The Prime Minister speaks...

Tony Raven said:

...on why he will ignore the petitions and continue to favour the
convenience of motorists over the safety of cyclists:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

It could usefully be quoted to show why road-side cycle tracks
and shared-use footways are more dangerous than riding on the road.

Mike

Mike Causer <[email hidden]> writed in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

Grrrrr.
quote "Whilst local highway authorities already have the powers being
sought in your petition, they must exercise considerable care when
designing priority cycle tracks. Failure to do so could easily lead to
severe conflict between cyclists and motorists." end quote
Read the last sentance as "Failure to do so could easily lead to
inconveniencing motorists, who might otherwise have to learn to drive
properly"

Tony Raven said the following on 20/12/2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

...on why he will ignore the petitions and continue to favour the
convenience of motorists over the safety of cyclists:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

What???

Q - "so that cyclists on cycle lanes"...

A - "I believe you are referring to off road cycle tracks, not cycle
lanes.....Please let me know if this is not the case."

Read the f***ing petition, which quite clearly says "lanes".

"We are sorry that this reply is so long but hope it fully explains..."

....absolutely bugger all.

Grrrr.........

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

Paul Boyd wrote on 21/12/2006 08:04 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said the following on 20/12/2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

...on why he will ignore the petitions and continue to favour the
convenience of motorists over the safety of cyclists:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

What???

Q - "so that cyclists on cycle lanes"...

A - "I believe you are referring to off road cycle tracks, not cycle
lanes.....Please let me know if this is not the case."

Read the f***ing petition, which quite clearly says "lanes".

"We are sorry that this reply is so long but hope it fully explains..."

....absolutely bugger all.

Grrrr.........

I realised last night, this has nothing to do with public petitions as
an input to Government policy, its for training up a new set of
spin-meisters for No 10 post Alistair Campbell. And you can see they
still need a lot of training.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Paul Boyd said:

Tony Raven said the following on 20/12/2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

...on why he will ignore the petitions and continue to favour the
convenience of motorists over the safety of cyclists:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

What???

Q - "so that cyclists on cycle lanes"...

A - "I believe you are referring to off road cycle tracks, not cycle
lanes.....Please let me know if this is not the case."

Read the f***ing petition, which quite clearly says "lanes".

although to be fair the wrong that they requeste be righted almost
always occurs on what I am reasonably sure are defined as cycle tracks
rather than lanes. It is a fair asessment that cycle tracks will
continue to be dangerous without a significant cultural shift which is
hard to achieve on an individual facility basis. Personally I can only
think of one cycle lane that gives way to a side road although I don't
doubt that some exist. I think it is a [censored] petition so it is hardly a
surprise that it attracts a [censored] answer

best wishes
james

Paul Boyd said:

A - "I believe you are referring to off road cycle tracks, not cycle
lanes.....Please let me know if this is not the case."

Read the f***ing petition, which quite clearly says "lanes".

The reply is correct in that sense, as a cycle lane (a line painted on
the carriageway) usually does have the same priority over side roads as
the normal traffic lane does.

What is being said about bidirectional cycle tracks is a valid point.
Most Dutch ones are unidirectional, with one on each side of the road.
Almost all have the priority being requested, except for those
controlled by traffic lights (which sometimes, but not always or even
mainly, change in favour of the cyclist by way of induction loops).

Neil

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said the following on 20/12/2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

...on why he will ignore the petitions and continue to favour the
convenience of motorists over the safety of cyclists:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

What???

Q - "so that cyclists on cycle lanes"...

A - "I believe you are referring to off road cycle tracks, not
cycle lanes.....Please let me know if this is not the case."

Read the f***ing petition, which quite clearly says "lanes".

Well, indeed the petition clearly says lanes, but equally clearly is
not talking about lanes. Cycle tracks almost always require one to
give way at intersections, cycle lanes virtually never.

A sound man on cycling, our prime minister. I have a picture of him
riding a bike without a h*lm*t.

I have actually come across bike lanes with give way signs on them
You have to paint the give way signs on the roadway, since, with
British signs on poles, it's difficult to indicate that that
different parts of the roadway, or different kinds of vehicle, follow
abnormal rules.

For cyclists, a give way just for the bike lane part of a roadway is
not a problem You just drift six inches sideways, to the other side
of the lane line stripe, and regain your normal priority.

One location that had give way signs was right here in Barnet. They
were on the evil bike lanes that one occasionally sees at
roundabouts. At a meeting of Barnet LCC I was suitably mocking about
the only part of the roadway on which the cyclists didn't have
priority being the part of the roadway striped off for them. As it
happened, there was somebody from the Council at that meeting. He
didn't say anything, but a few weeks later the give way markings
quietly vanished.

The only other place, in Britain, or indeed, the whole world, where I
have come across a bike lane with a give way, when the rest of the
roadway didn't have a give way, was a few years ago in Chatham (on
Dock Road, the A231, I think). There the cyclists were expected to
give way at a driveway which seemed to lead to nothing but a locked
gate. Bizarre. Is it still there?

I've been saying for a while that this lane/track confusion shows
that the only people still in favour of bike facilities seem to be
those who, quite literally, do not know what they are talking about.
The petition seems to confirm that.

Jeremy Parker

Tony Raven said:

...on why he will ignore the petitions and continue to favour the
convenience of motorists over the safety of cyclists:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10665.asp

On a practical note, I agree entirely with their answer.

The petition was
::: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to pass legislation so
::: that cyclists on cycle lanes accompanying main roads should not have
::: to give way to traffic on joining minor roads."
which had been interpreted to refer to off-road cycle tracks parallel
to the road, not cycle lanes (as stated) since they already have
priority over side traffic.

The simple fact is that it would be virtually impossible to implement,
and could significantly increase the danger to cyclists and other road
users.

First, there would need to be a massive nationwide education campaign
to alert drivers to the new law, and a huge effort to re-sign all
affected junctions - with altered road markings to show the priority
for cyclists, as well as clear and highly visible signs to alert
traffic from all directions as to the presence of the cycle lane. The
expense of this alone would not be merited by the tiny number of
cyclists whose passage could theoretically be eased by the new law.

Second, at many junctions it is not possible to see clearly along the
pavement in both directions from behind where the route of the cycle
track crosses the road. This means that drivers would have to nudge up
to and over the cycle track in order to see if cyclists were
approaching - this makes it dangerous for cyclists. Where drivers are
turning into a side road, they also have to look out for cyclists
approaching from all directions, which is not easy.

At most junctions, drivers in the side road will not have a clear view
of the main road from behind the cycle track, so will need to move
forward and block the cycle track while waiting for a gap in the main
road. Likewise, drivers turning right/across into the side road may
end up blocking the main carriageway as they give way to cyclists.

Thirdly, even with all the legislation and education in the world,
drivers will not reliably give way to cyclists in that situation. Even
if they are trying to. Because (thankfully) it applies at such a small
minority of junctions, and for all the reasons above, there will be
too many times when they simply forget or don't see cyclists
approaching from an "unusual" position. If cyclists are *expecting*
right of way, they _will_ get splattered. If the onus is on cyclists
to check before crossing, they will be much safer.

You can argue about the rights and wrongs of that all you like, but I
am not prepared to sacrifice cyclists' safety, and potentially lives,
just to make a dubious political point.

What would be far more productive is to educate councillors and
highway engineers to eschew and remove such parallel cycle tracks that
cross side roads, unless there are grade-separated or signal-
controlled junctions that allow cyclists to cross the roads without
coming into conflict with turning traffic.

What would be far, far better (in terms of safety and making a
political point) would be to get all cyclists using the road in the
first place, where they belong.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Paul Boyd said:

Q - "so that cyclists on cycle lanes"...

A - "I believe you are referring to off road cycle tracks, not cycle
lanes.....Please let me know if this is not the case."

Read the f***ing petition, which quite clearly says "lanes".

Cyclists on cycle *lanes* already have priority over traffic turning
into/from side roads, as they are on the main road, so if that was the
case, the petition would be asking for the law to be changed to
something that is already legally enshrined, which would make even
less sense.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D said:

What would be far, far better (in terms of safety and making a
political point) would be to get all cyclists using the road in the
first place, where they belong.

I'd sign up to that in a trice (not that I have one).

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid