The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?
Discussion
I don't know what's going on in the Peak District and Cheshire, but gangs of men in tights on bicycles have been traversing the lanes for the past couple of weeks, not only in daylight, but also in darkness, with those bloody great flamethrower lights on their hats as well as their bicycles.
Quite apart from the hazard of being dazzled by these morons at night how, exactly, is one supposed to leave 1.5 metres between oneself and these sweaties on a country lane?
One group was holding up a half mile queue of vehicles yesterday at dusk.
Quite apart from the hazard of being dazzled by these morons at night how, exactly, is one supposed to leave 1.5 metres between oneself and these sweaties on a country lane?
One group was holding up a half mile queue of vehicles yesterday at dusk.
MrTrilby said:
mybrainhurts said:
how, exactly, is one supposed to leave 1.5 metres between oneself and these sweaties on a country lane?
If you need to ask how to safely overtake a slow moving bicycle, this probably isn't the right website for you, and you might want to look into public transport. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Which is why the truly dim that drive amongst us need legislating off the roads. It's remarkably simple, yet seemingly a huge deal for some to grasp? Give a little bit of room, drive with some care. It sounds so simple?The volume of posts on PH which should act as an example for people that treat driving as a pastime, rather than to get from a to b, regarding the problem of navigating cyclists and other things is quite amazing. More amazing is claiming the roads are purely designed for cars, which unless you are talking about the Motorway network is just wrong, probably the foundation for this entitlement which causes so much grief.
As usual. The UK driver is the weak link. Road users, traffic. We are all one and the same.
DoubleD said:
MrTrilby said:
mybrainhurts said:
how, exactly, is one supposed to leave 1.5 metres between oneself and these sweaties on a country lane?
If you need to ask how to safely overtake a slow moving bicycle, this probably isn't the right website for you, and you might want to look into public transport. anonymous said:
[redacted]
I disagree with this premise as it supposes that if a road is designed for a motorised vehicle then its not designed for a cyclist. It doesn't recognise that the majority of features that a non-motorised vehicle needs are also the features that a motorised vehicle needs, and therefore that they are accommodated by default.Limitations of space and money force a compromise of road design and regulations which nevertheless should be able to be accommodated by most users to a compromised but acceptable level of convenience.
The problems come when some users decide that maintaining their own convenience takes priority over everyone elses.
Ooh, I see we're back to motorised vehicles now, not cars (again), we do seem to flit from one to another.
I wonder how roads themselves differ now from when bicycles first took to roads en masse, before cars had been built? I'm thinking space, drainage, sealed surface... what else is needed? There's a lot of white paint on roads nowadays of course, lots of signage, but not much that isn't designed with the various types of wheeled vehicles in mind.
Thinking of what might be deemed 'an average road', I'm trying to think what part isn't designed with bicycles (or any other wheeled form of transport in mind). I think just about every road I drive on is designed for the width of larger vehicles, such as psv or hgv etc, which leaves them ideal for cars and pretty much everything else.
On my daily commute from Sutton Coldfield to central Brum and back, using different routes in and out, most of the route both ways has cycling infrastructure. I mean, none of its any good I don't think, and it's not going to get me on my bike, but it's there. Even the industrial area where I work has white bicycle motifs painted all over the roads, don't know why, but they're there.
Millions of people commuter by car daily, I don't know how typical my experience is, but the cycling infrastructure is plentiful if useless. To say "the vast majority of roads in the UK were designed for motorised vehicles with no features designed for bicycle use" just simply isn't true. It must be getting close to the opposite of that, although it represents a phenomenal waste of money 'cos little of it achieves anything.
This is like arguing about sunshine, though, what an utterly futile argument. I'll think of the idiots on the internet tonight on my way home. Maybe I'll even see how many cycle signs and markings I can count
.
One thing the roads were never designed for: The level of daytime car use. Anyone putting a car on the road in daytime working hours (I dare say a certain person will argue what that construes
) is part of a massive, massive and tremendously expensive problem which they/we are almost certainly not paying for and which possibly can not be catered for. The more we build, the more traffic is created, the slower the average speeds become. It's worth noting that cycles don't go much slower than many average car speeds.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-road...
"UK drivers sat in traffic for an average of 45sec for each mile they drove in March, according to the latest figures from the Department for Transport (DfT). This increased to 1min 24sec for every mile when driving on urban A-roads.
The latest 12-month rolling statistics show that travelling during weekday evenings has the greatest impact on average speeds on A-roads, pushing it down to a 22.5mph crawl for the commute home. Urban roads show an even lower average, at 18.7mph, while rural roads have the highest average speed, at 36.9mph."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3479161/Ho...
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-congested-cit...
I wonder how roads themselves differ now from when bicycles first took to roads en masse, before cars had been built? I'm thinking space, drainage, sealed surface... what else is needed? There's a lot of white paint on roads nowadays of course, lots of signage, but not much that isn't designed with the various types of wheeled vehicles in mind.
Thinking of what might be deemed 'an average road', I'm trying to think what part isn't designed with bicycles (or any other wheeled form of transport in mind). I think just about every road I drive on is designed for the width of larger vehicles, such as psv or hgv etc, which leaves them ideal for cars and pretty much everything else.
On my daily commute from Sutton Coldfield to central Brum and back, using different routes in and out, most of the route both ways has cycling infrastructure. I mean, none of its any good I don't think, and it's not going to get me on my bike, but it's there. Even the industrial area where I work has white bicycle motifs painted all over the roads, don't know why, but they're there.
Millions of people commuter by car daily, I don't know how typical my experience is, but the cycling infrastructure is plentiful if useless. To say "the vast majority of roads in the UK were designed for motorised vehicles with no features designed for bicycle use" just simply isn't true. It must be getting close to the opposite of that, although it represents a phenomenal waste of money 'cos little of it achieves anything.
This is like arguing about sunshine, though, what an utterly futile argument. I'll think of the idiots on the internet tonight on my way home. Maybe I'll even see how many cycle signs and markings I can count
.One thing the roads were never designed for: The level of daytime car use. Anyone putting a car on the road in daytime working hours (I dare say a certain person will argue what that construes
) is part of a massive, massive and tremendously expensive problem which they/we are almost certainly not paying for and which possibly can not be catered for. The more we build, the more traffic is created, the slower the average speeds become. It's worth noting that cycles don't go much slower than many average car speeds.http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-road...
"UK drivers sat in traffic for an average of 45sec for each mile they drove in March, according to the latest figures from the Department for Transport (DfT). This increased to 1min 24sec for every mile when driving on urban A-roads.
The latest 12-month rolling statistics show that travelling during weekday evenings has the greatest impact on average speeds on A-roads, pushing it down to a 22.5mph crawl for the commute home. Urban roads show an even lower average, at 18.7mph, while rural roads have the highest average speed, at 36.9mph."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3479161/Ho...
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-congested-cit...
DoubleD said:
Mave said:
PHmember said:
He's simply saying that most modern roads haven't been built with adequate provision for cyclists built into them by design. As such the roads are now inadequate for the volume of cars & bikes trying to use them.
You could equally say that modern roads also haven't been built with adequate provision for cars, buses, lorries etc. built into them- because they are inadequate for the volumes of cars trying to use them, and they have features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either. So I actually think that the roads are designed for all road use types but constrained by available space and funding into a compromise.heebeegeetee said:
One thing the roads were never designed for: The level of daytime car use. Anyone putting a car on the road in daytime working hours (I dare say a certain person will argue what that construes ) is part of a massive, massive and tremendously expensive problem which they/we are almost certainly not paying for and which possibly can not be catered for. The more we build, the more traffic is created, the slower the average speeds become. It's worth noting that cycles don't go much slower than many average car speeds.
...
The latest 12-month rolling statistics show that travelling during weekday evenings has the greatest impact on average speeds on A-roads, pushing it down to a 22.5mph crawl for the commute home. Urban roads show an even lower average, at 18.7mph, while rural roads have the highest average speed, at 36.9mph."
Is a really good point. If I have to cycle home from town in rush hour, I am always held up by cars. Never bicycles. The cars can add quite a significant extra amount of time to my journey. ) is part of a massive, massive and tremendously expensive problem which they/we are almost certainly not paying for and which possibly can not be catered for. The more we build, the more traffic is created, the slower the average speeds become. It's worth noting that cycles don't go much slower than many average car speeds....
The latest 12-month rolling statistics show that travelling during weekday evenings has the greatest impact on average speeds on A-roads, pushing it down to a 22.5mph crawl for the commute home. Urban roads show an even lower average, at 18.7mph, while rural roads have the highest average speed, at 36.9mph."
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Me too! How about car drivers accept that the roads are not just for them and they stop trying to pretend that they are.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Who cares what they are designed for. A road will be designed for the thing that places the most arduous duty on it, so for the vast majority of roads this is likely to be HGVs, not cars. That doesn't mean that HGVs have more right to be there than cars. anonymous said:
[redacted]
That logic doesn't hold true. The majority of features that a non-motorised vehicle needs are also needed by a motorised vehicle. The converse isn't necessarily true. If you've got 25% bicycle traffic then it makes sense to properly invest in cheaper facilities specifically for bicycles, before all the money and space is allocated to all- purpose roads.
Mave said:
You could equally say that modern roads also haven't been built with adequate provision for cars, buses, lorries etc. built into them- because they are inadequate for the volumes of cars trying to use them, and they have features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either. So I actually think that the roads are designed for all road use types but constrained by available space and funding into a compromise.
Modern roads were designed for cars and lorries. There was no 'compromise' which lead to "features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either", I'm not sure how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion. Are you suggesting road builders and tarmacers should have incorporated tens of thousands of miles of features for the few hundred cyclists that used them at that time? Cyclists aren't even allowed on motorways and you very very rarely see any on dual carriageways because of the danger. So what features are you thinking of? If some prat or multiple of prats in Lycra insist on cycling one third out from the curb then that's fine by me, just be aware I use the remaining two thirds for overtaking. No way am I going to cross the centre line in the face of other traffic, nor queue behind a Lycra backside.
Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
You could equally say that modern roads also haven't been built with adequate provision for cars, buses, lorries etc. built into them- because they are inadequate for the volumes of cars trying to use them, and they have features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either. So I actually think that the roads are designed for all road use types but constrained by available space and funding into a compromise.
Modern roads were designed for cars and lorries. There was no 'compromise' which lead to "features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either", I'm not sure how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion. Are you suggesting road builders and tarmacers should have incorporated tens of thousands of miles of features for the few hundred cyclists that used them at that time? Cyclists aren't even allowed on motorways and you very very rarely see any on dual carriageways because of the danger. So what features are you thinking of? Edited by Mave on Monday 31st October 15:27
I would support any law to make cycling safer. However there is a very big difference protecting normal family cycling with a big speed differential where cars were cutting too close and the police need to have a word, and the lycra warriors on here who would simply bully traffic with the law.
Hopefully the police understand the difference. But I don't hold out much hope.
Hopefully the police understand the difference. But I don't hold out much hope.
Mave said:
popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
You could equally say that modern roads also haven't been built with adequate provision for cars, buses, lorries etc. built into them- because they are inadequate for the volumes of cars trying to use them, and they have features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either. So I actually think that the roads are designed for all road use types but constrained by available space and funding into a compromise.
Modern roads were designed for cars and lorries. There was no 'compromise' which lead to "features which don't readily accommodate those other road users either", I'm not sure how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion. Are you suggesting road builders and tarmacers should have incorporated tens of thousands of miles of features for the few hundred cyclists that used them at that time? Cyclists aren't even allowed on motorways and you very very rarely see any on dual carriageways because of the danger. So what features are you thinking of? anonymous said:
[redacted]
To help bring you up to date with what 'traffic' means feel free to refresh yourself with a copy of the Highway Code. Horses, pedestrians and even cycling is covered. If you mean by 'my logic' you are trying to suggest that I would like to be able to share the roads with less pent up and downright stupid individuals, and have some faith that I may arrive safely at my destination, then spot on! What's so difficult about it?
This 'attitude' thing isn't impossible to change at all. Driving like a twonk around cyclists etc needs to be as socially unacceptable as drink driving, it's that simple. Besides, the likelihood of massive cycle networks around the country is slim, I mean 'we' have all these amazing cycle lanes already, right? More to the point a National rail link costing billions which is going to be a total farce, a most amazing use of money which could be better spent *anywhere*
No. When motorists are heavily fined, banned for obnoxious driving the message might get through. The longer the 'average motorist' thinks 'well, that's just tough' the more red tape and legislation will be passed.
As already stated it's those who don't cycle that seem to not understand. The constant name calling etc is, frankly, embarrassing. More to the point most of 'us' cyclists are 'you' motorists an oxymoron if ever there was one?
Nobody wants to be responsible, therefore the motorist will take the pain. They (i, we) are licensed and easily tracked, unlike cyclists.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 31st October 15:51
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff