Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,671
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
1/10 no effort at all
Poll: Poll pls: In the presence of a dedicated cycle lane, should cyclists be allowed to use the roads?
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
1/10 no effort at all
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
I haven't read every page but the problem is that 95% of cycle lanes in this country are terribly designed. Surface conditions aside, they're mostly woefully planned and executed; trees, road signs and other obstructions throughout, no right of way at junctions, interspersed and intersected by pedestrian routes, the list goes on.
In any city most cyclists are either travelling the same speed as traffic anyway, or at least getting to the next set of lights at the same time.
This is pretty much a perfect example (with models
) but unfortunately not unusual:
- Obstructions in cycle lane (huge trees)
- Obstructions on pedestrian side forcing pedestrians into the cycle lane
- Narrow cycle lane is supposedly for two-way cycle traffic
- Cycle lane abruptly ends at intersection with traffic and pedestrians and no right of way
- Next part of journey would be on the road anyway so little benefit
In any city most cyclists are either travelling the same speed as traffic anyway, or at least getting to the next set of lights at the same time.
This is pretty much a perfect example (with models
) but unfortunately not unusual:- Obstructions in cycle lane (huge trees)
- Obstructions on pedestrian side forcing pedestrians into the cycle lane
- Narrow cycle lane is supposedly for two-way cycle traffic
- Cycle lane abruptly ends at intersection with traffic and pedestrians and no right of way
- Next part of journey would be on the road anyway so little benefit
The problem is it's not 15 seconds. It could easily double the length of your journey. For example would you choose 20mph with a clean run to get from A-B, or 10mph on a cycle lane, stopping every 100m for a junction and weaving round obstacles?
If you e got a half an hour cycle then it can quite easily be another half an hour if you use the cycle lanes. That could easily add up to 5 extra hours a week commuting.
I can understand cyclists that dont use the path due to cars etc being parked in it but, near me, there is a cycle path that was converted from an old railway line.
The path is perfectly smooth, is a shorter distance to cycle than taking the road, is impossible for cars to access so no parking on it, has no obstructions and is pretty much completely level making it a dream to cycle on yet it doesnt stop a large amount of cyclists from ignoring it completely and cycling on the road... a narrow country road.... with HGVs, buses and other large vehicles...
The path is perfectly smooth, is a shorter distance to cycle than taking the road, is impossible for cars to access so no parking on it, has no obstructions and is pretty much completely level making it a dream to cycle on yet it doesnt stop a large amount of cyclists from ignoring it completely and cycling on the road... a narrow country road.... with HGVs, buses and other large vehicles...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,671
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Google Street link?
Except that they don't
How many incidents of "Talking and driving" do you think happen every single day.?
(10 Million, 20 Million, 50 Million?. I am sure that the cell phone operators could provide an answer)
How many people are killed or injured each day as a consequence of this?? (0.1? 0.025?)
At what point does obsessing about a potential "risk" (let alone creating specific legislation because of it) does the actual "risk" become so low that doing so becomes bat-**** insane??
OK, Bit tongue in cheek.
Clearly there have been awful and totally avoidable accidents (such as the horrible A34 one recently) where people have been total prats using their "devices" while driving, and yet, Literally millions of people manage to do this every single day without running into other people and killing them.
Accidents of this type are actually very, very rare (both absolutely, and in comparison with the rates at which people use devices while driving)
There is an old legal saying. "Hard cases make bad Law" and this is a very good example of this!
For the record, I do not have a "smart-phone" nor do I have any form of mobile device with music on it to fiddle with while I am driving.
I do not accept calls while I am driving and I certainly would not make any (However, I might well be inclined to do so if I still had the first gen "Car Phone" that I had 30 years ago, but they were much easier to use while driving and rather less distracting (Perhaps that is part of the problem, modern stuff is just too clever))
Ho Humm.
He made the statement about mobiles as a reply to the person complaining about cyclists at red lights...
what about a Phaeton?
I hear the ride is so good, that it absorbs a fallen cyclist in its stride...
I joke of course!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,776
- Location
- Leicestershire
I haven't read every page but the problem is that 95% of cycle lanes in this country are terribly designed. Surface conditions aside, they're mostly woefully planned and executed; trees, road signs and other obstructions throughout, no right of way at junctions, interspersed and intersected by pedestrian routes, the list goes on.
In any city most cyclists are either travelling the same speed as traffic anyway, or at least getting to the next set of lights at the same time.
This is pretty much a perfect example (with models
- Obstructions in cycle lane (huge trees)
- Obstructions on pedestrian side forcing pedestrians into the cycle lane
- Narrow cycle lane is supposedly for two-way cycle traffic
- Cycle lane abruptly ends at intersection with traffic and pedestrians and no right of way
- Next part of journey would be on the road anyway so little benefit
Sadly that is so true. In Australia the cycle lanes are EXACTLY the same as a road - 2 lanes (1 each way and arrowed), give way at junctions. stop signs when the rider needs to cross pedestrian areas. The UK is such a poor design the people who design the cycle paths clearly do not cycle or have kids who do cycle. If they had to let their kids go on them I have a feeling that they would consider a redesign.
I know somebody who is looking for a new home for an old 750i Coupe.
Beautiful Beautiful car!
I would have had it if I had the space/money! (Very, very, good condition. But might need new exhaust system)
If you are interested let me know and I will see if it is still available.
Too Bad
Mind, a nice 750 is worth moving out of London for surely!
In all seriousness, London is amazing, but I really wouldn't want to live there (Or any other big city either) My sense of "Personal space" is far too large for me to ever be able to tolerate urban living.
Except they do, you even mentioned one yourself. I didn't qualify it by saying how many were killed but people are being killed through mobile phone use. Also it isn't just talking is it, many people are texting which is even worse.
Also just because drunk drivers may not kill anyone every time they drive drunk doesn't mean it shouldn't have been banned.
Last edited:
You might perhaps have missed my point.
Of course they do, but it is extraordinarily rare.
(And when it happens, it is also mostly clear that the people involved were absolute tools)
Somebody using a phone in a traffic jam should not be made a (Metaphorical) capital offence as a consequence of this.
(The "Hard cases make Bad Law" thing)