The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?
Discussion
sealtt said:
If a cyclist is in their cycle lane and a driver is in the car lane, is the gap less than the official requirement? It seems that often the 2 lanes are quite close together.
The gap could be the width of a line of paint...But it's no different to overtaking on a motorway, in that if a car was at the right hand edge of their lane, I wouldn't pass them at the left edge of mine!
WJNB said:
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.
Then you're a bit of a dick, frankly.Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
Mave said:
No, YOU originally used the phrase "all road users", not me, and not in that context.
Stop trying to worm out.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.
Mave said:
I didn't object because I do think all users experience some form of compromise due to road design features. That's not the same as saying all users experiences are compromised by the same road design feature, is it?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What do you think of the Dutch attitude to cars within urban areas? Car use is highly discouraged, the use of "Autoluwe" (Nearly car free zones) is widespread, and most roads will not allow you a route through the town. Some towns also have a ban on large retail parks, so the chain stores tend to be smaller and within walking/cycling distance of the residential areas. This might explain the higher cycling use, the option of using the car for the short school run or commute isn't there.popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
No, YOU originally used the phrase "all road users", not me, and not in that context.
Stop trying to worm out.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.
Mave said:
I didn't object because I do think all users experience some form of compromise due to road design features. That's not the same as saying all users experiences are compromised by the same road design feature, is it?
Yes, I used the words "all road users", but saying "the roads are designed for all users" is a completely different, unrelated statement to the one you paraphrased "compromises ..... that are built in for "all road user types""
I'm sure you could take words I have posted and rearrange them to any meaning you want, but that doesn't mean it portrays my opinion; and it seems fairly pointless to construct something that hasn't been said just so you can argue with it.
Do you disagree that mini-roundabout represent a compromise for HGVs, that low bridges represent a compromise for double decker buses, that speed bumps represent a compromise for cars, that steep hills represent a compromise for heavy vehicles for example?
Can't argue with that. Looking forward to a good count-up on the way home, though I'll miss loads in the dark. So 18 miles there and back, on the way home I counted 54 pieces of cycling signage, and on the way in, much less at 38. I would have missed a few, and where I work the cycle logo schemes in conjunction with a speed limit reduction of 20mph, but I didn't include those speed repeater signs. Undoubtedly missed a fair few cycle signs when paying attention to traffic on busy roundabouts etc
Observations: Christ, Birmingham has the room to put proper cycling infrastructure in if it wanted, and more so. What infrastructure there is is just so bad and so small and cramped.
Christ, it's disjointed. On the one way up the side of Sutton Coldfield there is quite a bit, of that 54 signs and logos 6 signs were at just one leg off one roundabout. On the other side of Sutton Coldfield there is absolutely none, though plenty of infrastructure for pedestrians, it must be said, with quite a lot of signage just for pedestrians including direction signs.
Like I said before, this feels like I'm arguing that the sun shines, but anyway, without a shadow of a doubt there must be something wrong with you if you think roads are only for cars or only for motorised vehicles. You must be blind for a start.
Btw the one bit of road that is only allocated for motorsised vehicles that I wanted to use (A38M Aston Expressway) again had stationary queues of motorised vehicles queuing up well the on-ramp, so I didn't use it. That may have led to a lower figure than 38 but then it brings me into the heart of the city centre where I would have expected to see more.
Observations: Christ, Birmingham has the room to put proper cycling infrastructure in if it wanted, and more so. What infrastructure there is is just so bad and so small and cramped.
Christ, it's disjointed. On the one way up the side of Sutton Coldfield there is quite a bit, of that 54 signs and logos 6 signs were at just one leg off one roundabout. On the other side of Sutton Coldfield there is absolutely none, though plenty of infrastructure for pedestrians, it must be said, with quite a lot of signage just for pedestrians including direction signs.
Like I said before, this feels like I'm arguing that the sun shines, but anyway, without a shadow of a doubt there must be something wrong with you if you think roads are only for cars or only for motorised vehicles. You must be blind for a start.
Btw the one bit of road that is only allocated for motorsised vehicles that I wanted to use (A38M Aston Expressway) again had stationary queues of motorised vehicles queuing up well the on-ramp, so I didn't use it. That may have led to a lower figure than 38 but then it brings me into the heart of the city centre where I would have expected to see more.
CMoose - Please show me where it says carriageways are designed exclusively for cars.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards...
Yes, some roads have better provisions for taxi, bus, bicycles - It doesn't mean they shouldn't be there when the provision is lacking.
People have responsibilities to their fellow road users and the law is hopefully catching up with those people whose standards are falling short. I'm also quite surprised that on a main stream motoring site the polarised view from some posters, where you might expect a broader social responsibility for higher driving standards.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards...
Yes, some roads have better provisions for taxi, bus, bicycles - It doesn't mean they shouldn't be there when the provision is lacking.
People have responsibilities to their fellow road users and the law is hopefully catching up with those people whose standards are falling short. I'm also quite surprised that on a main stream motoring site the polarised view from some posters, where you might expect a broader social responsibility for higher driving standards.
TSCfree said:
CMoose - Please show me where it says carriageways are designed exclusively for cars.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards...
Yes, some roads have better provisions for taxi, bus, bicycles - It doesn't mean they shouldn't be there when the provision is lacking.
People have responsibilities to their fellow road users and the law is hopefully catching up with those people whose standards are falling short. I'm also quite surprised that on a main stream motoring site the polarised view from some posters, where you might expect a broader social responsibility for higher driving standards.
I agree - if supposed 'driving enthusiasts' hold views like some of those expressed here, what hope is there for all the 'white goods operators' out there?http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards...
Yes, some roads have better provisions for taxi, bus, bicycles - It doesn't mean they shouldn't be there when the provision is lacking.
People have responsibilities to their fellow road users and the law is hopefully catching up with those people whose standards are falling short. I'm also quite surprised that on a main stream motoring site the polarised view from some posters, where you might expect a broader social responsibility for higher driving standards.
heebeegeetee said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why, when Europe has done it and doing it? IIRC the best we can manage is about 2% of journeys in a given city by bike, widely throughout Europe they manage 5, 10 and 20 times that and more. Are we so inferior that we can't do likewise?It's clear the car is superior as a means of transport over the bike is it not? Surely the fact that almost no one wants to cycle and almost everyone who can afford a car tends to use a car as their means of personal transport suggests that pouring billions into trying to force people into bikes may transpire to be a real waste of taxpayer money?
I think it's important that to get a significant number of people to use bikes will require pretty aggressive and forceful changes to law etc.
So if the bike is genuinely the inferior means of personal transport then what is the logic in continuing down State driven enforcement? Surely that is what is inferior?
Would it not be superior to remove the religious zealotry from what is such a vital debate and the political dogma and look at the problem with honest eyes? The car is superior so why not funnel resources into making the car the best possible solution? It isn't logical to look at the faults and failures of the car and answer them with 'bike' but rather fix all the problems that cars have and invest in moving the car forward into the 21st century to meet our needs.
Clogging up cities by removing car space and yielding it to massively inefficient and unwanted bikes or pushing so many minicabs into the cities that the number of cars just constantly driving around filling roads and chucking out poisons for 12 hours or by ignoring the impact of larger cars etc just doesn't seem superior by any logical means in the cold light of day.
And that is before we even get to the logic of contrasting average mainland European city topography with that of the UK. If there is a correlation between higher number of cyclists where the topography is flatter than this rather puts a spanner in the works for forcing uk residents onto bikes. London data showing the number of cyclists who commute along the east-west Thames plain is almost certainly different to north-south. And that will be a topographical issue.
Personally, I think bicycles are a massive backward step for civilisation but a quick, visual fix for political extremists. As such moves to free more space for a few white, middle class professionals at the detriment to the masses is just to 'Islington' The superior route is to accept the concept of the car and strive to change it to meet out modern needs rather than militantly forcing people backwards in time.
DonkeyApple said:
heebeegeetee said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why, when Europe has done it and doing it? IIRC the best we can manage is about 2% of journeys in a given city by bike, widely throughout Europe they manage 5, 10 and 20 times that and more. Are we so inferior that we can't do likewise?It's clear the car is superior as a means of transport over the bike is it not? Surely the fact that almost no one wants to cycle and almost everyone who can afford a car tends to use a car as their means of personal transport suggests that pouring billions into trying to force people into bikes may transpire to be a real waste of taxpayer money?
I think it's important that to get a significant number of people to use bikes will require pretty aggressive and forceful changes to law etc.
So if the bike is genuinely the inferior means of personal transport then what is the logic in continuing down State driven enforcement? Surely that is what is inferior?
Would it not be superior to remove the religious zealotry from what is such a vital debate and the political dogma and look at the problem with honest eyes? The car is superior so why not funnel resources into making the car the best possible solution? It isn't logical to look at the faults and failures of the car and answer them with 'bike' but rather fix all the problems that cars have and invest in moving the car forward into the 21st century to meet our needs.
Clogging up cities by removing car space and yielding it to massively inefficient and unwanted bikes or pushing so many minicabs into the cities that the number of cars just constantly driving around filling roads and chucking out poisons for 12 hours or by ignoring the impact of larger cars etc just doesn't seem superior by any logical means in the cold light of day.
And that is before we even get to the logic of contrasting average mainland European city topography with that of the UK. If there is a correlation between higher number of cyclists where the topography is flatter than this rather puts a spanner in the works for forcing uk residents onto bikes. London data showing the number of cyclists who commute along the east-west Thames plain is almost certainly different to north-south. And that will be a topographical issue.
Personally, I think bicycles are a massive backward step for civilisation but a quick, visual fix for political extremists. As such moves to free more space for a few white, middle class professionals at the detriment to the masses is just to 'Islington' The superior route is to accept the concept of the car and strive to change it to meet out modern needs rather than militantly forcing people backwards in time.
t.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff