Share the Road

1356721

Comments

  • sionisais wrote: »
    The problem is that of resources. If the transport infrastructure budget is biased towards private motor vehicles .
    But it isn’t. Roads are designed for vehicles, yes. But the most significant part of any budget is for various types of trucks. Buses and lorries. Those do the damage to roads. Those drive design of roads. And those will still be on them after you eliminate cars.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Has anyone here suggested banning cars?
    I did, from the London Congestion Charge zone. Which, for reference is a rough circle, 2 miles in radius, centred about (again, roughly) the Temple tube station on the Embankment. Within that area, I think car-free options are pretty generous, and most city-centres are not 4 miles wide.
    Would that be under my "some locations where car use is severely restricted"? Because that's not a ban on cars, it's a ban on using most* cars in a particular location.

    * "most" because I think there will need to be some valid exceptions - eg: delivery vehicles (at particular, quiet times of the day), cars for people with severe mobility problems. Would you consider such a zone to have a ban on taxis? Though, we could probably drop the chauffeur driven limos to get people in and out of Downing Street, Mrs May can take up that good old Tory principal of "get on your bike".
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Yes, that'll do. And even people with severe mobility problems are going somewhere specific. They don't need to park their cars outside the venue and leave them there - a fleet of accessible taxis will do the job just fine.

    I'm ambivalent about taxis for everybody else inside such a small zone. It's probably worth doing, but limit their speed to 20 and make them all electric.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    And at least semi-autonomous.

    Actually, the compulsory engagement of at least a semi-autonomous mode for all motor vehicles within urban areas would provide significant benefits. It'd cut out a lot of the fuckwittery that makes walking and cycling difficult and dangerous - pavement and other illegal parking, speeding, close passing, left hooks, bus/cycle lane abuse...
  • Only if they remove the "drive over cyclists walking their bike" feature.
  • SpikeSpike Admin
    edited March 2018
    If people behind the wheel of a car doesn't understand the rules of the road, and it's not a uniquely American phenomenon, then it would seem that what's required is better driver instruction and driving tests.
    That’s bollocks. If everyone drove at the standard required for the driving test the roads would be much safer. NO driving instructor teaches tailgating, running red or amber lights, speeding, queue jumping, poor lane discipline or any of the other bad driving habits seen on the roads every day that would fail a driving test. If moronic drivers choose to ignore what they’ve been taught, it’s not the fault of the instructors or the testing system
    I'd advocate re-examination of all drivers on a regular basis. It's been 20 years since I passed my test, in that time there have been changes to driving - we've seen the introduction of smart motorways, for example.
    That would be impossible to implement. Driving test waiting times are long enough already. If they were to introduce compulsory retests, that would increase the wait even longer. Also, no government would dare to introduce such a thing as it would be a massive vote loser. Finally, it would be a complete waste of time because (as per my previous point) a lot of people (especially those in certain brands of German car) would be on their best behaviour for the test and then revert to their old ways immediately afterwards.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    So it's not "bikes or cars", it's "bikes and cars, with segregated infrastructure to maximise safety for both".

    Actually, at some point, given our streets, it will be bikes or cars, or pedestrians or cars, or buses or cars. If you have a bus lane, you take one lane away from cars. If you have a segregated bike lane, you take away another lane from cars. Even on the most generous of arterial roads, you've now got a pavement, a bike lane, a bus lane, and maybe a car lane. If you're a town planner, you have to make the call.

    Though presumably, if you successfully persuaded half the commuters to swap the car for the tram, then you would only need half as many lanes for cars, so it wouldn't be that much of a problem ...

    (Though bus lanes are pretty pointless most of the time. Liverpool council suspended all of ours for 18 months to see what would happen, and conncluded that most of them made no significant difference. What might help would be more awareness of HC Rule 223, which gives priority to buses pulling out of stops, the existence of which most drivers seem to be unaware of.)
  • Most bus lanes aren’t in operation outside peak hour anyway, but he majority of drivers still avoid them religiously for some reason even when they’re not in operation
  • Spike wrote: »
    If people behind the wheel of a car doesn't understand the rules of the road, and it's not a uniquely American phenomenon, then it would seem that what's required is better driver instruction and driving tests.
    That’s bollocks. If everyone drove at the standard required for the driving test the roads would be much safer. NO driving instructor teaches tailgating, running red or amber lights, speeding, queue jumping, poor lane discipline or any of the other bad driving habits seen on the roads every day that would fail a driving test. If moronic drivers choose to ignore what they’ve been taught, it’s not the fault of the instructors or the testing system
    My post was in relation to people not understanding, the solution to which is better education. People who understand and proceed to act differently is another issue. Maybe an issue of enforcement, which could include some form of "awareness training" - we have it for speeding.

    If my proposal for additional testing and instruction wa implemented clearly it would require some additional investment in testing capacity, and recruitment of more instructors (some of whom would need to specialise in filling out the education of people who have been driving for years). Is more work for driving instructors that much of a problem?

  • Not just instructors, but examiners as well. You’d need a lot of them to fill the gap. I’d actually be in favour of retesting. I think if asked, most people would say they are but would object if they had to do it themselves which is why no government would introduce it. Everybody reckons they are a great driver and it’s everyone else who needs retesting. You can criticise a man for his taste in music, for his choice of wife, for his dress sense but you can never criticise his driving.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    So it's not "bikes or cars", it's "bikes and cars, with segregated infrastructure to maximise safety for both".

    Actually, at some point, given our streets, it will be bikes or cars, or pedestrians or cars, or buses or cars. If you have a bus lane, you take one lane away from cars. If you have a segregated bike lane, you take away another lane from cars. Even on the most generous of arterial roads, you've now got a pavement, a bike lane, a bus lane, and maybe a car lane. If you're a town planner, you have to make the call.

    You're assuming the current street layouts have to remain the same, just with a few more fences. That's not what I had in mind - I'm envisaging a more comprehensive system of segregation. Cycleways, for instance, could be routed through parks, along canal towpaths or similar. In high-density areas where neither of those things exist, some of the roads could be converted to dedicated cycleways with the others remaining available to cars. More use could be made of flyovers or tunnels. As an even more extreme (and therefore unlikely!) option, some rail arteries could be boxed in and dedicated cycleways - or even motorways!) put on top.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I have no problems with any of those. But 'some of the roads converted to dedicated cycleways' is at variance with your insistence that choice not be restricted. That's exactly what you're proposing here, and only differs from my proposals by a degree of implementation.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    But 'some of the roads converted to dedicated cycleways' is at variance with your insistence that choice not be restricted.

    Not at all. There would still be roads for cars to use, so people would still be free to choose to drive around rather than using any other means of transport.
  • When Frederick Gibberd designed Harlow, he laid out a grid of streets for the new town and kept the old lanes leading between the original villages as a cycle network. Those work far far better than the recently built cycle route that is interrupted every few yards by street furniture and trees. Unfortunately, the maintenance of the tracks isn't great and the local youth find hurling bottles from the bridges over the tracks entertaining.

    Trying to find pictures of the new cycle track, I found this article (link) about Srevenage which also has the infrastructure, but no users.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    But 'some of the roads converted to dedicated cycleways' is at variance with your insistence that choice not be restricted.

    Not at all. There would still be roads for cars to use, so people would still be free to choose to drive around rather than using any other means of transport.

    Just not to where they necessarily wanted to go. Gotcha.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    But 'some of the roads converted to dedicated cycleways' is at variance with your insistence that choice not be restricted.

    Not at all. There would still be roads for cars to use, so people would still be free to choose to drive around rather than using any other means of transport.

    Just not to where they necessarily wanted to go. Gotcha.

    Well, to within a reasonable distance of their destination rather than right to the door. Which is the case in virtually every town or city anyway - people drive in, leave the car in a car park, then walk around the shops. You don't need every single road in the town or city centre to be available to cars for that to still be perfectly possible, therefore converting a few of them to cycleways or tramlines will open up the choice to travel by those means without restricting the choice to travel by car.

    You seem unnecessarily belligerent about this given that we're largely in agreement.
  • Besides, an alternative could still allow that. Convert half the width of a road to cycle/tram/pedestrian. Then set up a one-way system around the remaining roads for cars so they can still get to the door (albeit sometimes with a walk across a cycle/tram path), it might just require them going around the block a wee bit further.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Not everybody can have a choice, therefore nobody should. Nice philosophy.

    Yes, that's me. Unnecessarily belligerent. I'll put that next to the Daily Mail's Dutifully multicultural and wear it as T-shirt slogan.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Towpaths make rubbish cycle routes, unless you're adept at bunny-hopping fishing rods. Besides few are wide or smooth enough for the sorts of speeds possible on road. Both they and routes through parks suffer from mixing with pedestrians. Generally such routes are not for the benefit of cyclists at all but to keep the roads free of them for drivers, which is why they write angry letters to the press about us not using them when we're unwilling to turn a four mile 15mph commute into a six mile 8mph commute. Often these drivers mistakenly believe they've paid for them out of their mythical Road Tax.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Towpaths make rubbish cycle routes, unless you're adept at bunny-hopping fishing rods. Besides few are wide or smooth enough for the sorts of speeds possible on road.

    They'd be a damn sight easier to upgrade than a lot of other routes.
    Both they and routes through parks suffer from mixing with pedestrians.

    Better than mixing with cars, surely?

    Of course, if you as a cyclist get frustrated by being stuck behind slow-moving pedestrians then you should be able to understand at least a little of the frustration motorists feel when they're stuck behind you.
    Generally such routes are not for the benefit of cyclists at all but to keep the roads free of them for drivers,

    Drivers would certainly benefit from not having cyclists on the roads, but I'd say the major benefit would be to the cyclists who would have a considerably safer ride.
    which is why they write angry letters to the press about us not using them when we're unwilling to turn a four mile 15mph commute into a six mile 8mph commute.

    The irony of this comment on a thread where people are saying that car drivers should add significant amounts of time and inconvenience to their journeys in order to make things better for the bikes is quite something.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Towpaths make rubbish cycle routes, unless you're adept at bunny-hopping fishing rods. Besides few are wide or smooth enough for the sorts of speeds possible on road.

    They'd be a damn sight easier to upgrade than a lot of other routes.
    Unlike upgrading other routes this would give you an additional option of going for a swim should other users of the route do something stupid and unexpected (or, when the council considers pot holes to be less of a problem to cyclists).
    Both they and routes through parks suffer from mixing with pedestrians.

    Better than mixing with cars, surely?
    Not by much. A cyclist is going to get hurt colliding with a pedestrian just as much as colliding with a car unless the car is moving quickly. And, we're talking urban routes where much of the time car drivers are travelling at speeds where, if they're lucky, pedestrians on the pavement are going the same speed.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Towpaths make rubbish cycle routes, unless you're adept at bunny-hopping fishing rods. Besides few are wide or smooth enough for the sorts of speeds possible on road.

    They'd be a damn sight easier to upgrade than a lot of other routes.
    Unlike upgrading other routes this would give you an additional option of going for a swim should other users of the route do something stupid and unexpected (or, when the council considers pot holes to be less of a problem to cyclists).

    No option is perfect :tired_face:
    Both they and routes through parks suffer from mixing with pedestrians.

    Better than mixing with cars, surely?
    Not by much. A cyclist is going to get hurt colliding with a pedestrian just as much as colliding with a car unless the car is moving quickly.

    If you offered me a choice between ending up under a pedestrian or ending up under a car I'd choose the pedestrian every time. And the pedestrian would be hurt as well, meaning they're more motivated to look out for bikes.
    And, we're talking urban routes where much of the time car drivers are travelling at speeds where, if they're lucky, pedestrians on the pavement are going the same speed.

    Clearly not true. Even in rush hour the vast majority of journeys (i.e. where there hasn't been a major accident or weather event) are quicker by car than on foot.
  • The answer from the research looking at the unused cycle lanes in (link) Stevenage was that it was too easy to use a car and that serious disincentives to car use needed to be put in place to encourage cycling.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Mixing with pedestrians is dangerous for them and inconvenient for cyclists.
    The default place for cyclists is on the road for good reason. We're trying to encourage people out of their cars. Making cycling slower and more inconvenient will not achieve that. And talk of being stuck behind bikes in towns and cities is absolute bullshit; both on bike and driving I am constantly held up by other motor vehicles. I am never held up more than a few seconds by cyclists who are the fastest moving vehicles there when it's congested, and easy to overtake when it's not. Absolute, complete, Daily Mail-worthy bullshit. The best thing you can do to improve motor traffic flow is to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    To reiterate: the problem with motor vehicles and bikes sharing a space is the motor vehicles, not the bikes.

    They take up space, need to be highly regulated in terms of traffic management, wear out the road surface, have blind spots into which they can drive, require a great deal of expensive infrastructure with the city centre in order to park, produce pollution, and that's before we get to drivers' behaviour, which is so often below that of what is required. (I am a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian.)

    Take the motor vehicles away, and you could scrap speed limits, road bumps, chicanes, one way streets, stop signs and traffic cameras, and pretty much every traffic light, roundabout and pedestrian crossing.
  • A cyclist is going to get hurt colliding with a pedestrian just as much as colliding with a car unless the car is moving quickly.

    If you offered me a choice between ending up under a pedestrian or ending up under a car I'd choose the pedestrian every time. And the pedestrian would be hurt as well, meaning they're more motivated to look out for bikes.
    It would be an unusual accident where a bike collides with a slow moving car and the cyclist ends up under the car. Of course, where the car collides with the cyclist things are different, but then some drivers are nob heads who just love to drive in a manner that puts other road users at risk.

    You are, of course, right that pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable and so will take more care to look out for each other. Most of the time the worst the driver is likely to experience is scratched paint work and maybe a dent. Though some prick in an Audi who cuts in front of a cyclist, causing serious injury will probably be far more concerned about how to get the blood off the bonnet of his car ... but not concerned enough to drive safely so the blood doesn't get there in the first place.
    And, we're talking urban routes where much of the time car drivers are travelling at speeds where, if they're lucky, pedestrians on the pavement are going the same speed.

    Clearly not true. Even in rush hour the vast majority of journeys (i.e. where there hasn't been a major accident or weather event) are quicker by car than on foot.
    Over the length of the entire journey, true. But, where cyclists and cars interact most dangerously, not so true.

    Where the roads are clear and traffic can move faster than a bike then there's much less of a problem (or shouldn't be), since clear moving traffic = space to pass a bike safely. And, even if there isn't space at that point in time staying behind the bike until there is is hardly a hardship, and the driver knows exactly where the bike is. Where problems can arise is when motor traffic is moving much slower than the bikes, for this is when bikes (quite rightly) move up the inside, or between lines of cars (eg: if they need to position themselves to turn right). A good motorist paying attention will see the bikes coming up behind in mirrors, and anticipate where they are when they pass into blind spots. But, far too few drivers pay attention to mirrors at times like that, or check blind spots properly before turning. And, those are the times when cars drive at walking pace.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Towpaths make rubbish cycle routes, unless you're adept at bunny-hopping fishing rods. Besides few are wide or smooth enough for the sorts of speeds possible on road. Both they and routes through parks suffer from mixing with pedestrians. Generally such routes are not for the benefit of cyclists at all but to keep the roads free of them for drivers, which is why they write angry letters to the press about us not using them when we're unwilling to turn a four mile 15mph commute into a six mile 8mph commute. Often these drivers mistakenly believe they've paid for them out of their mythical Road Tax.

    In fact, at least in the States, gasoline taxes do pay to build and maintain roads. Cyclists pay nothing; they don't even have to be licensed.

    Marvin has made several other good points. Why is it acceptable that others should be regularly inconvenienced, but unthinkable that you should ever be?

    I have the sense that you're just anti-car, and unwilling to entertain the notion that there might be any other reasonable point of view. As a former cyclist who now walks with a cane (at least it's not yet a walker - or Zimmer frame, isn't it?) and drives of necessity, I find your lack of consideration of those of us with disabilities - and many other groups - unfortunate.


  • Yeah, this thread has gone from "Share the road" to "We want the road for our own exclusive use, and fuck the rest of you".
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Mixing with pedestrians is dangerous for them and inconvenient for cyclists.

    Yes, in the same way that cars mixing with cyclists is dangerous for the cyclists and inconvenient for the drivers. And for the same reason.
    The default place for cyclists is on the road for good reason.

    I'm arguing for the Dutch solution, where the default place for each type of transport is on its own dedicated infrastructure.
    We're trying to encourage people out of their cars.

    Are we? I thought we were talking about sharing transport infrastructure between all modes.
    And talk of being stuck behind bikes in towns and cities is absolute bullshit; both on bike and driving I am constantly held up by other motor vehicles. I am never held up more than a few seconds by cyclists who are the fastest moving vehicles there when it's congested, and easy to overtake when it's not. Absolute, complete, Daily Mail-worthy bullshit.

    My experience is that I will get stuck behind a bike at least once on every commute, often for long periods due to narrow roads with rows of parked cars down one side. I'm happy that your locality doesn't have the same issue.
    The best thing you can do to improve motor traffic flow is to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road.

    Of course. That doesn't mean that nothing else will have an effect though.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Marvin, I bet these "long periods of time" are no more than a minute or two. However, much supposed cycking infrastructure not only imposes longer delays than this, but makes otherwise feasible cycle journeys unfeasible. My commute to work takes 55 minutes on road; if I use the laughable off-road route it takes an hour and a half. That's a bit different to being behind a cyclist for a couple of minutes.

    I don't want the roads for myself; I'm perfectly willing to share them. Share the. Not be pushed off to make way for motor vehicles. Give me infrastructure that's marginally slower than the road but more pleasant and that's fine; extend my journey for half an hour so that drivers can avoid 30 seconds behind a bike, get in the sea.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Why is it acceptable that others should be regularly inconvenienced, but unthinkable that you should ever be?
    At the moment in most of the UK the default situation is that cyclists are inconvenienced on a daily basis, by poor road design and by poor drivers. The argument isn't about being inconvenienced or not inconvenienced, but about degrees of inconvenience. And, that by better road design and drivers behaving better the existing level of inconvenience experienced by cyclists can be significantly reduced (especially the inconvenience of getting mangled under a ton of metal driven by a moron). If that means a slight increase in inconvenience to Audi drivers, then that doesn't seem to be an excessive cost.
  • Cycles are inefficient and inconvenient for general use in a large city. They work for some, but not for everyone and I would say not most. They are piloted by the same percentages of arseholes that drive cars. Their advantage is that they are green and hurt less when they inevitably run into pedestrians.
    Buses cause major wear to the roads.
    A better solution is Personal Rapid Transit. Though the train systems currently used would be a massive pain, eyesore and expense to retrofit into most existing cities, a wheeled vehicle version with centrally controlled routes would be relatively easy and the technology is pretty close.
    Minimal modification to existing infrastructure, lower levels of damage to the roadways and bridges.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Yeah, this thread has gone from "Share the road" to "We want the road for our own exclusive use, and fuck the rest of you".

    No, I'm pretty certain that's the attitude we're opposing. Also, I'm pretty certain you're ignoring the fact that most cyclists are also pedestrians and also drivers. Car owners who regularly cycle and walk have a far better idea of what's actually inconvenient (or dangerous) than someone who is more or less exclusively a car driver.

    Take my evening's journey into town as an example. I walked the three miles alongside polluting traffic, and had to cross several major roads - I had no real choice where I did that, nor that I had to wait several minutes at a designated crossing point for the cars to stop, each time I wanted to cross.

    Essentially, my journey into town was one long series of 'fuck yous' inflicted on me by car-centric planning. You're so used to having literally everything your own way that a minor concession looks like a full-scale capitulation. Get your head out of your arse.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    My commute to work takes 55 minutes on road; if I use the laughable off-road route it takes an hour and a half. That's a bit different to being behind a cyclist for a couple of minutes.

    And yet I doubt you’d have any problem suggesting I should use public transport to get to work rather than driving, even though it would extend the time taken by considerably more than the amount you deem unreasonable in this quote (in both absolute and percentage terms).
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    My commute to work takes 55 minutes on road; if I use the laughable off-road route it takes an hour and a half. That's a bit different to being behind a cyclist for a couple of minutes.

    And yet I doubt you’d have any problem suggesting I should use public transport to get to work rather than driving, even though it would extend the time taken by considerably more than the amount you deem unreasonable in this quote (in both absolute and percentage terms).

    I would be looking to make public transport work better so that it's the better option. And of course you're free to suggest I take the long route. And I'm free to ignore you and use the road.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    You also ignore the point that motor vehicles are a big problem - they pollute, they kill people and cause traffic congestion. We should be aiming to reduce their use. This is not true of cycling and walking, and can justify making driving less convenient when the measures that do so favour modes of transport that are less harmful to everyone else.
  • The complications happen when vehicles whose normal speed is different to each other (cars etc vs bikes, bikes vs pedestrians) share space. It is possible for this to work but both parties need to be aware of the other and of their likely actions. And then be prepared for surprises. It is then a case of give and take on both sides. Unfortunately I have seen far too many instances where this doesn't happen and the consequences can range from getting annoyed to getting killed.

    We all need to chill and be considerate. That's actually not difficult but it still doesn't happen.
  • My experience as a cyclist, motorist and pedestrian is that shared space doesn't work. Very often planners expect cyclists and pedestrians to share a path, assuming that cyclists will be happy to potter along at near-pedestrian speed whilst ringing their bell and beaming cheery hellos to everyone they meet. Reality check - people ride bikes for the same reason people drive cars - to get from A to B as quickly as possible. One major reason I usually cycle to work is that it's quicker than driving, but I'm confident, reasonably fit and happy to ride on roads (I have a route that generally avoids busy junctions, but I can't avoid them completely).

    There was a survey a couple of years ago here which said that about half the population of the city (I forget the exact figure) would like to cycle more, but they were put off by having to use the roads. The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure - which could be built for a tiny fraction of the huge sums we spend on roads every year, it just needs the political will to get it done.

    Planners & policy makers need to stop listening to people like me, actually, because we are in the minority who are cycling now. They need to listen to the great mass of people who are not cycling now, many of whom want to. They also need to stop viewing cycling as something which mildly eccentric people do in their spare time, and look at it as just another transport mode.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Motorbikes :rage:

    Two cut me up today, putting themselves at great risk. Then a dad walked across a very busy road, right in front of my car and oncoming traffic on the other side with his son on a motorbike. It was a mini one and the boy must have been no more than four years old, engine on.

    Lunacy.

  • Rocinante wrote: »
    My The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure.

    That's what I've been saying, but apparently it's not an acceptable answer as it may lead to increased journey times for cyclists...
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Rocinante wrote: »
    My The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure.

    That's what I've been saying, but apparently it's not an acceptable answer as it may lead to increased journey times for cyclists...

    We don't have a problem as long as you don't make it compulsory to use it. Fine as an option - you're all for choices aren't you? But don't expect mass takeup if it doesn't make the journey feasible.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Rocinante wrote: »
    My The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure.

    That's what I've been saying, but apparently it's not an acceptable answer as it may lead to increased journey times for cyclists...

    So you're saying people who want better cycling infrastructure want better cycling infrastructure, as determined by safer, faster routes, as opposed to safer, slower ones imposed on them by car drivers?

    I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    My The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure.

    That's what I've been saying, but apparently it's not an acceptable answer as it may lead to increased journey times for cyclists...
    It is not an acceptable solution for the transportation woes of many cities.
    It is a solution for those who wish to cycle.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    ...
    We don't have a problem as long as you don't make it compulsory to use it.

    So you want dedicated infrastructure for bikes, and still let them clog the roads? Give me a break.

    Many times in the past year I have been walking on the sidewalk only to have to move off for a bike, when there is a bike lane on the road right beside me! This on a suburban road which has 4 lanes for cars and 2 lanes for bikes, all of them on which it is legal for them to ride, (whereas it is illegal for them to ride on the sidewalk) and during the day when there is little automobile traffic. Most times, I have indicated that to the cyclist, and the most common responses were, "I forgot" or "Oh".
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    ...
    We don't have a problem as long as you don't make it compulsory to use it.

    So you want dedicated infrastructure for bikes, and still let them clog the roads? Give me a break.

    Bikes don't clog the roads. Motor vehicles do. Remember Marvin moaning about being stuck behind cyclists where there are parked cars narrowing the road? Anyone with half a brain can see it's the parked vehicles which are clogging the road. But no, blame the cyclist and screw his day by making him crawl along an unsuitable track, because the all important Motorist Must Not Ever Be Impeded, not even for a second. Everyone else must get out of his way.

    Screw that.

    Stuff about cyclists on footpaths is a separate issue. Interestingly, a lot of the infrastructure you want to force us onto is just that - cycling on footpaths.

    None of this is about provision for cyclists. It's all about what the motorist wants. As ever.
  • If there is limited infrastructure for cyclists (eg: disconnected cycle paths, or in locations that are not the direct route) then it's still the case that the fastest route will be on public roads. You might as well say that as there are dedicated car-only roads (we call them motorways) they should be used no matter what even if it doubles the distance from A to B by other (legal) roads.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You. As well as them. Cycling isn't the solution. It is part of the problem. Effective transit in urban areas would reduce cycling as well as cars.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Even today, when I walked to my local greengrocers, I had to wait a couple of minutes to cross the road because of the traffic.

    Why do cars have right of way? Okay, I'm not going to just veer out into the road and get run over, but it's pretty obvious I was wanting to cross the road. The first car should go past. The second car should stop and let me cross. That makes sense, right?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You.

    Bollocks. I've said several times I prefer to share it over using substandard infrastructure. The environment would of course be better with fewer motor vehicles but nothing I have proposed entirely eliminates them. I'd thank them not to drive aggressively just because I dare to be there, granted.
    As well as them. Cycling isn't the solution. It is part of the problem. Effective transit in urban areas would reduce cycling as well as cars.

    More bollocks. Cars are a problem because they pollute, they kill, frequently, and slow movement around urban areas because they are massively inefficient users of space when as so often they transport a single person. None of this is true of cycling. It is part of the solution. If you think cyclists are a problem you're smoking something weird.
Sign In or Register to comment.