The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
Devil2575 said:
No, this is wrong. Most roads were there before cars. They may have been surfaced when cars became more common but the road was there before.
Surfaced, widened, given drainage, lighting (in some instances) pavements (same again), markings etc etc. They were cart tracks beforehand mostly (called turnpike roads), and unrecognisable as what we call roads today. There were only 2000miles of Roman roads in the UK, and although they were often paved and had drainage a lot of them are no longer in use.Devil2575 said:
Also the explosion in car ownership was in the 1950s not the 30s.
The 1934 Road Traffic Act was the legislation that introduced the speed limit. Just prior to that (1931) the original Morris minor went on sale at £100, putting the easily within the grasp of the middle-classes. Others cars went on sale during this era. The new speed limit was introduced specifically because of the increase in cars in that time. Obviously the lawmakers got it wrong as there were no extra cars on the road, in fact that wasn't to happen for another 20 years according to you.Anyway the point is that roads in this country were not, and never have been until very recently, designed or re-designed with pushbikes in mind.
I never said there wasn't an increase in the 30s, just that the boom wasn't until the 50s. Pre war most people still didn't have a car.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nor were UK roads designed for cars, the construction of the modern road surface and drainage predates mass car ownership, as do most of the routes. From what I've seen of the Dutch model is better public transport, very little on street parking, with large car parks outside of the city centre. Very few parking permits are issues and on street parking is very expensive, the locals keep their cars in the out of town car parks and travel by other means around their local area. There's much more room for cycling infrastructure within the towns as cars are discouraged, and there's nowhere to park them, so no point using them within the urban area.
Devil2575 said:
So what. It doesn't matter what redesign has gone into them there was a road there before for the use of pedestrians, bicycles, horses etc. The fact that features were introduced to make it easier for cars does not give cars more right to use them.
You're really not getting what he's saying. He's not denying what the roads were initially built for. He's not saying that cars have more right to use the roads now. He's simply saying that when a lot of roads were modernised in the UK, cycling wasn't factored into the design.Devil2575 said:
So what. It doesn't matter what redesign has gone into them there was a road there before for the use of pedestrians, bicycles, horses etc. The fact that features were introduced to make it easier for cars does not give cars more right to use them.
There were a few Roman roads, the rest were tracks or turnpikes. The majority were designed for ox and cart. They were redesigned for cars. The Internet will help you here. I never said cars have the sole right to use them, you have me confused with someone else. Devil2575 said:
I never said there wasn't an increase in the 30s, just that the boom wasn't until the 50s. Pre war most people still didn't have a car.
The first boom was in the 30s. I've explained what act of Parliament this incurred. Another was in the 50s. And yet another in the 90s. Not sure why you're having trouble with this - just Google it and stop being so argumentative please.gotta love when topics like this go on a wild tangent. If you struggle with having an encouter with a cyclist on the road then you probabbly shouldn't drive. The way some people act on here it's like they're a spotty 11yr old who's never spoken a girl and suddenly one of them has asked to use your pencil sharpener. DOES SHE FANCY ME? OH WHAT DO I DO?
It's pretty simple process though.
>See bicycle in the distance.
>be prepared to slow/stop while observing behavior and being mindful of surroundings.
>as you approach cyclist is their room to safely overtake with plenty of space?
YES- then do so.
NO- slow down and be patient for opening
>See bicycle in the distance.
>be prepared to slow/stop while observing behavior and being mindful of surroundings.
>as you approach cyclist is their room to safely overtake with plenty of space?
YES- then do so.
NO- slow down and be patient for opening
anonymous said:
[redacted]
1. You're arguing with yourself again, as you seem to do so often. The only point of yours that people are disputing was your nonsensical 'roads are for cars' and '99%' and all that garbage, which is wrong as evidenced by the existence of pavements and er, the evidence, such as I linked to earlier.2. Er, not exactly, not the main carriageways themselves, as your picture shows
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Forgive me if I'm being pedantic, but I just wanted to be clear about one point, the road space allocated to cars is much the same as ours, but the Dutch add more segregated space allocated to cyclists. Where there isn't space to do so then the Dutch will delineate and mark clearly, give far more priority to cyclists than we ever have, plus their drivers are so much better because they're all cyclists themselves, they were preety much all cycling on the roads for years before they could get a car licence.(I mean this may be what cmoose means, it's hard to tell as he puts so much effort into being offensive and belligerent that it's hard to know what he's on about sometimes. Normally he's just arguing with himself).
Anyway, we can do the same, we have the room , more room than they do when you consider the problem with water that the Netherlands has.
3, No, any right minded person should be campaigning for it, not just cyclists (and I'm not a cyclist). The big problem imo is the great number of belligerent motorists, the ones saying "roads are for cars", "road tax" "cyclists want more rights (without realising that cyclists have an absolute rights to the road except where specifically prohibited)" "cyclists this, cyclists that", as evidenced by the anti-cycling rhetoric in the multiple weekly anti-cycling threads, and so on. This thread is a perfect example, there's been a clarification on a matter that doesn't need explaining to many of us, and boy look at the whining it generates.
4. Eh?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
1. Most of your posts in the last few pages?2. Eh?
3. Tactics? We're talking about the same thing and it seems we want the same thing. I notice you've now stopped saying "roads are for cars" which helps, but nevertheless your tone in so many of your posts are offensive imo. You'd never talk like that in the pub 'cos you'd get a smack in the mouth.
Anyway, if we both want more infrastructure for cyclists how am I taking a contrary position?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
1. What claims? 2. That's a claim. Without a shred of evidence of course.
3. No, you don't speak face to face like you speak on here, you know you don't.
4. Part? I'm in total agreement apart from your stupid stuff about cars. The reason I dislike your stupid stuff about cars is because it engenders bad attitudes, which we see very often out on the roads and here on PH with people claiming to have paid for roads, that roads are for them and others should get off the roads and so on. Yours is a common attitude, as witnessed by the amount of a
holes out on the roads, but it makes life harder for car enthusiasts and for those that don't have a problem with sharing road space.Anyway, carry on arguing with yourself. I'm in agreement with you, its just your a
hole numpty car-driver attitude I object to.anonymous said:
[redacted]
1. No you wouldn't because you don't know who I am, so you'd talk to me the same as you talk to everyone else, which would be totally different to how you post; like most internet warriors.2. How are most roads not built for wheeled traffic?
3. A bad situation? Overtaking a cyclist? Jeez. :facepalm:
I give up, but I do feel sorry for vulnerable road users who have to put up with car drivers like you, and as a car enthusiast I hate attitudes like yours, it spoils things for all of us. Even if you do behave properly yourself while struggling to overtake a cyclist, attitudes like yours reinforce the same bad opinions in the s
t drivers/"road tax" brigade amongst us.anonymous said:
[redacted]
heebeegeetee said:
2. How are most roads not built for wheeled traffic?
That's not what cmoose said at all, it's like banging your head against a brick wall. He's not denying what roads were initially built for, he's not claiming that since the invention of the motorcar that intended use for all roads is solely for motorised traffic, he's not saying that bicycles should pay 'road tax' or contribute in any other way financially to 'be allowed' on these roads. 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. It's really not difficult, so please stop wailing like he's giving a speech at Nuremburg about cyclists having to pay 'road tax' or how 'the roads were made for cars only & nobody else'. PHmember said:
1. That's not what cmoose said at all, it's like banging your head against a brick wall. He's not denying what roads were initially built for, he's not claiming that since the invention of the motorcar that intended use for all roads is solely for motorised traffic, he's not saying that bicycles should pay 'road tax' or contribute in any other way financially to 'be allowed' on these roads. He's simply saying that most modern roads haven't been built with adequate provision for cyclists built into them by design.
2. As such the roads are now inadequate for the volume of cars & bikes trying to use them. It's really not difficult, so please stop wailing like he's giving a speech at Nuremburg about cyclists having to pay 'road tax' or how 'the roads were made for cars only & nobody else'.
1. His repeated 'roads are for cars' rubbish puts him in the 'road tax' group as far as I'm concerned. Now, I could give him the benefit of the doubt, but then he says the like of 'overtaking a cyclist is a bad situation'. Please see below.2. As such the roads are now inadequate for the volume of cars & bikes trying to use them. It's really not difficult, so please stop wailing like he's giving a speech at Nuremburg about cyclists having to pay 'road tax' or how 'the roads were made for cars only & nobody else'.
2. In 40 years of driving, often doing 50k miles ayear, I can't recall one single journey time that was lengthened due to cyclists, so I don't agree your notion that the roas are inadequate for cyclists, though I acknowledge there are countless motorists who do think like that.
Just this morning I changed my route because the A38M was chocked solid with cars at 7.15am. In all my years and miles I've never heard one traffic bulletin detailing traffic delays due to cyclists. In 40 years it's never occurred to me that overtaking a cyclists could in any way be described as 'a bad situation', indeed normally I barely notice them, I just tens to drive past them.
By saying 'roads are for cars' he is not saying "that most modern roads haven't been built with adequate provision for cyclists built into them by design". What he is saying is, like a great many, he doesn't accept that roads are built for all and that as a car driver he should have to share road space.
As a driver I don't agree with him and have never had a problem sharing road with other types of users. Indeed I regularly lose more time to parked cars or drivers who don't indicate.
There is probably barely a road in the land that was actually built for cars, but cars do indeed choke them to a standstill for hours on end on a daily basis. Cars are the problem and possibly nothing else is.
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.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.Devil2575 said:
heebeegeetee said:
There is probably barely a road in the land that was actually built for cars, but cars do indeed choke them to a standstill for hours on end on a daily basis. Cars are the problem and possibly nothing else is.
I'd suggest that Motorways and bypasses probably were.I think precious little is built "for" cars, it's just that roads are ideal for cars, we've swamped the road networks and created enormous delays for ourselves. Delays caused by cyclists and everyone else put together are pretty negligible compared to what we do as car drivers.
It's also worth remembering that a big percentage of roads have pavements, which means that on all of those roads anything up to a third is not allocated for motorised traffic at all, so a long way from the 99% figure bandied about.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff