The Times stunning pro-cycle leader

Erik Sandblom said:

The Times leader Wednesday Feb 21st

Wow, what's Murdoch doing, buying up all the bike businesses?

A positive article though. Only two criticisms:

"fumes and accidents apart, it is much healthier"

I seem to remember research form somewhere indicating that the interior
of a car was a fume trap and that outside was a much cleaner place to be.

Ah, Google is good:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/car_chemicals.html

although that's more to do with the materials of car construction rather
than the car-as-a-fume-cupboard.

http://www.things.org/~jym/greenpeace/pollution-inside-cars.html

that's more like it.

Another popular misconception despatched?

Next issue "Cycle lanes need to be better protected from motorists",
hmm... usual mix-up there then.

Thank God he doesn't mention helmets, or counter steering!

Tony B

Erik Sandblom said:

The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to cycling
improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very smart idea.

Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

peter

naked_draughtsman wrote on 24/02/2007 09:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to cycling
improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very smart idea.

Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

We already have excellent facilities which go virtually everywhere I
want to go. They are called roads. No need to build anything, just get
some of the other users to use them considerately and remove them if
they don't.

--
Tony

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

Tony B <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

http://www.things.org/~jym/greenpeace/pollution-inside-cars.html

that's more like it.

Another popular misconception despatched?

Heheheh, you've obviously never been in my old S3 Landrover ... Fully
air-conditioned, same ambient temperature inside as outside, except for
the wind-chill factor ... 😉

Though when the overdrive went west (we were travelling North) on the M1
a few years ago, the fire could have taken out parts of Leicester, I
imagine. 🙂

--
Paul - [censored]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:15:41 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

naked_draughtsman wrote on 24/02/2007 09:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to cycling
improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very smart idea.

Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

We already have excellent facilities which go virtually everywhere I
want to go. They are called roads. No need to build anything, just get
some of the other users to use them considerately and remove them if
they don't.

A letter to the editors reminding them of this fact would seem to be
in order.

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

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to cycling
improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very smart idea.

Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

peter

We have brilliant facilities already. Roads. Roads that we have a legal
right to use. Far better to educate motorists into a mindset where they (and
I include myself in this) realise they do not own the roads, do not have a
'right' to drive, do not take priority over every other road user, and have
a duty of care to others. Long-term and difficult, but the correct thing to
so.

Den 2007-02-24 10:15:41 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

naked_draughtsman wrote on 24/02/2007 09:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to cycling
improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very smart idea.

Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

We already have excellent facilities which go virtually everywhere I
want to go. They are called roads. No need to build anything, just get
some of the other users to use them considerately and remove them if
they don't.

There's an underpass where I live, for pedestrians and cyclists only. It's
nice because this route has fewer traffic lights than the car route. There
are a number of other bicycle shortcut routes around the city. Doing the
same thing for car traffic would be prohibitively expensive.

This 780m long pedestrian and cycle bridge for instance, Nesciobrug in
Ijburg, Amsterdam, is thin and elegant because it doesn't need to
accomodate heavy cars. It eliminates a 40 minute detour for cyclists
heading to central Amsterdam.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesciobrug
http://www.grontmij.nl/site/nl-nl/Projecten/_projectpages/2005/007/Hangende+tuibrug+langste+brug+van+IJburg.htm

More Dutch bridges
http://www.pwpeics.se/nether_a-b.htm

Or take a tram network. Sometimes the trams run on the road, sometimes on
their own right of way. You can mix and match as is practical. You can
even have tram-trains which run on tram tracks in the city, and on
railways in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train

Each type of vehicle should be leveraged to its advantage.

Erik Sandblom
--
Oil is for sissies

Erik Sandblom wrote on 24/02/2007 19:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Den 2007-02-24 10:15:41 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

naked_draughtsman wrote on 24/02/2007 09:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 24, 3:28 am, "Erik Sandblom" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to
> cycling improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very
> smart idea.
Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

We already have excellent facilities which go virtually everywhere
I want to go. They are called roads. No need to build anything,
just get some of the other users to use them considerately and
remove them if they don't.

There's an underpass where I live, for pedestrians and cyclists only.

Yes, but you don't live in the UK.

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven said:

Erik Sandblom wrote on 24/02/2007 19:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

There's an underpass where I live, for pedestrians and cyclists only.

Yes, but you don't live in the UK.

We have these as well, unfortunately they are also often full of broken
glass and have a slalom course of discarded shopping trolleys.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Freedom defined is freedom denied. (Illuminatus)

in message <[email hidden]>,

naked_draughtsman (') said:

Erik Sandblom said:

The suggestion that proceeds from road pricing should go to cycling
improvements is stunning in my opinion, and a very smart idea.

Good as long as they mean building better facilities rather than
extending [censored] ones.

Even better if they spent the money on ripping out and shutting
down 'facilities'. We don't need 'facilities', we need safe roads.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.

Den 2007-02-24 21:38:22 skrev Don Whybrow <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Erik Sandblom wrote on 24/02/2007 19:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

There's an underpass where I live, for pedestrians and cyclists only.

Yes, but you don't live in the UK.

We have these as well, unfortunately they are also often full of broken
glass and have a slalom course of discarded shopping trolleys.

Luckily Bromptons and Moultons easily weave through urban obstacles.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Even better if they spent the money on ripping out and shutting
down 'facilities'. We don't need 'facilities', we need safe roads.

Too bloody true. I preferred neglect from the road engineers.

Mike Sales