R5 Tonight....

cupra said:

I'm sure I just heard that one of the topics for discussion at 10pm was 'get
all of the cyclists off the roads so cars can drive as fast as they want'!!

Since no-one else has admitted listening to it, I can report that it
was the usual moronic ranting centred on "cyclists aren't insured and
don't pay road tax". Mostly from someone called Steven Berry perhaps?
Dreary stuff, anyway.

James

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Alan Holmes

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Alan Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> "Alan Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>
>>> " cupra" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>> I'm sure I just heard that one of the topics for discussion at 10pm
>>>> was 'get all of the cyclists off the roads so cars can drive as fast
>>>> as they want'!!
>>>
>>> I'll go with that as long as defined cycle ways are built, where we
>>> can be absolutely safe.
>>
>> Since cycleways are more dangerous than riding on the road, you might
>> be waiting a long time!
>
> Where on earth did that come from?

This planet, Earth. Just do a little research into the safety of
cycleways as compared to riding on the road. They are between two and
five times more dangerous, depending on various factors, and who did the
research, but more dangerous they undoubtedly are.

How many cyclists have been killed on cycleways, and how many on roads?

The problems mainly occur at the junctions, so cycleway cyclists get killed
literally on the roads, but because they were using cycleways. This is why
I asked you how you would arrange the crossings.

But yes, as other people have said, consistently, in every country in which
it has been studied, cycleway cyclists suffer significantly more deaths
per billion cyclist kilometres than road cyclists.

How would you equate that in say Holland where the statistics would
match that but
only because the cycle ways are so extensive that the percentage of
cyclists using
the roads are low by comparison. If they had a less prolific cycle
network then there
would be more cyclists using the roads and the figures for cyclist
death or injury on
the road would increase. So in countries with an established and
integrated cycle
network the research would be flawed if it was referred to merely as a
statistic,
although it could be used in countries without an established network to argue
against facilities, that is the danger of out of context reports.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

Quoted message said:

cupra said:

I'm sure I just heard that one of the topics for discussion at 10pm
was 'get all of the cyclists off the roads so cars can drive as fast
as they want'!!

Since no-one else has admitted listening to it, I can report that it
was the usual moronic ranting centred on "cyclists aren't insured and
don't pay road tax". Mostly from someone called Steven Berry perhaps?
Dreary stuff, anyway.

James

I suspected as much - I didn't bother with the 'listen again'.

Paul Boyd said:

On 21/01/2007 16:59, Alan Holmes said,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since cycleways are more dangerous than riding on the road, you might be
waiting a long time!

Where on earth did that come from?

Oh dear. On here and other groups you give the impression of having
only just blundered into this internet malarkey, and are getting a bit
of a hard time!

OTOH his writing style is very like that of [email hidden] who
first appeared in uk.rec.cycling in 1992! His memory has deteriorated
over the years though.

Mike

Quoted message said:

Dreary stuff, anyway.

Despite being an avid R5 listener I've slept much more soundly, and
become much less irritable, now that I've stopped listening to Stephen
Nolan.

BBC: Please replace him with someone with more intelligence who doesn't
just play devils advocate the entire time.

-Alex

On 22/01/2007 15:30, Alex said,

Quoted message said:

Despite being an avid R5 listener I've slept much more soundly, and
become much less irritable, now that I've stopped listening to Stephen
Nolan.

I don't know who Stephen Nolan is, but you're welcome to have Russell
Brand from Radio 2 over on R5. There are very few out of the wide
variety of presenters on R2 that I don't like, but Russell Brand and
Roger Royle are two that have me reaching for the 'off' button fast.
I've even learnt to tolerate Dermot O'Dreary and Elaine Page!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

[...] certain cyclepaths are a hell of a lot more
dangerous to ride on than the roads. One example is where the path ends
slap bang in the middle of a junction, leaving you in totally the wrong
place to negotiate it safely. I think you're expected to get off and
walk, but that defeats the point of cycling. Another is where you are
expected to swivel your head through 180 degrees to see if it's safe to
cross a side road - if you were on the road you wouldn't need to do this.

The two examples above could be The Heron and Marchfields Way, WsM, IIRC.
Those are cycle tracks ending in dangerous junctions, rather than the cycle
tracks themselves being dangerous.

Even so, I think cycle tracks are the wrong answer in something over 80% of
the places they are now being built. Bad junctions are some of the most
dangerous places for cyclists and cycle tracks often add junctions to
existing routes. The designers often design mainly for cars and have no
clue what makes a safe junction for cyclists, so their cycle tracks add new
bad junctions to cycle routes, putting cyclists in a worse position than if
they stayed on road.

Sometimes a cycle track itself is dangerous - Worle School crossing, where
a short cycle track leaves the road and rides straight through pedestrians
waiting at a pelican crossing - but they're thankfully unusual.

The recent petition to make designers cycle on the dogs' dinners they design
was spot on! Shame the PM's Office failed reading comprehension.

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Alan Holmes

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Alan Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> "Alan Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>
>>> " cupra" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>> I'm sure I just heard that one of the topics for discussion at 10pm
>>>> was 'get all of the cyclists off the roads so cars can drive as fast
>>>> as they want'!!
>>>
>>> I'll go with that as long as defined cycle ways are built, where we
>>> can be absolutely safe.
>>
>> Since cycleways are more dangerous than riding on the road, you might
>> be waiting a long time!
>
> Where on earth did that come from?

This planet, Earth. Just do a little research into the safety of
cycleways as compared to riding on the road. They are between two and
five times more dangerous, depending on various factors, and who did the
research, but more dangerous they undoubtedly are.

How many cyclists have been killed on cycleways, and how many on roads?

The problems mainly occur at the junctions, so cycleway cyclists get
killed
literally on the roads, but because they were using cycleways. This is why
I asked you how you would arrange the crossings.

And this is presicely why I never used the cycle paths on the Great West
Road, as it was obvious that when crossing a road at a juction, the car
drivers would never bother to look to see whether there was anyone on the
cycle path.

I notice that now the cycle path is used as a parking area for car drivers.

Quoted message said:

But yes, as other people have said, consistently, in every country in
which
it has been studied, cycleway cyclists suffer significantly more deaths
per billion cyclist kilometres than road cyclists.

Which is why cycle paths should be completely isolated from roads.

Obvious really!

Alan

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dreary stuff, anyway.

Despite being an avid R5 listener I've slept much more soundly, and
become much less irritable, now that I've stopped listening to Stephen
Nolan.

I have no idea who Stephen Nolan is, never mind having listened to him!

Quoted message said:

BBC: Please replace him with someone with more intelligence who doesn't
just play devils advocate the entire time.

Intelligence, and the BBC, you must be joking!

Alan

In news:[email hidden],
Paul Boyd <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

On 22/01/2007 15:30, Alex said,

Quoted message said:

Despite being an avid R5 listener I've slept much more soundly, and
become much less irritable, now that I've stopped listening to
Stephen Nolan.

I don't know who Stephen Nolan is, but you're welcome to have Russell
Brand from Radio 2 over on R5. There are very few out of the wide
variety of presenters on R2 that I don't like, but Russell Brand and
Roger Royle are two that have me reaching for the 'off' button fast.

The Combine has determined that Russell Brand is the Anti-Christ. Fetch the
Seven Special Daggers, Moriarty...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
%VMS-W-IVWORD, unrecognized word "downtime" - check validity and
spelling

Paul Boyd said:

On 22/01/2007 15:30, Alex said,

Quoted message said:

Despite being an avid R5 listener I've slept much more soundly, and
become much less irritable, now that I've stopped listening to Stephen
Nolan.

I don't know who Stephen Nolan is, but you're welcome to have Russell
Brand from Radio 2 over on R5. There are very few out of the wide
variety of presenters on R2 that I don't like, but Russell Brand and
Roger Royle are two that have me reaching for the 'off' button fast.
I've even learnt to tolerate Dermot O'Dreary and Elaine Page!

Hmm. Stephen Nolan and Russell Brand.

That's tricky.

If I had a rifle and only one round I wouldn't know which one I'd shoot
and which one I'd club to death with the rifle butt.

-Alex

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:09:42 GMT someone who may be "Alan Holmes"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

My suggestion was that cyclways should be completely clear of roads!

Completely clear of roads, to everywhere that roads go at the
moment? Fascinating.

--
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

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:10:26 GMT someone who may be "Alan Holmes"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why on earth would I want to waste time looking at reseach, when there are
so many experts in this group?

It is called doing the basic research, before making a fool of
oneself.

If this was a newsgroup dedicated to English literature then someone
posting a message asking other members of the group to tell them
what William Shakespeare had written would be told to find out for
themselves rather then wasting everyone's bandwidth on elementary
things.

--
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

Alan Holmes said:

Which is why cycle paths should be completely isolated from roads.

Obvious really!

Obvious that you've not followed up the references to Franklin.

FWIW, the segregated cyclepaths are often more dangerous than the roads.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:09:42 GMT someone who may be "Alan Holmes"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

My suggestion was that cyclways should be completely clear of roads!

Completely clear of roads, to everywhere that roads go at the
moment? Fascinating.

Bridges and tunnels!

Alan

Alan Holmes said:

Quoted message said:

Completely clear of roads, to everywhere that roads go at the
moment? Fascinating.

Bridges and tunnels!

Minister, may one give a quick precis?

your Department has three options,
A) build bridges and tunnels for motor traffic so that cyclists proceed
on level ground. Estimate -- Ten Trillion Pounds.
B) build bridges and tunnels for cyclists so they have to sweat a
little, but motorists proceed without hindrance. Estimate -- Ten
Billion Pounds.
C) do nothing. Estimate -- lose perhaps 5,000 votes.

May one also remind the Minister that his meeting with the Chancellor
to discuss this is at 9:30am tomorrow?

Mike

MJ Ray <[email hidden]> wrote:
| Sometimes a cycle track itself is dangerous - Worle School crossing, where
| a short cycle track leaves the road and rides straight through pedestrians
| waiting at a pelican crossing - but they're thankfully unusual.

We've got one of those in London Place in Oxford, where there's about
ten yards of cycle path leading up to a white line at traffic lights.
The track is tac-tiled at the line for a pedestrian crossing, and the
white line is lovingly implemented by a line of white bricks in the
tac-tiles. It's just unfortunate that the pole with the lights and
the push-button on it is right in the middle of the line of the cycle
track. Should you make the mistake of naively leaving the road where
the cycle track is indicated by a painted bike and big white curving
arrow, if you don't hit a soft and yielding bunch of waiting pedestrians,
you hit the much harder and less yielding pole.

Usually this sort of thing is the result of moving the course of a
cycle track and forgetting to move the street furniture, or indeed vice
versa, but in this case it was all designed that way and implemented
as whole.