London cycle maps launched

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

Quoted message said:

Launch of new cycling route maps

The latest maps give wider coverage
Cyclists can now get their hands on the latest set of free maps which
cover 4,000km of cycle routes across London.

Can anybody tell me what are the cycle routes in London. Are they
bicycle-only routes, cycle tracks, cycle lanes, bus lanes, shared-use paths,
or merely recommended quiet roads? I suppose what I am getting at is
whether cyclists are expected to share them with cars, lorries, taxis and
buses.

Regards,
Lily.

"I suppose what I am getting at is
whether cyclists are expected to share them with cars, lorries, taxis
and
buses. "

Oh yes, but the journey planner above will guide you toward quiet
routes- invariably slower.

Lily said:

Can anybody tell me what are the cycle routes in London. Are they
bicycle-only routes, cycle tracks, cycle lanes, bus lanes, shared-use
paths, or merely recommended quiet roads? I suppose what I am getting
at is whether cyclists are expected to share them with cars, lorries,
taxis and buses.

All of the above. They vary from bus lanes on busy roads to busy roads
alone to quiet back streets to cycle only facilities. But reckon on
sharing most of them with cars, lorries etc.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

spindrift said:

"I suppose what I am getting at is
whether cyclists are expected to share them with cars, lorries, taxis
and
buses. "

Oh yes, but the journey planner above will guide you toward quiet
routes- invariably slower.

depends on the area the journey i will do i a few mins it has fairly
well spot on, mind you there are only so many bridges etc. thus hampton
to kingston if fairly easy.

ie you either go round the park on the north or south or though it.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

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

Quoted message said:

Lily said:

Can anybody tell me what are the cycle routes in London. Are they
bicycle-only routes, cycle tracks, cycle lanes, bus lanes, shared-use
paths, or merely recommended quiet roads? I suppose what I am getting
at is whether cyclists are expected to share them with cars, lorries,
taxis and buses.

All of the above. They vary from bus lanes on busy roads to busy roads
alone to quiet back streets to cycle only facilities. But reckon on
sharing most of them with cars, lorries etc.

Presumably they are trying to steer bike traffic onto some, and away from
other, routes. I would like to think that all public roads are "cycle
routes", and that bicycle-only facilities would not be promoted by a city
wishing to promote cycling.

Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by stealth?

Regards,
Lily.

Lily said:

Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by
stealth?

IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London Cycle
Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle segregation
(the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their handiwork) who
would definitely say yes.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

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

Quoted message said:

Lily said:

Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by
stealth?

IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London Cycle
Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle segregation
(the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their handiwork) who
would definitely say yes.

We look fools then. There is no concensus. Segregated tracks are provided,
and some cyclist groups applaud them, whilst others condemn them. Cycle
lanes are provided to "make cycling safer", and welcomed by many politicians
and sections of the community, yet experienced cyclists refuse to use them.

Regards,
Lily.

Lily said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lily said:

Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by
stealth?

IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London
Cycle Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle
segregation (the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their
handiwork) who would definitely say yes.

We look fools then. There is no concensus. Segregated tracks are
provided, and some cyclist groups applaud them, whilst others condemn
them. Cycle lanes are provided to "make cycling safer", and welcomed by
many politicians and sections of the community, yet experienced cyclists
refuse to use them.

You forgot to mention the added bonus that cycle tracks and lanes are
more dangerous than the roads. A recent study of new lane and track
installations in Copenhagen recently found that they increased the number
of accidents 18% over their pre-installation levels, even after allowing
for the changes in traffic patterns.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:14:29 +0100 someone who may be "Lily"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London Cycle
Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle segregation
(the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their handiwork) who
would definitely say yes.

We look fools then. There is no concensus.

That is how it should be. There is nothing wrong with pluralism and
it is accepted for other groups.

Quoted message said:

Segregated tracks are provided,
and some cyclist groups applaud them, whilst others condemn them.

The greatest advocates of segregation in Edinburgh are people who
are not regular cyclists, but claim they would be if there was more
segregation.

Quoted message said:

Cycle
lanes are provided to "make cycling safer", and welcomed by many politicians
and sections of the community,

Party politicians, officials and other groups are generally of the,
"let's get those dammed cyclists out of the way persuasion", whether
they acknowledge it to themselves, or others, or not.

--
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

Tony Raven said:

All of the above. They vary from bus lanes on busy roads to busy roads
alone to quiet back streets to cycle only facilities. But reckon on
sharing most of them with cars, lorries etc.

On the old maps, at least, they're marked differently: bus or cycle lane
on major road, quiet road, or shared only with pedestrians. I haven't
seen the new maps; even though they were actually launched on Friday
10th, they don't seem to have delivered any yet...

--
I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five.
Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the
artifice of a derailer? [...] As for me, give me a fixed gear!
-- Henri Desgrange

Lily said:

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Launch of new cycling route maps

Quoted message said:

The latest maps give wider coverage
Cyclists can now get their hands on the latest set of free maps which
cover 4,000km of cycle routes across London.

Can anybody tell me what are the cycle routes in London. Are they
bicycle-only routes, cycle tracks, cycle lanes, bus lanes, shared-use paths,
or merely recommended quiet roads? I suppose what I am getting at is
whether cyclists are expected to share them with cars, lorries, taxis and
buses.

Regards,
Lily.

http://cycle.elyob.com/

If you look here, this was my effort of re-producing something similar
to the old TfL maps.

About 10% of my commute actually bothers to follow their
recommendations ...

Tony Raven said:

Lily said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:35:26 +0100, Lily wrote:
>
> Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by
> stealth?
>
>
IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London
Cycle Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle
segregation (the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their
handiwork) who would definitely say yes.

We look fools then. There is no concensus. Segregated tracks are
provided, and some cyclist groups applaud them, whilst others condemn
them. Cycle lanes are provided to "make cycling safer", and welcomed by
many politicians and sections of the community, yet experienced cyclists
refuse to use them.

You forgot to mention the added bonus that cycle tracks and lanes are
more dangerous than the roads. A recent study of new lane and track
installations in Copenhagen recently found that they increased the number
of accidents 18% over their pre-installation levels, even after allowing
for the changes in traffic patterns.

quite, the ones on richmound road in kingston as you go towards the
station have you going here there every where. so most just ride the
wrong way up the cycle lane...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

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

Quoted message said:

Lily said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:35:26 +0100, Lily wrote:
>
> Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by
> stealth?
>
>
IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London
Cycle Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle
segregation (the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their
handiwork) who would definitely say yes.

We look fools then. There is no concensus. Segregated tracks are
provided, and some cyclist groups applaud them, whilst others condemn
them. Cycle lanes are provided to "make cycling safer", and welcomed by
many politicians and sections of the community, yet experienced cyclists
refuse to use them.

You forgot to mention the added bonus that cycle tracks and lanes are
more dangerous than the roads. A recent study of new lane and track
installations in Copenhagen recently found that they increased the number
of accidents 18% over their pre-installation levels, even after allowing
for the changes in traffic patterns.

You would expect that those with responsibility for these matters would know
that. When I recently objected, on safety grounds, to a pavement being
converted to shared use, I was told that the reason was, effectively, that
ill-informed parents would be more likely to allow their children to cycle
to school there than on the road, and the result would help achieve their
targets for increased cycling activity. Talk about cannon-fodder! I wonder
if they have access to different studies, or if they simply do not care.

Regards,
Lily.

Lily said:

You would expect that those with responsibility for these matters would know
that.

Yeah, right... You would like to think they would, but this is the UK,
Planet Earth, 2007. ;-/

Quoted message said:

Talk about cannon-fodder! I wonder
if they have access to different studies, or if they simply do not care.

You haven't considered the simplest (and thus most likely) option: it
hadn't ever occurred to them that there could be a problem, because they
never gave it any thought.

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/

Lily said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lily said:

Should we, the "cycling community", be supporting segregation by
stealth?

IMO no but there are some fairly vocal members of the local London Cycle
Campaign groups who are pretty strident supporters of cycle segregation
(the Bloomsbury farcility being a prime example of their handiwork) who
would definitely say yes.

We look fools then. There is no concensus. Segregated tracks are provided,
and some cyclist groups applaud them, whilst others condemn them. Cycle
lanes are provided to "make cycling safer", and welcomed by many politicians
and sections of the community, yet experienced cyclists refuse to use them.

Many cycle lanes round here seem to be either traffic
calming measures, or to push cyclists out of the way of
motorised traffic.
The only ones that could be designed for cyclists are
feeder lanes for ASLs, which themselves encourage poor
cycling. (Undertaking).

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:25:33 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Many cycle lanes round here seem to be either traffic
calming measures, or to push cyclists out of the way of
motorised traffic.

Cycle lanes also seem to be designed to show motorists how far they
can drive onto the pavement and still not delay motorists on the
road. Look at nearly all the cars parked on the pavement and the
motorist has ensured that the wheels nearest the road are just
within the dotted white line.

--
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

In message <[email hidden]>

Lily said:

I would like to think that all public roads are "cycle routes", and
that bicycle-only facilities would not be promoted by a city wishing to
promote cycling.

Quoted message said:

It Depends. For the last 15 years I have been taking a route into work
that is longer than needed because it takes me by a cycle track alongside
the river Crane . Herons, wagtails and even parakeets are more fun to cycle
with than queues of cars.

Regards

Paul.

--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

----- Original Message -----
From: "spindrift" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: London cycle maps launched

Quoted message said:

Launch of new cycling route maps

The latest maps give wider coverage
Cyclists can now get their hands on the latest set of free maps which
cover 4,000km of cycle routes across London.
The 14 maps help riders identify the shortest routes or quiet roads in
any part of the city as well as stations with parking for cycles.

I got my full set yesterday.

A bit disappointing in that they are not fully up-to-date, in my area at
least, and the marked cycle shops have been omitted.

spindrift said:

Launch of new cycling route maps

The latest maps give wider coverage
Cyclists can now get their hands on the latest set of free maps which
cover 4,000km of cycle routes across London.
The 14 maps help riders identify the shortest routes or quiet roads in
any part of the city as well as stations with parking for cycles.

All London Cycle Guide routes have been ridden and recommended by
experienced riders.

I think i'd go for this one, it's got more routes

http://tinyurl.com/yqbzdh

--
Andy Morris

AndyDotJinkasAtgooglemail.com

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access