"Neil Williams" wrote

[snip]

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

[snip]

Get an Air Zound. EVERYONE respects an Air Zound.

heh, heh, heh

Jeremy Parker

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

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.

If it does, yes. If it does not, however, it is still an unnecessary
inconvenience over riding on the road, where you normally do have
priority.

Maybe the motorist does come out in a much better light.

Once again, I ask - *why* do the modes have to compete in this emotive
manner? I am both a motorist and a cyclist (and use other modes as
well). Do I suddenly spout anti-motorist drivel when cycling, or vice
versa? Of course not. I am, however, against poor and inconsiderate
driving and cycling (both of which I see a fair bit of), and against
poorly-designed infrastructure for both.

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 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:10:32 +0100, Clive
wrote:

What is it with London cyclists

I could be tempted to counter that with "what is it with London
*people*". I am rarely proven wrong in my observation that, the
further north you get, generally speaking, the more friendly, less
rushed and more pleasant people tend to be. Your observation about
the Lakes probably backs this up quite nicely.

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.

wrote

[snip]

The cycle lane should be given the same priority over side roads as
the
main road, subject to provisions being made for driver visibility.

It wasn't in this country where I heard the solution suggested, but
the side street problem is universal.

The way to enforce cyclists' priority is level crossing gates. It
works for trains.

The idea of cycle tracks is not new, and neither are their problems.
Nearly fifty years ago, in 1958 Professor Sir Colin Buchanan, one of
Britain's greatest town planners and engineers, wrote, in his book,
"Mixed Blessing, The Motor in Britain"
"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have
failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at
junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude
of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has
not been as helpful as it might have been."

Nothing has changed since then



Jeremy parker

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:29:31 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:

Get an Air Zound. EVERYONE respects an Air Zound.

heh, heh, heh

Most people *hear* my bell, or my voice saying "Excuse me please" or
"Coming past on your right" or whatever. The issue is in how they
react to it, which is often to move into the centre of the path
(blocking it completely) or to stop dead.

I suspect an "unfamilar" sound, not associated with a bicycle, may
well be worse.

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 Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:10:32 +0100, Clive
wrote:

What is it with London cyclists

I could be tempted to counter that with "what is it with London
*people*". I am rarely proven wrong in my observation that, the further
north you get, generally speaking, the more friendly, less rushed and
more pleasant people tend to be.

If that's true, then i suggest that the key bit is "less rushed" - if
they're less rushed, they're bound to be more relaxed, and so more
friendly and pleasant.

I will neither speculate nor comment on any possible connection between
this difference in degree of rushedness and the threefold difference in
GDP per capita [1] between London and the north.

tom

[1] http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/p...2005-EN-AP.PDF

--
The Impossible is True

Jeremy Parker ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

The way to enforce cyclists' priority is level crossing gates. It
works for trains.

Blimey. So each cyclist and driver has a link to a central signalling
control centre, then?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:10:32 +0100, Clive wrote:

SNIP EVERYTHING

Now I'm talking about cycle lanes, and your talking to yourself, this is
getting pointless.

Steve

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:33:04 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

If that's true, then i suggest that the key bit is "less rushed" - if
they're less rushed, they're bound to be more relaxed, and so more
friendly and pleasant.

Agreed.

I will neither speculate nor comment on any possible connection between
this difference in degree of rushedness and the threefold difference in
GDP per capita [1] between London and the north.

Most probably true, but money isn't everything. I would be
interesting to see how the comparison would work if compared between
similarly sized entities such as "the North" and "the South East", or
"Manchester and London", though - while I expect it to be the same way
round, I would not expect it to be as drastic.

I will have a nose at said link later to see if it has such stats...

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.

Steve Peake wrote:

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.

Interesting, but I suspect misleading.

"Offroad" cycle paths are often used as sporting activities
On Road paths are used for utility purposes

The former is more dangerous becuase of the use, not the road.

You would need to look at figures for Road side, segregated paths in
Germany and Holland, or perhaps Milton Keynes.