Jump to content

Cyclists Rant


harleyj

Featured Posts

Using the figures from the link above it would seem to me that cycle tracks are going to be hellish expensive for the amount cycles are used - on average 58 miles per annum in an average of 18 trips. So that is about 3.2 miles every 3 weeks or so.

 

Are we really sure the country can afford such expensive infra structure for so little use.

 

Before anyone says yes I know a lot will cycle much more while a lot cycle much less but that then raises the question should the few have so much government expense dedicated to the?

 

Yes - because to put 3 million people per day on to roads or public transport will cost far more. The number is also rising and a bit of foresight is required. Keeping short distance journeys off roads is good news all round.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - because to put 3 million people per day on to roads or public transport will cost far more. The number is also rising and a bit of foresight is required. Keeping short distance journeys off roads is good news all round.

You are really suggesting that 3 million people doing journeys of approximately 3 miles going by the government average figures is going to cost more than the hundreds of thousands perhaps millions to equip each town with cycle tracks let alone every route between towns.

 

Would you care to suggest a cost per mile for land acquisition and 3m wide cycle track building through say Birmingham?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is actually quite an interesting topic when you think about society's priorities.

 

Environmentally friendly transport (bicycles) is obviously far more important than people chugging about in steel boxes...

 

Fill urban canals in leaving a wildlife corridor and perhaps room for canoes. Original towpath to be used by walkers. New infilled section to he a high quality super smooth cycleway. Interchanges could be constructed as underpasses and flyovers using the existing level change around locks.

 

Old locks converted to picnic areas with interpretation boards.

 

Less need for liferings as the waterway would only be 2 feet deep.

 

As the waterway would also be a water supply channel it would be clean.

 

Fishermen to fish in lakes.

 

The wet bit would separate cycles from walking people nicely :)

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really suggesting that 3 million people doing journeys of approximately 3 miles going by the government average figures is going to cost more than the hundreds of thousands perhaps millions to equip each town with cycle tracks let alone every route between towns.

 

Would you care to suggest a cost per mile for land acquisition and 3m wide cycle track building through say Birmingham?

 

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not you seem to think it is such a good idea spending all that money (however much it may be) for 2% of the trips taken and 1% of the distance travelled.

What money? No one ever mentioned a sum of money until you inferred I wanted to spend vast sums. The 3 million folks I mentioned are already there. No absolute need to make any capital investment on them but if we don't maintain and ensure their infrastructure remains fit for purpose there will be when they convert to other modes.

 

There is a genuine need to consider all modes of transport in forming an effective transport policy because growth forecasts go way beyond capacity. Then options need to be evaluated and costed to determine strategy. You can't just declare that we shouldn't make investments based on a belief that it needs land to be purchased - and a cycle path could be done under statute powers I suspect - as you simply don't know the numbers.

 

For Birmingham the alternative may be a tunnel from Five Ways to Duddeston to free up capacity at New St station.

 

We could have a debate but I am not interested in an argument.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we don't maintain and ensure their infrastructure remains fit for purpose

That is the whole point. The discussion has been mainly along the lines of "we need cycle ways and we must have cyclists separated from cars.

 

There is no infra structure (cycleways) to maintain so they must (if those who are arguing for keeping cars and cyclists separate) be provided and that will have a horrendous cost. For what going by the government figures is quite a minority activity covering very few miles and not that often for the vast majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the whole point. The discussion has been mainly along the lines of "we need cycle ways and we must have cyclists separated from cars.

 

There is no infra structure (cycleways) to maintain so they must (if those who are arguing for keeping cars and cyclists separate) be provided and that will have a horrendous cost. For what going by the government figures is quite a minority activity covering very few miles and not that often for the vast majority.

 

I can't recall anyone stipulating that bikes must be kept separate from cars. In certain situations it would be preferable, but in many others it is entirely unnecessary.

 

However, if dedicated cycle paths are provided they must be of adequate quality otherwise they will not be used.

 

Another option (of which there are many, some better than others) is called a road diet, whereby the perceived width of the road is adjusted. See link below

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/uH3lJEaeUtaJC3s9ODeyYGMw9Z1If4E2LJnkXsO7ffHwhweL0iDx9hXV0dpJv0yCyk1sDT-OdYAoaYB_j9u_5aRQrcFh0Z6WhtOeIMk32qDLJ2p2lN5Q8jtAF8LKxs_81oe7OPfv

 

This would have the psychological effect of re-prioritising traffic, reducing traffic collisions and can be achieved without land purchase or heavy construction activities and above all is cheap to create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really suggesting that 3 million people doing journeys of approximately 3 miles going by the government average figures is going to cost more than the hundreds of thousands perhaps millions to equip each town with cycle tracks let alone every route between towns.

 

Would you care to suggest a cost per mile for land acquisition and 3m wide cycle track building through say Birmingham?

 

If you ask Transport for London, they'll tell you that's exactly why they built the cycle superhighways across London.

 

More people want to get across the city. TfL priced up two options to cater for this: a new tube line, or the cycle superhighways. The latter were cheaper, much cheaper.

 

Bike infrastructure does cost money, but in terms of capacity/£, it beats most transport investment in an urban short-journey context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When moored in Sale recently we experienced the huge number of commuting cyclists heading for Manchester at rush hour.

 

It's not the sheer number or speed of the cyclists that is the issue. It's the fact that as they approach you from behind, the "Ting" that they give you, gives you about half a second to turn, choose which way to move and then actually do it.

 

Why do they wait til they're 5 metres behind you?

Why do you think they want you to move?

 

if I pass you on a bike while you are walking, changing direction is not helpful. The bell or 'hi' is to warn you. if i need you to move I will slow down and say 'excuse me'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the whole point. The discussion has been mainly along the lines of "we need cycle ways and we must have cyclists separated from cars.

 

There is no infra structure (cycleways) to maintain so they must (if those who are arguing for keeping cars and cyclists separate) be provided and that will have a horrendous cost. For what going by the government figures is quite a minority activity covering very few miles and not that often for the vast majority.

In terms of capacity the distance of the journey isn't necessarily that important. The biggest pressure on urban transport networks is near city centres. That's typically where journey numbers are highest and infrastructure capacity is lowest. So if you want to increase medium and longer distance capacity it is often easiest done by finding viable alternatives for the short distance travellers that are taking up exactly the same space on the roads or rails as the longer distance travellers in critical corridors. Thereby freeing up more capacity for those whose needs are best met by the train and car. Light rapid transit systems are a means of doing this. It is money spent on behalf of all travellers. It isn't about preference between modes of transport; it's about how to move people en masse.

 

JP

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to come up with something constructive to add to this conversation, however find it hard to do so...... I am not willing to give 7 hours of my life doing the Q&A about what I am what I do

 

People get real

 

Has anyone thought of cross posting this thread on to a cycling forum?

 

wow for people at 4mph and a quieter life style with all the Tools at Your Hands I'm surprised

 

No its not easy to have a conversation with anyone that's not there, cyclist, noisy walker, and fast boater that rolled you out of bed, and lets be fair I wouldn't be at my best if I thought I was a victim ( Yawn ) of one of the above, however if ya going to just rant well do it to your self's, If You Actually want to make a difference get on perhaps the cycle forums and explain your issues, hell they all put there trousers on the same way as you, you never know they may understand you If you talk to them rather than just well rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mod hat on ...

 

There's been some really interesting stuff in this thread, but making abusive or provocative posts about each other is a very good way to get the thread closed. Stick to the subject, refrain from making personal comments about others and be respectful, please. Thank you.

 

Mod hat off ...

 

Edited ....

 

Mod hat on again ...

 

I have done a significant amount of post hiding and editing, some because the content was unnecessary at best and some because it was insulting, and many because posters then quoted the problematic content. I tried to find a diplomatic solution to this but it ended up unworkable.

 

I dislike doing this because it makes the result disjointed, however, it is as it is. Do not throw insults around or respond, just report them and we will deal with it. Being personally aggressive with each other brings us in into disrepute; I have no issue with honest and tough debate, just be considerate.

 

Mod hat off ...

Edited by wrigglefingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main reason for starting this rant was that because we have been intermittent users of the canal system, we have noticed the gradual encroachment of cyclists on the towpath. Now not all cyclists are dangerous but we have noticed this year on our travels that there are more and more who think the towpath is a racetrack which has taken away that delightful feeling of being relaxed when walking or when working boats along the canal.

I, like most people don't profess to have all the answers, but when we first stated using the canals(10 years ago) there were vast tracts of the towpath not allowing cyclists of any kind. Obviously CART has a different agenda these days.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main reason for starting this rant was that because we have been intermittent users of the canal system, we have noticed the gradual encroachment of cyclists on the towpath. Now not all cyclists are dangerous but we have noticed this year on our travels that there are more and more who think the towpath is a racetrack which has taken away that delightful feeling of being relaxed when walking or when working boats along the canal.

I, like most people don't profess to have all the answers, but when we first stated using the canals(10 years ago) there were vast tracts of the towpath not allowing cyclists of any kind. Obviously CART has a different agenda these days.

Thanks for doing so. I thought it was an interesting thread, and it certainly changed my mind somewhat. Food for thought. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact is that C&RT have recognised that they are not going to find a way to replace the money provided by the government and therefore they need to widen their appeal. Cyclists are here to stay unless you want your boating fees to treble.

 

Calming measures are unlikely to be effective. If they were deployed to be effective it would be prohibitively expensive. Education will have little effect because the offenders are working to a timetable. Most boaters have got all the time in the world but the kind of cyclists we are discussing are trying to get to work on time. Out in the countryside the towpaths are still relatively poor and only attractive to off-roaders looking for some exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main reason for starting this rant was that because we have been intermittent users of the canal system, we have noticed the gradual encroachment of cyclists on the towpath. Now not all cyclists are dangerous but we have noticed this year on our travels that there are more and more who think the towpath is a racetrack which has taken away that delightful feeling of being relaxed when walking or when working boats along the canal.

I, like most people don't profess to have all the answers, but when we first stated using the canals(10 years ago) there were vast tracts of the towpath not allowing cyclists of any kind. Obviously CART has a different agenda these days.

I just cannot see why more don't end in the canal..the state of the towpath in places makes zooming along a somewhat dangerous exercise though maybe the worst areas for speeding cyclists are those with the best towpaths..certainly the stretch from Islington tunnel to Victoria park proved a stressful walk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a boater, walker, canoer and cyclist I make good use of the towpath and canal. Everyone needs to be aware and share.

However people may not be able to jump out of the way of a runner or cyclist, Maybe deafness or other conditions prevent it. My wife has narcolepsy with cataplexy, when surprised the cataplexy triggers and she cannot move, her body goes to sleep instantly sometimes leading to a full drop collapse. We carry on and take the risk.

As for the little ting ting bells I think they aren't loud enough to sound while a reasonable distance away. I have a rrring rrring one, a bit louder, though I appreciate the lycra clad fraternity probably aren't strong enough to carry the extra gramme of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gif

 

Yes it is a valid observation on human behaviour and can be applied elsewhere. .

 

Similar to the type of people who buy bags of crisps and other picnic material, carry all the food to the picnic site, consume it (thereby adding energy to their system) and afterwards do not seem strong enough to carry away the empty packaging (which is now considerably lighter) to a suitable disposal point :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly.

 

why walk for miles from the nearest road to a beautiful remote location overlooking Blagdon lake near Bristol, and then leave all the detritus of a takeaway for half a dozen people dumped in the middle of a wildflower meadow?

 

I had the misfortune to come across this on a Sunday morning walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.