 |
|
 |
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:46:31 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe" <...@2mm.org.uk
Surrey (or the area within 40 miles of London) isn't representative of the
whole of England, let alone the whole UK. Other areas can be pleasant, and
some really enjoyable.
However, your general points about the terrible quality of cycling lanes,
cycle routes which are unsurfaced, poor road surfaces, etc. does fit with my
experience.
I would support something similar in the UK, it would make things a lot
clearer.
There is a problem of space and a problem of culture.
In busy areas the roads are congested, there is little space for extra lanes
(hence you finding that the cycle lanes vanish just when they might be most
needed). In less busy areas (where I live), I really don't see any need to
build a whole new cycle network to go alongside the existing rural roads.
Instead a reduction in speed limits on rural roads would make a significant
improvement.
The cultural one is travel distances. Over the last 20-30 years lots of
residents of SE England have decided that car commuting is what they want to
do - drive long distances to work, drive significant distances to school,
etc.. Short of punative fuel/transport costs, this will take decades to
reverse as it has taken decades to develop.
Whether the statements by the judge can be challenged is unclear. The
judge's statements have not, as far as I understand it, established that
such contributory negligence exists within law. History shows that England
has some judges who say things which later turn out to be incorrect when
challenged.
Logically that is correct. However, based on observation of other countries
who have tried, the most likely outcome of making helmets compulsory is to
vastly reduce the numbers of people cycling.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:48:22 +0100, "Simon Mason" <...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk
"Justin Lewis" <...@4ax.com...
Yes, the UK follows the lead of the USA in that car is king and cyclists are
usually seen as a nuisance deliberately getting in their way. In practice
though, things are not that bad. I was in Holland last week and in towns,
many cyclists were held up at red lights when using the combined ped/cycle
crossings and few actually kept to the road which would have been quicker.
In eastern Europe which you mention, the roads in general are in a far more
serious state of disrepair than here and on many roads cyclists are banned.
In Romania and Hungary bans on tractors and horse and carts extends to
cyclists on many main roads between towns. When you are allowed to use the
roads, you get a bit of crumbled shoulder and because there are hardly any
motorways in Romania you get to share the roads with inter city HGVs. I
noted that many cyclists chose to cycle towards traffic on the wrong side of
the road as a walker would do here.
There are many areas of the UK where it is a joy to cycle and many cities do
have off road routes, if you wish to use them, on road lanes and green cycle
boxes. You may get a somewhat skewed view of road conditions here for
cyclists by duking it out with stressed out commuters on A roads in the
south east of England. That's not typical of the whole of the UK.
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:01:03 +0200, Justin Lewis <...@gmail.com
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:48:22 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk
Yes Gentlemen,
I fully accept the point about othe areas of England and have not let
the experiene of the South East dissuade me from cycling the coast to
coast, for example. My point about East Europe was based on Poland and
the Czech (Spelling?) Republic - I have not been farther.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:24:50 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Yes - that's "Greater" London for you. Over several decades, there has been a
total lack of will to improve roads, no matter how badly the improvements
are needed. In fact, there has been an outright hostility to the very idea of
road-building and improvement. Blame the politicians in charge of London over
that period, as well as those currently in national power who refuse to
countenance a programme of badly-needed improvements and extensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Justin Lewis <...@gmail.com
while that is surrey it's also greater london and is world away from say
the surrey lanes.
i don't know why you where having such bad time of it, not my experince
of riding around the area.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:12:59 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 27 June, 10:42, Justin Lewis <...@gmail.com
The problem is that where cycle lanes are continued through pinch
points the British motorist just ploughs straight on anyway. I
honestly believe that part of the solution is to make cycle lanes
illegal - have them all, compulsorily, removed. They provide at best
illusory safety, and at the same time persuade Britain's already
dreadful drivers that cyclists somehow don't have rights to use the
road.
Hear, hear.
Jason McIntyre, Scotland's time trial champion, was killed while
training for the Olympics last year, apparently by a driver left-
hooking him.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/scottish-time-trial-champion-killed-while-train ing
The driver was fined £500, was not imprisoned, and was banned from
driving for only six months. Comment is superfluous.
As I've said above, I strongly believe the only safe answer is the
exact opposite - ban all separate cycle facilities, emphasise that
cyclists have an absolute right to use the road in accordance with the
highway code at all times. And deal appropriately with poor driving.
That would indeed be wonderful. Heck, I'd applaud if I even got secure
bike parking at work!
Again, I believe that this is diametrically the wrong approach.
Whatever good helmets may do, one thing they are definitely and
explicitly not designed to do and cannot do is protect in collisions
involving motor vehicles. If a court has made such a wrong-headed
decision - and I had not previously heard of this - then clearly it
ought to be appealed, in everyone's interests. As you know, few people
in Holland wear helmets, but as you also know, cyclist safety in
Holland is vastly better than it is here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:46:05 +0100, "Adam Lea" <...@yahoo.co.uk
No, please don't ban all of them. There are at least three that I find
useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:58:53 +0200, "GeoffC" <...@home.invalid.com
Seems a bit harsh to dismiss a concept on the basis of one, very poor
implementation.
Let me see, a bit like a tourist to the UK dismissing British cuisine based
on a two day visit to Glasgow, or an Iranian dismissing democracy as
unworkable, I could go on.
There are plenty of examples of cycle facilties that are pleasant to use and
beneficial to everybody, unfortunately virtually none of them are to be
found in the UK.
--
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT), Ian <...@googlemail.com
On 27 June, 12:12, Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
But I find the cycle paths across the Meadows in Edinburgh very
useful. Closing them would double the length of my most common
journey.
Ian
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 29 June, 15:54, Ian <...@googlemail.com
Touche, I also find those ones useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:31:34 +0200, Justin Lewis <...@gmail.com
Hi Simon, an interesting response. I am not looking for an argument
(that tends to occur on Usenet, I have noticed) and I actually agree
with the principle "equality of road users". However, pragmatically (a
typical Dutch approach!) I think that the period of adjustment will be
long and that many casualties (all cyclists) will occur.
It could be possible to delineate the cycle lianes using more than
paint to avoid pinching: perhaps a raised kerbstone like we have here
would ensure that motorists did not encroach the cyclists' area.
Apart from this point I am in almost complete agreement with you.
It really all comes down to attitude: I had a slight altercation with
a motorist here and not only did he feel that an adequate resolution
would be to hit me but he also referred to the fact that I was a
"tax-free" cyclist and had no right to be on the road. When I asked
him where he was going (Rotterdam) I replied tha he should be glad I
was on the bike - I was also going to Rotterdam and he could have my
parking-place. We parted on friendly terms and he waves now when he
sees me!
I think in Britain cyclists have too long been viewed as excentric
(spelling?) and/or as figures of fun. That does not help at all in
improving the rights of cyclists. That is an attitude which must
change for any progression to occur.
Justin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:36:19 +0200, Andrew Price <...@free.fr
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:31:34 +0200, Justin Lewis
<...@gmail.com
[---]
That still doesn't solve the real danger of cycle paths - the
interfaces with the road users at junctions, where drivers often do
not see cyclists on cycle paths, whereas they almost certainly would
see them, were they to have been on the road.
Like Simon, I also drive, and if anything, perhaps because I am also a
cyclist - and therefore aware of the risks - I am even more
ill-at-ease behind the wheel, than on a bike, when at a junction, for
fear of not seeing a cyclist overtaking me when beginning to turn.
In Germany, where I currently live, a major cause of fatal accidents
is motorists turning right across a cycle path and not seeing the
cyclist. Articulated vehicles are amongst the worst offenders.
Within the cycling community in Germany, there is understandably much
opposition to the compulsory nature of many of the cycle paths to be
found in cities, where multiple junctions (and hence accidents) occur.
Long distance cycle paths outside of built-up areas, often at some
distance from the road, are much less contentious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:43:57 +0100, Danny Colyer <...@hotmail.com
And would also ensure that faster cyclists can't overtake slower
cyclists. To me, that reduces the practicality of cycling as a
transport solution and is therefore a bad idea.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.ukReply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:51:06 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
There are a few cycle gutters in London - raised kerbs that are either
there so anyone in them stays put or to keep the morotists at bay.
Either way they take up valuable road space and stop cyclists being
regarded as real 'traffic'.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:48:13 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn <...@yahoo.com
Keitht twisted the electrons to say:
<nods(or parking!) by motor vehicles IMHO.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:00:40 +0200, "GeoffC" <...@home.invalid.com
Not if you make it wide enough.
--
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:53:03 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
. . . and call it a road?
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:31:30 +0200, "GeoffC" <...@home.invalid.com
Don't be silly. I ride on cycle paths all the time and never have any
trouble overtaking (or being overtaken). I've never measured them but I
should think they are about 2.5m - 3.0m, roads are much wider.
--
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:58:20 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-27, Justin Lewis <...@gmail.com
You would also need to make the cycle lanes properly wide, kept clean,
and a decent distance from the road, like they are the Netherlands.
But that's expensive, and you can only justify it if a lot of people
ride bikes.
Drivers who also ride bikes are more likely to be considerate and not
feel like they are at war with you.
So, both problems (road rage and bad facilities) would be improved by
more people riding bikes. Why don't more people ride bikes?
Maybe because they feel the roads are unsafe and they don't like being
shouted at... so perhaps we break the vicious circle by building the
good bicycle lanes.
But I fear there may be a more fundamental problem: gravity. Is there
any affluent place in the world where cycling is really popular as a
means of everday transportation that isn't flat?
Affluence means affordable cars and unlimited food. If you're overweight
and unfit it's really very difficult to ride up hills, even with a
granny cog. Many resort to walking, which is no fun, and soon makes them
get back in their car.
If more people rode bikes they wouldn't be so overweight and unfit. This
must be true to some degree, but to a great enough degree? Go to the
Netherlands and you see plenty of fat people on bikes, trundling happily
across the pancake-flat polders on enormous comfortable bikes.
Obviously many of us who can afford cars and food still ride, aren't
(much) overweight and love going up and down hills. But that's still a
minority of the population at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:39:41 +0100, "Adam Lea" <...@yahoo.co.uk
I did hear that cycling is popular in Switzerland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:49:34 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
No more so than here, I'd say (from annual experience of Switzerland).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:54:22 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
Depends - in London my commute was downhill on the way in and slower on
the way back. The hilly bits of north London that are detritus from the
last big cold snap seem to be a barrier to many.
Even at the bottom of the rise -Holloway - you can see the numbers of
cyclists dwindle. The Norf Lundun Massif (Hampstead to Muswell Hill)
seems to put many off. Dunno why, hills are a chance to get in to a
lower gear and relax for a bit (though why I had the idea of doing all
of Swain's Lane sitting down once on a Raliegh Pioneer still mystifies
me -- managed it, not easy but pissed off the roadie behind me in a
high-ish gear who was almost at a stand-still)
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:01:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 28 June, 21:58, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
It's worth pointing out that Edinburgh - decidedly not flat, and with
very little in the way of 'cycling infrastructure' - and Bristol -
built around a gorge, and full of extraordinarily sharp hills, mainly
with narrow streets and little 'cycling infrastructue' - have
relatively high proportions of cyclists, whereas East Kilbride,
largely flat and with well maintained cycle paths paralleling every
significant road, has virtually none.
This isn't about gravity, in my opinion. It's about culture and
attitude.
Edinburgh is decidedly more affluent than East Kilbride, so the facts
on the ground don't agree with your theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:16 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-29, Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
Maybe they are trying to break the vicious circle and encourage more
cycling with the cycle paths.
But certainly worth pointing out-- my question wasn't rhetorical.
There are other factors of course. Here one may be that Edinburgh and
Bristol both have a lot of students, who are mostly young, light,
can't afford car insurance, and don't have anywhere to park.
By affluent I mean compared to somewhere like rural China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:29:40 -0700 (PDT), "jus...@gmail.com" <...@gmail.com
On 28 jun, 22:58, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
Are you calling me fat? Anyway, we seem to be in a Catch 22
situation:the facilities can only be justified in terms of expenditure
if a large number of people cycle but a large number of people will
only start cycling if the facilities are provided.
The gravity point is a good one. Economically I see another reason for
using he car (although I do not commute by car). Having invested
anything up to €30 000 in a car (including tax) one would have to be
mad not to use it - the cost per mile reduces with inreased usage. I
will not pay that money in order then to sit on an uncomfortable bike
in the rain. I am for having no tax on cars and taxing usage not
ownership.
I notice that motorists resent road users who do not pay tax whether
they are cyclists or people who have cars which are more than 30 years
old and are tax exempt. I fall into both categories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:42:37 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Indeed, a bit like the infrastructure to support motor vehicles, telephones,
the internet, radio and television and a whole host of other modern
inventions that are now part of daily life. Someone will need to break the
circle.
Such short term, self-centred thinking is one of the root causes of the UK's
ills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:59:19 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-29, just...@gmail.com <...@gmail.com
Of course not :)
There is some political will to provide cycling facilities, but not
strong enough to provide anything except worse-than-useless ones.
They could spend their money better in rural areas just by putting a
metre-wide or so strip of something paved down the bridleways. That
would create a whole lot of new car-free routes from A to B instantly
and at low cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:40:08 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe" <...@2mm.org.uk
Err, no thank you. Rural bridleways are rather nice as they are. They are
part of being "rural", and I see no need to build a new network of "mini
roads" causing drainage problems, encouraging motorcycles/scooters across
them (illegally) and despoiling the countryside. Rural areas usually have
perfectly usable roads, the minor ones might benefit from lower speed
limits.
The main traffic problems occur on main roads. Either where there isn't a
rural road alternative, or where routes cross main roads, or where traffic
going into an urban area lacks alternatives. So, spend any money fixing
those problems first.
I ride a normal touring bike with 28mm smooth tyres on the local bridleways
from time to time.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ben C <...@spam.eggs
big snips
and what about MTB's and walkers who may not want a nice rural route
tarmacked over?
then there is the issue that brideways are by no means always wide, far
from it in many cases.
and then the issue that the run off from tarmack is liable to cause
issues gullies and or local floading.
plus rural roads on the whole tend to be rather nice roads to cycle on.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:47:19 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-29, Roger Merriman <...@sarlet.com
And horses, which is why I suggest only a metre-wide strip. Some Dutch
cycle roads are even narrower than that.
But then riding your MTB on the mud next to the metre-wide strip, but
not on it, would feel a bit silly.
I agree, but the idea is to encourage "normal" people, who often feel
scared of the cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ben C <...@spam.eggs
some 'footpaths' are legaly brideways and are narrow not too far off
that.
I really don't think it's a good idea it reduces the country paths and
further suburbanise the rual areas.
not normally in the lanes which on the weekend in the SE are heaving
with lycra.
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:31:55 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-29, Roger Merriman <...@sarlet.com
Agreed-- some bridleways are just a foot-wide strip at the edge of a
field with no plants on it, or only really exist on the map.
In a manner of speaking yes-- it puts people into the countryside who
aren't wearing green wellies.
I'm not sure this is such a bad thing though. Don't we have rather a lot
of muddy bridleways considering how few people ride horses down them?
And, no disrespect to horsey types, but that is pure recreation.
Wouldn't it be a fairer use of some of these lanes if rather more people
could also ride their bike to work down them?
I don't want to kick the horses and walkers off these paths, just share
them. If you do ride a bridleway on an MTB, it's rare that you meet
anyone at all. There's spare capacity there.
If we're going to put more bikes on the road (to try to improve safety
and conditions for everyone) they've got to go somewhere. If we're not
taking some bandwidth from horses and pedestrians (who have more than
they need) we're taking it from motorists. I know that's quite popular
around here, but I'm just trying to think a bit more practically, and
about the kind of thing that's known to work pretty well in reality in
places like the Netherlands.
Those are "enthusiasts". The SE is very crowded, so there are a lot of
people heaving around in lycra, but I doubt it's a very high percentage
of the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 30 June, 08:31, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
I think that's a very poor argument for us to be making. I personally
know shepherds, foresters and gamekeepers who use horses as their
normal work transport, and as the cost of fuel continues to rise
horses will inevitably replace some of those bloody quad-bikes that
rural workers tend to use these days. The assumption that 'all' horse
riders are engaged in recreation is just wrong, and I would suggest
that in many rural areas a higher proportion of the people whom you
see on horses may be working or travelling to work than on bicycles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:30:31 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
And horses were here before bikes.
I wonder how many of these 'leisure' nags are being ridden by
stable-staff? That would turn them in to being ridden commercially.
Nah, keep the concrete and tarmac on the roads.
When I'm out walking footpaths and bridleways I hate the 'made up' bits.
If I'd wanted to do a walk on a flat surface I could shuffle up and down
the aisles in Tesco.
Wouldn't be so much fun for the trails bike riders, either.
Get all kitted up for mud-plugging and feel rather over dressed.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:06:02 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-30, Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
How much does it cost to run a horse?
If you're a shepherd, forester or gamekeeper quite a lot of the time
you're on your own land (or that of your boss) using your own paths,
which you surface how you like at your own expense. Sharing the public
bridleways with a few cycle commuters isn't going to hurt.
OK not "all", but come on, most.
I doubt that very much. In Cambridge for example, there must be hundreds
of people who cycle in to work every day from nearby villages. Riding in
on a horse might be nice, but where do you lock it up when you get
there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:25:26 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
If employers can provide places for cars to be left whilst the employee is
on the premises why not other modes of transport?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:50:51 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
I don't think that will happen until we have a more stable economy.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:49:30 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
For horses,it would be impracticable, in most cases.They would need a
grazing area and a water trough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:58:48 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
So a grass field and a (very) large plastic bin. The latter are easily
obtainable, horse owners use them already. As for a grassed area, what is a
car park for a business premises built on a greenfield site before it's
covered in tarmac?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:06:47 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
Yes but wouldn't it need a fenced off area,plus extra public liability
insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:25:10 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
It would be on land which is already fenced off and private. Rather that a
field, a stable could be put up.
(Waits for the preconcieved ideas about what a stable is or needs to be.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:40:31 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
Horses would not require a stable if the horse compound is only used for
commuting.
I have a friend who has two horses that actually live in a field and
have done for years with no stable.
I can't see many employers offering the horse facilities that you
mention anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:15 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Indeed, a friend of mine also keeps horses who spend most of their time in a
field and I have worked with horses.
Given that many won't consider facilities for anything except cars ('cos
that's what they (and all sensible people) use) I sadly have to agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:54:08 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
Negative equity?
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:09:33 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
I'm sure that cyclists will love that, all that horse shit in the road
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:49:32 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
It would appear there are some who would welcome the return of
horseflies and slushy manure. The complaints about trafic in those days
were just the same as they are now. Young men rushing about not careing
for any other road user, higher-preformance rigs and nags cutting up
others, moans about cabbies doing 'U' turns when they fancy and the
ever-present grumbles about congestion
Couple all that with the flies and smell (would you want to come off on
clean-ish tarmac or shit-covered gravel?) and I think I know what I'd
prefer.
Some drivers find it hard to control a mindless vehicle, I'm not sure
how they'd cope with a couple of wilful horses towing a cart.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:58:47 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
Driving through West Wycombe village (very narrow road),I was staying a
safe distance behind a horserider,although I gave the horse plenty of
distance behind it, the horse was rearing up and obviously very nervous.
It looked on the verge of bolting or running into the cars on the other
side of the road.
In other words, horses are not compatible on even fairly busy roads and
are liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:05:33 +0100, "Dave Larrington" <...@privacy.net
In news...@bowser.marioworld,
Ben C <...@spam.eggs
Dunno, but the chap who used to post in here aeons ago under the name of
"Not Responding" stated elsewhere recently that his daughter is currently
more often to be found travelling 'twixt school and Chateau Responding on
horseback than by bicycle.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukAnd I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured
screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of
the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard,
tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ben C <...@spam.eggs
that touches on another issue ownership, a bridleway or any legal byway
that a bike can use will pass unless one is very lucky though many folks
land who may not want a strip of tarmac.
most people using these will be people out for a walk/ride. very few
will be using for trnasport, if it was that useful it would become a
lane.
there is also a lot of people who walk and ride their bikes down them
probably far more than 'horsey types' by some margin.
and who is going to pay for this and the upkeep and sorting out
problems? for a tiny number if not nil number who'd want this? the lanes
at least ones south are very well interlocked you can go in almost any
direction it's rare that they don't
see above most paths have stayed like that for a good reason.
even if i ride in mid winter in a weekday you meet folks the SE is a
busy area they are more than likely not going to work but for a nice
walk/ride it's one of the things i've noticed moving to this area is how
busy even the paths are even in wet cold winters days.
tarmaced footpaths is not the answer, out in the downs there are plenty
of very quiet roads and yes you do see the odd folk taking shopping or
what not back, but once into rual areas the distance between where you
are and where you need to be means that a bike tends to not be great
choice for most, the real issue is local shops and pubs all of which are
closeing down and the villages becoming just sleeper towns feeding
london.
no it's not but as this is for pleasure most will take very quiet roads
at least given the choice. even in the week a lot of the lanes are
quiet, now a few are a bit busy but most aren't and very few are
worrying so.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:18:47 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-30, Roger Merriman <...@sarlet.com
Yes, not sure how that works. With footpaths I think the landowner is
just expected to not block it, which means putting stiles up (because
otherwise he'd be blocking it with the barbed-wire fence) but not much
else.
Same principle may apply to bridleways, although councils do sometimes
sprinkle a bit of gravel on them.
Depends where you are. Yes, only the ones that make sense as
through-routes are worth adding cycle-roads to.
There are a lot of "green lanes" around Cambridge and they are trying to
turn some into cycling routes (see "Wicken Fen project"). Such things
exist in the Netherlands, and they are very peaceful to ride on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ben C <...@spam.eggs
yes they must allow access, this also means not putting boris the big
bastard bull, in the way. and any other such things.
if they are owned by the coucil yes, if not as is often the case, then
it's just access no more so if it's a bridleway boundry points should be
gates rather than stiles as niether bikes or horses are terribly easy to
get over them. but thats about it. just access.
if they are then maybe i'd say it's very much a case by case, project i
also think unless it's a right of way that the coucil etc have full
rights to and own it could well end up getting very costly very quickly.
on the whole i'm not for things like this as it tends to make the
country side a park, Sustrans for to name one always seem guilty of
this.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:17:18 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-06-30, Roger Merriman <...@sarlet.com
Yes, it is certainly case by case, but as for it getting costly I think
it would be a better use of money than painting suicide lanes on the
roads and pavements as they do at the moment (those are very cheap, but
have negative value for money).
I would actually prefer the countryside as a park.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:10:12 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
It used to be, a few hundred years ago, but you'd have had your eyes put
out if you'd tried to play in it.
(fekkin' Normans, what have they ever done for us?)
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:05:15 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-01, Roger Merriman <...@sarlet.com
Why? My only use of the countryside is recreational so, selfishly
speaking, I'd much rather it was a nature park (in parts perhaps
reforested and rewilded with elk, boar, wolf, etc.) than a whole lot of
farms growing oilseed rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ben C <...@spam.eggs
big arable farms are a tad harsh i'd agree and rather barren of life as
well, and is land that has been very much bent to our will.
but that doesn't mean i think rual land should be given over to a
pleasure park, i think there are some thoughts as to limited
reintroduction of wolves in scotland. there are ferial pigs in the downs
already, i suspect there isn't the space left for a proper wildlife
park.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
big snips.
true most don't,i can't think of any of the top of my head that are but
i'm not going to say all.
Ah yes i used to use some as routes as kid/teenager to get to school and
see friends but then my folks place is on it's own so hardly gets much
foot traffic, or much of any traffic to be honest.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:23:02 +0100, Marc <...@btintenret.com
I used to use the NCN to commute when I was feeling lazy, it was flatter
and longer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|