Bob Mannix wrote:
> That statement rests entirely on the following (from the report itself):
>
> 'Although the raw Stats 19 statistics take no account of the relative
> mileage cycled on the three types of highway, it is probable that this is
> more than outweighed by the considerable underreporting of Redway accidents'
The whole thing rests on that sentence? I would say the preceding
several paragraphs and table of figures leading up to that sentence
justify it reasonably well.
> Not what I would call conclusive evidence! I don't think it is possible to
> say what the effect of moving all the Redway cyclists onto the roads would
> be in MK and certainly not possible to say the accidents would go down!
I think the main point is to show that "to show for the first time on a
city-wide scale how travel for pedestrians and cyclists can be made
convenient, safe and pleasant. & Above all, accidents involving
pedestrians and cyclists - particularly children - should be greatly
reduced" is not something that the Redways have clearly demonstrated.
> I didn't say it was compulsory
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did. It was meant as a general
comment for anyone reading and thinking they had to use cycle lanes if
they were there.
> about increased risk does depend, I admit on the road itself and whether its
> width has changed. To avoid the rear end shunts referred to elsewhere does
> regard significant slowing down in non urban/congested areas (due to the
> vastly dissimilar speeds) and this in turn causes extra "congestion" that
> wouldn't be caused if the cycleway was used. It's true I don't live in an
> urban area and my experience of cycleways will be significantly different to
> those who do.
Highway Code Rule 139 shows how you should overtake a cyclist. That's
how people overtake me when I'm positioned well out from the kerb, and
that's how I make a point of always overtaking cyclists, even when
they're in a lane. I do not feel overly held up as a driver, and I see
no particular evidence as a cyclist that I am causing significant
congestion.
> If there is a nice, wide, newly surfaced purpose built cycleway (as there is
> on the ring road round the town) I use that as it is much more pleasant than
> being right next to the cars and both parties are happy. I wouldn't spoil my
> day just to make a point! It is (IMO) certainly no less safe (if not much
> safer) than the road.
I'm not in it for point scoring, and I'll use, for example, Dundee's
Riverside cycleway rather than the road there. But being nice and wide
and newly surfaced isn't enough, it mustn't cause me continual loss of
right of way as that adds to my danger and slows me right down. Where
it doesn't I'll happily use it. I'd use the A9 cycleway, for example,
as it's miles between junctions and it's a fast and busy road.
Another it helps if it isn't is a shared use one with lots of
pedestrians. These are more dangerous than the roads and severely limit
useful speed. I do use the path along Grassy Beach to Broughty Ferry
even though it slows me down, because it's a very pleasant path! But if
I need to get to my destination in good time and time is limited I'll
take the busy A road instead.
It must be remembered that a lot of cycling is to get from A to B in a
reasonable time, and cycle tracks often compromise this ability severely.
> Again, I guess it's the urban/non urban thing, which is fair enough - I
> would use a Sustrans route to get to Oxford by bike but not to cycle through
> it (for example).
Sounds familiar... on our touring holiday last year we quite enjoyed
most of NCN1 but found it quite ridiculous to follow through urban
areas. Aberdeen took an unfeasible amount of time and Inverness we just
lost the track and thought sod it, we'll take the roads. Which was
/much/ easier, despite it being particularly busy that day.
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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
