Highway Code Proposed Chnages on R4 Again

Simon Bennett said:

It's good that the story is getting lots of coverage. But the reports keep
going on about the 'need' for better cycling facilities

Oh yes, the need for better cycling facilities.
Look what's happening on the road over Blackheath in London. The A2 is
being narrowed, which removes the (frankly farcical) painted, advisory
cycle lanes. To replace them - a shared use 2 metre wide path.
And on a local councillors blog, word to the effect that "these cyclists
are expecting a 3 metre wide path just for their own use". That's TfLs own
cycling centre of excellence requesting that by the way.
So - lots of call in the media for these wonderful Dutch style segregated
cycle routes. But just try to put one on - Ohhh nooo. You want to cycle on
the pavement squire, on your shopping style bike, ringing your bell and
not exceeding 5mph. And just take your lumps when the Daily Mail rants
about pavement cyclists.

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

Quoted message said:

It's good that the story is getting lots of coverage. But the reports keep
going on about the 'need' for better cycling facilities, but are failing
to
mention that significant numbers of cyclists don't actually separate
facilities, what they really want is more responsible motorists and
better-trained cyclists.

Funny thing, these 'facilities' for cyclists.
In a couple of months time it will be 50 yrs since I first cycled
unaccompanied on the road and I haven't found that I've 'needed' such things
yet.
Mind you, I have enjoyed a couple of the longer recreational ones (old
railways etc).
I have also been involved in the design of some back in the 70's. Those were
useful as they took a direct route from the housing estates to the town
centre. (Peterborough).
For any sort of proper journey most are slow, meandering, cracked,
intermittent, full of pedestrians, children, burnt out cars, glass, dogs,
obstructions, railed so you can't get off etc etc etc

Paul.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:50:21 +0000, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Bennett said:

It's good that the story is getting lots of coverage. But the reports keep
going on about the 'need' for better cycling facilities

Oh yes, the need for better cycling facilities.
Look what's happening on the road over Blackheath in London. The A2 is
being narrowed, which removes the (frankly farcical) painted, advisory
cycle lanes. To replace them - a shared use 2 metre wide path.
And on a local councillors blog, word to the effect that "these cyclists
are expecting a 3 metre wide path just for their own use". That's TfLs own
cycling centre of excellence requesting that by the way.

I use that section of road for cycle training. After teaching
children correct use of roundabouts at the myriad of mini roundabouts
on Blackheath and the built roundabout at the junction of Kidbrooke
Gardens and St German's Place, I let them cycle a mini circuit: Long
Pond Road (now closed to motor traffic), Prince Charles Road,
Shooters' Hill Road, Duke Humphry Road (now closed to motor traffic).
Two at a time the children are followed by an instructor.

http://tinyurl.com/mv8et

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=540000&Y=176500&width=700&height=400&scale=10000

Hmmm. Perhaps I'll be able to use the new facility to teach the
pitfalls of cycle lanes. I currently have to cross the river to do
that wonderful shared use path, alongside North Woolwich Road, obsured
from road traffic on one side by a hedge with a crossing from a petrol
station exit the other side, also obsured by a thick hedge.

If you move your mouse over the ariel photo you can see the cycle path
crossing just under the letter 't' in Nor*t*h Woolwich Road. You can
even make out the hedge.

http://tinyurl.com/lj3wt
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

heed said:

If cycling is ever going to be anything more than a leisure pursuit for
the majority of 'cyclists' (are there any reliable figures on the
percentage of transportation' to 'leisure' cyclists, by the way?) then
cyclists and motorists have to share the road with each other.

"Cycling in Scotland 2005", a research report to the Scottish
Parliament, indicates that of active cyclists surveyed, only about 14%
gave as their main reason for cycling anything other than leisure or the
pursuit of fitness.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/17105205/3 for the details

--
Brian G

Brian G said:

heed wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If cycling is ever going to be anything more than a leisure pursuit for
the majority of 'cyclists' (are there any reliable figures on the
percentage of transportation' to 'leisure' cyclists, by the way?) then
cyclists and motorists have to share the road with each other.

Quoted message said:

"Cycling in Scotland 2005", a research report to the Scottish
Parliament, indicates that of active cyclists surveyed, only about 14%
gave as their main reason for cycling anything other than leisure or the
pursuit of fitness.

Quoted message said:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/17105205/3 for the details

It didn't look like 14% of active cyclists to me. They sampled
households, and eliminated those who didn't have a bike, and those who
never used it. It looked like 14% of those who owned a bicycle which
they claimed to have used at least once. The frequency of use was
categorised as less than once a month, 1-3 times a month, 1-3 days a
week, 4-6 days a week, and every day. By far the largest category was
those using their bike less than once a month.

You'd get a very different figure if you sampled cyclists actually on
bicycles, rather than people who just owned one which they claimed to
have used at least once. They'd have got very different figures even
if they'd just eliminated all those cyclists whose bikes had flat
tyres.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

Brian G said:

heed wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If cycling is ever going to be anything more than a leisure pursuit for
the majority of 'cyclists' (are there any reliable figures on the
percentage of transportation' to 'leisure' cyclists, by the way?) then
cyclists and motorists have to share the road with each other.

Quoted message said:

"Cycling in Scotland 2005", a research report to the Scottish
Parliament, indicates that of active cyclists surveyed, only about 14%
gave as their main reason for cycling anything other than leisure or the
pursuit of fitness.

Quoted message said:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/17105205/3 for the details

It didn't look like 14% of active cyclists to me. They sampled
households, and eliminated those who didn't have a bike, and those who
never used it. It looked like 14% of those who owned a bicycle which
they claimed to have used at least once. The frequency of use was
categorised as less than once a month, 1-3 times a month, 1-3 days a
week, 4-6 days a week, and every day. By far the largest category was
those using their bike less than once a month.

You'd get a very different figure if you sampled cyclists actually on
bicycles, rather than people who just owned one which they claimed to
have used at least once. They'd have got very different figures even
if they'd just eliminated all those cyclists whose bikes had flat
tyres.

OK, I accept all that. The use of the phrase "active cyclists" was an
error, a coconut just waiting for someone to take a shy at. It comes, I
suppose, from being an arts graduate rather than a person of proper
education like wot you scientific types are. In my clumsy but
well-meaning fashion I tried to give at least a pointer to a possible
answer to the question that was posed. I should have known to leave it
to persons of proper education. Unfortunately, so far, none of them has
offered any such pointers.

--
Brian G

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, so far, none of them has offered any such pointers.

Just say "h*lm*t" three times.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, so far, none of them has offered any such pointers.

Just say "h*lm*t" three times.

I tried it, but the asterisks made me spit.

--
Brian G