Re: Cycle Map
- From: "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:07:55 +0100
"Mk" <n@xxxxx> wrote
[snip]
Anyway, back on topic, a cyclist road map would
> have to offer the same flexibility as the price slider on that
dummy
> shop. So a cyclist could choose his/her requirements from a slider
> dashboard, and watch as the UK cycle map is redrawn accordingly,
with
> routes faded in and out in a similar fashion to the example
website. Do
> you think that kind of solution might work?
[snip]
There have been several attempts to draw up an official
"obnoxiousness" scale. For calculating the British index, see the
form on my web site www.jfparker.demon.co.uk/CRP2.txt The IHT,
having invented the scale, seems to be very reluctant to use it,
though. The Americans invented the idea, and there is more about the
subject on the web site of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, whose
URL I forget, but they're out there somewhere. The even have a
calculator to work the (US) ratings out.
Experienced (whatever that means) cyclists are reported in the USA to
rate any given road about one grade easier than would a novice. The
question is, are there any road features which wouldn't worry a
novice, but which would frighten an expert, or vice versa. I think
there are. I hate bike lanes, for example, as do many others on this
list, and the old style cycle tracks alongside main roads are worse.
The problem with this whole concept is that it has the wrong view
about problems. Novices combine being far too frightened of cycling
with not being frightened enough. They spend so much time worrying
about accidents that are rare enough to be freaks that they never
consider the things which will really get them.
Cars hit bikes where their paths intersect. Accidents happen at
intersections, rather than between them, and there isn't any scale,
so far as I know, to rate intersections. There's a guy, by the name
of Jon' Parkin, at the Bolton Institute, in Lancashire, who is
working on the problem, though. The problem with an intersection is
that for the average cross roads there are a dozen different paths
through it, each of which needs to be considered separately, and each
of which might change with time of day, as well.
The scales that we have generally rate obnoxiousness mainly by some
combination of kerb lane width, traffic speed, and traffic volume.
In these days of GIS systems, you would have thought that local
authorities would have that built into a database, but that doesn't
seem to be true. A few towns have rated all their streets
subjectively. Get the Cheltenham bike map for an example.
Because a proper map seems to be difficult, a couple of quick and
dirty substitutes have been tried. Cycle City Guides simply took the
data for an OS 1;250 000 map and made the road widths different. The
motorways (blue), A roads (red) and B roads (brown) were shown very
narrow, but the little yellow roads became great big wide yellow
roads. That didn't work out too well, however. One function of a
map is to be a picture of the countryside, and even if you don't use
them, it's the major roads which are the landmarks. I certainly
found the Cycle City maps confusing, and presumably I wasn't alone,
as they have given the idea up now.
Another idea suggested here in London is just to use the London noise
map, available on the web somewhere. The map shows only traffic
noise, which ought to correlate pretty well with traffic volume and
speed, and also with psychological effect on novices. The map is to
be extended to all Britain, I understand.
I hope this helps
Jeremy Parker
.
- References:
- Re: Cycle Map
- From: Danny Colyer
- Re: Cycle Map
- From: Mk
- Re: Cycle Map
- From: wafflycat
- Re: Cycle Map
- From: Mk
- Re: Cycle Map
- From: wafflycat
- Re: Cycle Map
- From: Mk
- Re: Cycle Map
- Prev by Date: Re: How to mend a puncture (and other basic stuff like that)?
- Next by Date: Re: MSeries, Dave Khan and LEL
- Previous by thread: Re: Cycle Map
- Next by thread: Re: Cycle Map
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|