Livingstone maps out 12 bicycle 'motorways'

Geoff Dossetter, from the Freight Transport Association, also welcomed
the scheme but he warned against giving too much space to cyclists.

He added: "The other concern we have had in the past is the behaviour
of cyclists. If this is to go ahead I think part of it should be an
education campaign for cyclists so that they obey the rules of the
road."

Nice one Geoff, you represent the most dangerous drivers on the roads,
the most polluting vehicles, vehicles that in roadside checks are
found to be unroadworthy, vehicles that crush people to death because
the driver's not paying attention:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1011

And Geoff uses the opportunity to [censored] off cyclists, what a star.

spindrift said:

Livingstone maps out 12 bicycle 'motorways'

· £400m plan includes suburban networks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2254962,00.html

Go Ken!

You do realise that the more cycle "facilities" (which are likely to be
[censored]) there are, the more likely it is that cycling on the roads normally
will be banned? Is that what you want.

Quoted message said:

"This is about thinking what kind of city we want London to be and
what we want it to look like," said Koy Thomson,

idiot,

Quoted message said:

from the London Cycling Campaign.

~PB

"(which are likely to be [censored])"

Have you seen the plans?

spindrift said:

"(which are likely to be [censored])"

Have you seen the plans?

Have you ever seen a cycle facility in London that is not [censored]?

Compared to cycling on the road, they are likely to end up [censored], whatever
the plans are.

There is not enough space in London for them not to be [censored] - unless *whole*
lanes on many roads are taken over and many buildings and trees are pulled
down. That is not going to happen.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

spindrift said:

Livingstone maps out 12 bicycle 'motorways'

· £400m plan includes suburban networks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2254962,00.html

Go Ken!

You do realise that the more cycle "facilities" (which are likely to be
[censored]) there are, the more likely it is that cycling on the roads normally
will be banned? Is that what you want.

No. This idea of cyclists' super bike paths is truly exceptional and
will make a substantial contribution to the number of cyclists' on
*all* London's roads. £400m is a massive investment, far greater than
the £140m Cycling England has been promised for the whole of England
for cycle training and infrastructure to 2012.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"This is about thinking what kind of city we want London to be and
what we want it to look like," said Koy Thomson,

idiot,

Have you met Koy? I have. He is a hugely intelligent and quick
person. And he rides a Brompton.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from the London Cycling Campaign.

Response to spindrift

Quoted message said:

At a cost of £400m, the 12 routes are intended to be the motorways of
cycling

The worst thing I've found about driving on motorways is the eejit
behavior of other users at speed: driving on A roads is often less
stressful. Whether this holds for mass-use cycleways I don't know.

On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged to
use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects this
could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not persuaded.

--
Mark, UK
"'Michael Gilhaney,' said the Sergeant, 'is an example of a man that is
nearly banjaxed from the principle of the Atomic Theory. Would it
astonish you to hear that he is nearly half a bicycle?'"

Tom Crispin said:

No. This idea of cyclists' super bike paths is truly exceptional and
will make a substantial contribution to the number of cyclists' on
*all* London's roads.

Cyclists will be *banned* from cycling on the many roads normally. That is
my prediction.

Quoted message said:

£400m is a massive investment, far greater than
the £140m Cycling England has been promised for the whole of England
for cycle training and infrastructure to 2012.

Like other bike paths, I bet they end up bumpy and covered in broken glass
and dog [censored].

£400m is nowhere near enough to provide a superior alternative to cycling on
the roads for the whole of London. Never enough money could be found.

I would not object to a few good quality cycle paths here and there to
provide shortcuts for locals where feasible - but any major attempt to
provide a general alternative to cycling on the roads for the whole of
London cannot work well enough because there simply is not enough space.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"This is about thinking what kind of city we want London to be and
what we want it to look like," said Koy Thomson,

idiot,

Have you met Koy?

No thanks. I don't want anything to do with the LCC whatsoever.

~PB

Mark McNeill said:

On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged
to use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects this
could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not persuaded.

Motorways and main roads are clean because they are swept by car tyres.
Cycle paths are dirty because they are not.

~PB

Response to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged
to use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects this
could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not persuaded.

Motorways and main roads are clean because they are swept by car tyres.
Cycle paths are dirty because they are not.

Up to a point. But surely the method is immaterial; so long as the
result is satisfactory.

--
Mark, UK
"If God designed me, I want to have a serious word about knees."

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged
to use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects
this could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not
persuaded.

Motorways and main roads are clean because they are swept by car
tyres. Cycle paths are dirty because they are not.

Up to a point. But surely the method is immaterial; so long as the
result is satisfactory.

How many more millions of pounds would it cost to keep them clean by any
other method?

~PB

Response to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
> well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged
> to use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects
> this could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not
> persuaded.

Motorways and main roads are clean because they are swept by car
tyres. Cycle paths are dirty because they are not.

Up to a point. But surely the method is immaterial; so long as the
result is satisfactory.

How many more millions of pounds would it cost to keep them clean by any
other method?

Erm, this *was* actually my point. Will these cycleways emulate the
positive aspects of motorways? What do you think?

--
Mark, UK
"The origin of all science is the desire to know causes, and the origin
of all false science and imposture is the desire to accept false causes
rather than none, or, which is the same thing, in the unwillingness to
acknowledge our own ignorance."

Pete Biggs said:

spindrift said:

"(which are likely to be [censored])"

Have you seen the plans?

Have you ever seen a cycle facility in London that is not [censored]?

Yes.

Bus lanes. I just wish they would fix the glitch that means the drafting
machines keep stopping.

Pete Biggs said:

Mark McNeill said:

On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged
to use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects this
could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not persuaded.

Motorways and main roads are clean because they are swept by car tyres.
Cycle paths are dirty because they are not.

Roads also get swept surprisingly often by those machines with
steel-bristled rotating brushes, although probably not motorways.

I don't trust Ken further than I could spit him. Has anyone
seen plans for what these proposed "cycle motorways" will actually be
like?

I don't really know how much roads cost. 400m is about the cost of a
small hospital, or 20 miles of a (car) motorway. So that might buy you
quite a few miles of bicycle-motorway (in theory, assuming you actually
spent the money on the bicycle-motorways), but the bigger problem is
surely where to put them.

Mark McNeill wrote:
[...]

"'Michael Gilhaney,' said the Sergeant, 'is an example of a man that is
nearly banjaxed from the principle of the Atomic Theory. Would it
astonish you to hear that he is nearly half a bicycle?'"

Ah, excellent! And such was his affliction that when he stopped to talk
to talk to someone, he had to prop himself up by placing one foot on a
kerbstone.

Best regards,

Jon C.

spindrift said:

Livingstone maps out 12 bicycle 'motorways'

· £400m plan includes suburban networks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2254962,00.html

Go Ken!

London is likely to become one of the most cycle-friendly places in
the world, with a series of two-wheeler superhighways cutting a swath
through traffic and congestion. Plans for the super-cycleways will be
unveiled next week as part of an initiative to stimulate a 400%
increase in the number of people pedalling round the capital by 2025.

At a cost of £400m, the 12 routes are intended to be the motorways of
cycling and are likely to be emulated by other cities across the UK.
Londoners without bikes will be able to use one of the city's free
bicycles.

Article continues "We want nothing short of a cycling transformation
in London," said the mayor, Ken Livingstone. "We are announcing the
biggest investment in cycling in London's history, which will mean
that thousands more Londoners can cycle in confidence, on routes that
take them quickly and safely to where they want to go."

The cycle scheme is one of several environmental announcements
expected in the capital over the coming weeks, including a decision on
plans for a £25-a-day congestion charge on the highest-polluting
vehicles and a proposal to re-fit 900 civic buildings across the
capital to make them more energy-efficient.

The superhighways will link popular residential areas such as Hackney,
Clapham and Kilburn to the city centre. The routes are based on a 12-
month study of the most popular roads already used by cyclists and
will have continuous, wide cycle lanes, dedicated junctions and clear
signs.

Planners hope the changes will encourage a "critical mass" of cyclists
to use the routes, creating a safe and accessible environment as well
as cutting congestion and pollution across London. "We are aiming to
make cycling part of public transport and if we can get even 5% of
people out of their cars, off the tubes and buses and on to bikes it
will mean 1.7m cycle trips in London every day," said Mark Watts,
transport adviser to the mayor.

Free hire

In the city centre there will be a bike hire scheme based on a similar
initiative in Paris which has helped transform cycling in the French
capital. It is understood the hire bikes will be based at various
stations in the centre of London and will be free to use for short
journeys once people have signed up to the scheme .

The third plank of the proposals, which are expected to cost a total
of around £400m over 10 years, will see special cycle networks set up
around 15 suburban town centres such as Richmond or Croydon in an
attempt to transform the way people make local journeys. The networks
will link residential areas to schools, train and bus stations, parks
and shops.

As part of the plans the mayor's office hopes to persuade local
authorities in these areas to introduce 20mph speed limits and remove
all road humps so motorists and cyclists are travelling at roughly the
same speed.

Another proposal will see a riverside route from Rainham Marsh to the
east of the city to the site of the 2012 Olympics in the Lee valley.

The London initiative is based on a successful scheme in Aylesbury,
one of Cycling England's six demonstration towns where more people
have taken to their bikes.

It is hoped the first of the cycleways and suburban networks will be
complete by 2010, with another five ready for the start of the
Olympics in 2012.

Last night the proposals were given a cautious welcome by motoring
organisations. Edmund King, president of the AA, said: "The current
system of haphazard provision for cyclists is not good for them or for
other road users.

"I think separating out cyclists can only be good for everyone and the
only provision I would raise is that we still need to have roads for
the movement of trucks, cars and buses - so we need to make sure we
get the balance right."

Geoff Dossetter, from the Freight Transport Association, also welcomed
the scheme but he warned against giving too much space to cyclists.

He added: "The other concern we have had in the past is the behaviour
of cyclists. If this is to go ahead I think part of it should be an
education campaign for cyclists so that they obey the rules of the
road." Cycling groups said the plans mark a watershed in the UK's
attitude to cycling.

"This is about thinking what kind of city we want London to be and
what we want it to look like," said Koy Thomson, from the London
Cycling Campaign. "This proposals will transform London, making
cycling more visible, and the really interesting thing is that cycling
is now associated with a modern cosmopolitan city that is in control
and at ease with itself."

Good. The greater segregation of cyclists away from the roads the
better.

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:17:02 -0000 someone who may be "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Cyclists will be *banned* from cycling on the many roads normally. That is
my prediction.

I agree with your prediction.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ben C said:

Pete Biggs said:

Mark McNeill said:

On the other hand, motorways in general are wide, clean, maintained,
well lit, free of pedestrians, and nobody thinks drivers are obliged
to use them; so if these cycleways emulate them in those respects this
could be a good thing. I'd love to be wrong; but I'm not persuaded.

Motorways and main roads are clean because they are swept by car tyres.
Cycle paths are dirty because they are not.

Roads also get swept surprisingly often by those machines with
steel-bristled rotating brushes, although probably not motorways.

No rural motorway is ever swept (except to clear away debris after a
collision or after roadworks). I don't know about urban motorways (like
the Westway), but I've never seen a sweeping machine there either.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:32:20 -0600 someone who may be Ben C
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I don't really know how much roads cost. 400m is about the cost of a
small hospital, or 20 miles of a (car) motorway.

It doesn't even buy five miles of motorway in Glasgow
<http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow?articleid=3752368>

It is worth adding that the proposed M74 extension is not to be
built on stilts over high value land like much of that in London,
rather it is to be built over low value industrial land. However, it
is only fair to add that a little of the cost of the M74 extension
is to deal with contaminated land (the last I heard the proposal was
to cover up the contaminated land and whistle).

This road, along with an Aberdeen bypass and an additional Forth
Road Bridge, gives the truth about claims by the former Labour/Lib
Dem and current SNP governments to be in favour of sustainable
transport.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Mark McNeill writtificated

Quoted message said:

Erm, this *was* actually my point. Will these cycleways emulate the
positive aspects of motorways? What do you think?

No chance, tho I hope to be proved wrong.

Motorways are both faster and safer than normal roads. The new cycle paths
need to be both of these to get my vote. At the moment, the benefit of
most cycle paths is that they are more pleasant to use - not many people
like mixing it with fast/heavy traffic. This alone will prolly encourage
more cycling, assuming they do an otherwise good job. It all depends on
how they manage the problem of junctions.