Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: Tom Crispin <kije.remove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:06:04 +0000
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:31:47 GMT, "ian henden" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I rode along a cycle path on Sunday alongside the A1020. At every
point where a road crossed the cycle path I had to stop and look,
straining to see beyond the line of bushes which segregated the cycle
lane from the main traffic lanes and left turning vehicles. Progress
was very slow, and this sort of lane is the most dangerous for
cyclists.
I often drive a car along country lanes. Potholes, bends, poor sight lines,
progress is slow. That's part of life. I drive the car at an appropriate
speed for the conditions (which do include the consideration of the fact
that there might be bikes coming the other way just round the bend)
But is there a perfectly good road running alongside which you are not
expected to use. It would be a bit like being expected to drive (in
you car) up the B7076/7078 from Carlisle to Glasgow instead of using
the A74(M)/M74. More pleasant, perhaps, but slower and more
dangerous.
I don't know where you get your figures from.
Never said they were accurate - general observation in town at any set of
traffic lights. Try it.
I have. The number of cars passing on orange or just red vastly
exceeds the number of cyclists.
I find that most
drivers freely admit to speeding, a fewer number going through lights
on orange or red soon after they have changed, and a great many who
have driven on the pavement as part of standard parking practise.
As I said, observance of standards *generally* is low, and two wrongs do not
make a right.
Absolutely. I never justified the actions of a minority of cyclists.
However, it needs to be put into context. Try comparing the number of
traffic light juction fatalities caused by cyclists with those caused
by motor vehicles. The first is close to zero, the latter many
hundreds per year.
Now: if my wanting a safer environment for everybody makes me a tosspot,
then I am proud to be one! I do not intend to enter further discussion
on
this, because it is likely to degenerate into a flame war.
I see. You are to bury your head in the sand to avoid reasoned
argument.
Trouble is, it doesn't become "reasoned argument".
You will find many people in this newsgroup well-informed and mostly
polite. I for one have learnt a great deal here over the years and
had my eyes opened to some unexpected conclusions.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)
.
- References:
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: ian henden
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: Chris Eilbeck
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: ian henden
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: Chris Eilbeck
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: triddletree
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: ian henden
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: triddletree
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: ian henden
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: Tom Crispin
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- From: ian henden
- Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- Next by Date: Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- Next by thread: Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|