists
shouldn't be on the road), d) is generally slower and less convenient
than being on the road.

Quoted message said:

Established models in other countries prove your arguments to be
unfounded.

eh? Like in Germany you mean?

Buck said:

I take you have applied this to a more developed model and been proved
correct, like say the Netherlands or Denmark?

But since we don't have a more developed model, and it's not
unreasonable to assume the comments were based on the model we do have,
I'd say that's a rather moot sort or reply.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 06/09/2005 10:42:56 'dkahn400 said:

On 06/09/2005 09:43:59 "dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Do you think they are anti-cycling?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's a complicated issue, but in general yes I do. If you google

back >>> through this group I think you'll find enough to explain my
views on >>> them. Dangerous places, cycle lanes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take you have applied this to a more developed model and been

proved >> correct, like say the Netherlands or Denmark?

Quoted message said:

While it is true that both those countries have better safety records

than > we do, and it is also true that their facilities are generally
much better > thought out and implemented than ours are, it may be that
their better > safety is in spite of rather than because of their cycle
lanes.

Quoted message said:

Take a look at the following page of John Franklin's. >

<http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/sustrans1.html> A bit less
than > half way down you will find the phrase "Dutch and Danish
casualty > statistics". Have a read of the following two paragraphs.

Interesting viewpoint, from what I have seen having ridden in these
countries a lot, is that the increased facilities show that cyclists
are of equal footing to other road users, often in fact of having more
rights. So the driver is educated to the rights of the cyclist and
often as not, as a cyclist themselves, respect the rights and
vulnerabilities of the cyclist.

Because the cycle lanes generally follow the same routes as the roads
and have the same priorities more people are inclined to cycle, and as
priorities are the same, when there are no lanes, the cyclist still has
the confidence to continue on carriageway, the safety statistics on
carriageway can be largely put down to the large numbers of cyclists
and the fact that drivers are educated to accept the validity of
cycling as an equal form of transport, driver education is sadly
lacking in this country.

I think that the ethos of good cycling provision coupled with the
sensible approach to implementation and the enhanced driver education
all contribute to the promotion of cycling in these countries and I
believe that this country should follow the plan already set out for us
by those countries. I am the first to agree that non sensical twigs of
cycle route do nothing to help cycling in this country other than to
let Sustrans say "look how many miles of cycle route we have laid down,
aren't we clever?", but the fact is that if we can actually get these
facities co-ordinated at build stage into useful routes then cycle
lanes will IMHO be a major player in increased cycle use in the U.K.
--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

On 06/09/2005 11:38:33 Richard said:

Buck wrote: I posited four reasons separate why off-carriageway cycle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

routes may be a Bad Thing; I was wondering to which one(s) you

referred. >>> safety? mindsets? speed? convenience?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not trying to be glib, but all of them.

Quoted message said:

cyclepath == "off-carriageway cycle routes as a replacement for a

road > network" in the below.

A better description would be an off carriageway facility supplemetary
to the road network.

Quoted message said:

The Franklin commentary suggests that safety is not improved even on

the > continent, but that's being discussed in another subthread so I
won't > repeat other people's comments.

Other sources suggest otherwise but like you say it is being discussed
elesewhere.

Quoted message said:

Speed is readily quantifiable, by examining the design specs for >

sightlines and average speeds; I've not yet found a cyclepath alongside
a > road that is designed for the same speeds as the road. Going for a
quiet > pootle, one might not see the difference; going for a brisk
ride it's easy > to find oneself slowing because of the cyclepath
design specs.

Not my experience in Holland or Denmark.

Quoted message said:

Convenience is trickier to quantify.

Quoted message said:

The mindset is the one that's particularly troublesome, and

particularly > hard to quantify. All I can do is offer the usual series
of anecdotes of > being told to "get off the road and back onto the
cyclepath where you > belong", coupled with (deliberately) aggressive
driving; I'm sure you've > experienced similar. What concerns me is
that it is a very small step to > enforce CP use by law (it's already
"should" in the Highway Code), whereas > it's a much longer and larger
step to bring cycling levels, CP facilities, > and public attitudes, to
the levels that they are on the continent. > That's why I'm taking an
almost pragmatic attitude; SINCE the *current* > provision of CP in
this country is so [censored], I'd rather have NONE than have > some, which
encourages their use to be mandated.

I do not believe in mandatory use, and I understand your sentiment, but
it has hardly been given a chance thus far in the U.K.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:40:41 GMT, Buck

ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk said:

Quoted message said:

And fundamentally I don't think we need special provision. There is
plenty of room on the roads for all, provided everybody is sensible.

Quoted message said:

But there is the problem, the average car driver cannot see past the
end of the bonnet. Or does not care to.

Experience indicates that this is, to a large extent, a matter of road
position.

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