Neil Williams wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 05:58:45 -0700, wrote:

Not necessarily. If the pavement is raised above the cycle path, and
the cycle path is seperated from the road by a kerb, then all should be
happy.

Until car passengers throw glass bottles out of the window, and you've
got a nice glass trap that's too narrow to use a road sweeper on, so
the glass remains and the cycle path is useless.

Hmm - hadn't thought of that one. In Southern Germany people don't
throw bottles out of car windows.

Though I would have a raised curb of just a few centimeters - ideally
just below straight line pedal height. That's still enough to deter
cars, but a street sweeper could straddle it.

Not to mention that
pedestrians in many places still don't respect them.

Chicken and egg? If there were enough cyclists, pedestrians would
respect them.

Unless the road is wide enough for a cycle path of at least a normal
lane's width (which most of Milton Keynes' Redways are), there isn't
room for one and the road is a better place for the cyclist. If the
road was a foot or two wider, overtaking by cars would be easier and
less dangerous.

Sorry - can't agree there. I'd be happy to have a dedicated, 1m wide
cylce path each way. Putting one of these on both sides would require
removing one lane of parked cars, or in some places reducing the car
lane width to 3m.

Unless your talking sports cyclists at high speed!

On 13 Sep 2005 14:01:53 -0700, wrote:

Hmm - hadn't thought of that one. In Southern Germany people don't
throw bottles out of car windows.

Most probably. It is a more respectful country in general, and one in
which I would be happy to live again.

Chicken and egg? If there were enough cyclists, pedestrians would
respect them.

Perhaps. But what (other than the typical British attitude) should
prevent respect anyway?..

Sorry - can't agree there. I'd be happy to have a dedicated, 1m wide
cylce path each way.

Ah, I was thinking of the usual Milton Keynes arrangement of a single
two-way shared path on one side of the road. 1m is wide enough for a
one-way path, so long as vegetation is not allowed to take over, and
so long as it is cleaned on a frequent basis to remove glass etc.
(This is one trouble of dedicated paths - car tyres tend to clear the
normal road so long as you don't ride in the gutter).

Unless your talking sports cyclists at high speed!

These will always be better off (and probably perfectly happy) on the
road, whatever paths are provided. My average speed to work is
probably about 15mph, and to be honest I don't mind riding on the road
at that speed either.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:29:32 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:36:49 +0100, Clive
wrote:

I have always advocated total separation for safeties sake.

*Total* separation would be fine. The trouble is, it is both
difficult and expensive to achieve that - you will always have some
interface between the modes. Given that Milton Keynes was planned
from more or less scratch, and while it did get a certain level of
separation between motorised and non-motorised transport, I suspect
that I'm not the only one thinking that.

The thing that is missing from all this is the fact that off road cycle
paths are significantly more dangerous to the cyclist than cycling on the
road.

Studies on the continent, MK, and the recent TFL study all found that off
road cycle paths increase the risk of death and serious injury. Try
cycling on one and you soon find out why, bad design, bad surface and zero
priority at junctions.

What is really needed is better standards by both cyclists and motorists,
backed up by improved laws. We need to fill in the missing law of death by
careless driving , and replace the d-b-dangerous driving with an upgraded
offence.

Steve

Steve

In message , Steve Peake
writes
Studies on the continent, MK, and the recent TFL study all found that
off road cycle paths increase the risk of death and serious injury.
Try cycling on one and you soon find out why, bad design, bad surface
and zero priority at junctions.

What is really needed is better standards by both cyclists and
motorists, backed up by improved laws. We need to fill in the missing
law of death by careless driving , and replace the d-b-dangerous
driving with an upgraded offence.
If this is true, it points directly to the lack of observation by
cyclists, if the zero priority at junctions on cycle paths causes
accidents. Maybe the motorist does come out in a much better light.
--
Clive

elyob ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

So, going down this route would mean that cycles require an MOT.

Is that a bad thing?

I wouldn't be allowed to respray it

Why not?

and with 25 million bikes in the UK one hell of a headache.

Remind me how many vehicles are on DVLA's books?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:03:48 +0100, Clive wrote:

In message , Steve Peake
writes
Studies on the continent, MK, and the recent TFL study all found that
off road cycle paths increase the risk of death and serious injury.
Try cycling on one and you soon find out why, bad design, bad surface
and zero priority at junctions.

What is really needed is better standards by both cyclists and
motorists, backed up by improved laws. We need to fill in the missing
law of death by careless driving , and replace the d-b-dangerous
driving with an upgraded offence.
If this is true, it points directly to the lack of observation by
cyclists, if the zero priority at junctions on cycle paths causes
accidents. Maybe the motorist does come out in a much better light.

No it points to terrible design.

Take the A4, cycle lanes down both sides, but on light controlled junctions
either one row of traffic or the other always has priority meaning that
there is no safe way to cross over using the cycle path(psychopath), other
then dismounting, walking down the side road, crossing over, walking back
and re-mounting to use the path. Its no wonder that accidents happen when
idiots design such crazy schemes.

Steve

In message , Steve Peake
writes
Take the A4, cycle lanes down both sides, but on light controlled
junctions either one row of traffic or the other always has priority
meaning that there is no safe way to cross over using the cycle
path(psychopath), other then dismounting, walking down the side road,
crossing over, walking back and re-mounting to use the path. Its no
wonder that accidents happen when idiots design such crazy schemes.
If car drivers get stopped by lights, traffic what ever they stop, why
can't a cyclist get off and walk, if that's what's required of him.
What is it with London cyclists, (I say that because I don't see the
same stupid behaviour in the Lakes.) that they feel they must keep
going, regardless, weaving in and out of traffic, riding on the
pavement, going through red lights disregarding pedestrian crossings,
even using dedicated pedestrian pavements, you'd think they haven't got
a spare second to live and sod anyone that gets in their way.
--
Clive

In article , Clive wrote:
In message , Steve Peake
If car drivers get stopped by lights, traffic what ever they stop, why
can't a cyclist get off and walk, if that's what's required of him.
What is it with London cyclists, (I say that because I don't see the
same stupid behaviour in the Lakes.) that they feel they must keep
going, regardless, weaving in and out of traffic, riding on the
pavement, going through red lights disregarding pedestrian crossings,
even using dedicated pedestrian pavements, you'd think they haven't got
a spare second to live and sod anyone that gets in their way.

I think you have a high opinion of London car drivers if you think
that they wouldn't do that if they could get away with it...

Paul

In message ,
writes
I think you have a high opinion of London car drivers if you think that
they wouldn't do that if they could get away with it...
So your opinion of what you think car drivers might want to get away
with, justifies stupid behaviour by the cyclist?
--
Clive

In article , Clive wrote:
In message ,
writes

I think you have a high opinion of London car drivers if you think that
they wouldn't do that if they could get away with it...

So your opinion of what you think car drivers might want to get away
with, justifies stupid behaviour by the cyclist?

Where did I say that? I was merely questioning your assumption that
car drivers were somehow more law-abiding than cyclists. I don't think
the form of transport makes any difference, it's the person that
makes the difference. If that cyclist were in his car, he'd be driving
while talking on his mobile, doing 50 in a 30 and jumping red lights...

Paul