Cyclists Rant

[Wanderer Vagabond]

My understanding is that they aren't paid for by the council. They are paid for by EU grants which are worth more than is actually spent. Hence the proliferation of badly implemented paths and also the reason why little maintenance takes place.

And the EU completely bypass the councils? Amazing!

[gazza]

What is shown as a 'cycle path' is, quite frankly, nothing of the sort, it is a footpath that some minion has put a few signs up on. The fatal accident took place at 11pm when, had the cyclist taken your 'advice' he could easily have run into a pedestrian on that crap 'cycle path' (you may not have noticed but pedestrians tend to be unlit, unlike the dead cyclist). You may possible know the area well as a motorist but it sounds as though your knowledge as a cyclist is either minimal or non-existent. I would however expect that the dead cyclist (a 75 year old) hadn't just taken up cycling, he had forgotten more about cycling than you've ever known.

 

And you still haven't given any explanation of why an incompetent driver has your sympathy, a relative was she?

Give over, you're no better at putting words In my mouth than Richard, at least he has the good grace not to play the dog with a bone card.

 

Just for avoidance of doubt, copy and paste from my reply to Richard.

 

 

Had the cyclist been on the cycle path the reckless cow in the car would never have come into contact with him.

 

You've a funny idea of sympathy WV

Edited July 21, 2016 by gazza

[Jerra]

 

Sustrans and DfT guidance is that 3m width is good for shared-use, bi-directional; 2.5m is standard; 2m is acceptable; any less is not good. Sustrans did indeed refuse to fund an upgrade to the towpath in Oxford because the presence of water voles would have restricted the width to 1.8m, leading to this rather wonderful headline: Voles one, Velos nil.

At that rate I can't have seen any that Sustrans has subsidised.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Give over, you're no better at putting words In my mouth than Richard, at least he has the good grace not to play the dog with a bone card.

 

Just for avoidance of doubt, copy and paste from my reply to Richard.

 

 

Had the cyclist been on the cycle path the reckless cow in the car would never have come into contact with him.

 

You've a funny idea of sympathy WV

Where he may well have come in contact with an unlit pedestrian, but since that's not a car that's fine .

 

What I find offensive is that this dead cyclist had family and friends and, oddly enough, was a real person. I'm sure that all the people who knew him will all line up in agreement with you (who clearly knew him well, why else would you be entitled to an opinion) at how much of a complete a*se he was to go and get himself killed by a useless driver. Given her level of incompetence I'm not even sure he would have been safe on the footpath, she would probably have been drawn, like a moth to a flame, by the reflective jacket he was wearing and the lights on his bike and run him over anyway.

[gazza]

Where he may well have come in contact with an unlit pedestrian, but since that's not a car that's fine .

 

What I find offensive is that this dead cyclist had family and friends and, oddly enough, was a real person. I'm sure that all the people who knew him will all line up in agreement with you (who clearly knew him well, why else would you be entitled to an opinion) at how much of a complete a*se he was to go and get himself killed by a useless driver. Given her level of incompetence I'm not even sure he would have been safe on the footpath, she would probably have been drawn, like a moth to a flame, by the reflective jacket he was wearing and the lights on his bike and run him over anyway.

Night night chap. Take more water with it next time.

[Cheshire cat]

And the EU completely bypass the councils? Amazing!

No the councils apply for the grants from the EU. It's supposed to be a subsidy but if used carefully...............

[Graham Davis]

 

I think that Richard has clearly stated why this "cyclepath" is unsuitable. Merely sticking up a "cyclepath" sign, without thought of the the intended user, is not enough.

 

 

The image above shows why consideration is needed. A child will no doubt be badly hurt unless matters improve.

 

A different, yet still awful design, is shown below illustrating another cycle lane that should be avoided.

 

I don't see either as "unsafe" if ridden SENSIBLY!

Edited July 21, 2016 by Graham Davis

[Graham Davis]

 

For the same reason most two-way roads are a bit wider than the width of one small car?

 

The fairly normal tyres on my bikes are between 35mm and 45mm wide. The bikes themselves are up to 620mm wide at the broadest point (the handlebars). Plus, fairly obviously, the bike has to go round corners, therefore its effective envelope is bigger still.

 

Still, yes, you could ride such a bike gingerly along a 1m wide path. As long as there's nothing else on that path. The one in question here is a bi-directional shared-use path, not a single lane for cyclists only. Let's say you're going at a fairly leisurely pace around the corner at the top of that hill. Oops, there's a cyclist or a pedestrian coming the other way. Splat... and we're back to page #1 and pedestrians complaining about being hit by cyclists. I realise you're used to dealing with vehicles that don't actually have any steering and are guaranteed not to hit each other, but really.

 

The more frequent issue, and where 'gazza' misses the point when he quips about being "dead right", is the quality of maintenance. On any given British rural roadside cycle path, like this, the edges are usually uneven and overgrown. That's certainly the case round here. It is more likely that you will hit a pothole and fall off - hopefully not into adjacent traffic, but with a high chance of injury (I know a couple of people who've been injured on the A40 cycle path near here in the last month for this reason). It's not zero-risk versus zero-risk: it's "moderately likely to get injured" vs "unlikely, but possible, to get killed".

 

So, many cyclists who want to go at more than walking pace will choose the road over a poor-quality path like that. I don't necessarily make the same choices myself, and in fact I personally do tend to go for poor-quality paths over busy roads. But I absolutely understand why people make the other choice, and wouldn't call them idiots for doing so.

 

So that path is wide enough to be ridden SENSIBLY, but not like a dervish.

 

Perhaps the advance driver's adage of only driving (riding) to the conditions and the capability of the driver (rider) and their machine should be applied by you?

(See also my comments above!)

[FadeToScarlet]

 

So that path is wide enough to be ridden SENSIBLY, but not like a dervish.

 

Perhaps the advance driver's adage of only driving (riding) to the conditions and the capability of the driver (rider) and their machine should be applied by you?

(See also my comments above!)

Exactly. Which was why the cyclist, with the path being unsuitable, was on the road.

[Rendelf]

I used to ride this path in and out of the Melbourne CBD daily....

 

 

 

 

 

 

This one is the Capital City Trail. It even has little LED cat's eyes (which aren't cat's eyes) in the centre of the track. It's perhaps 2 meters wide. Pedestrians use it too....as well as families out for walks, joggers jogging etc.

 

Such a pleasure to ride in that city....you can get almost anywhere without using a road. Perhaps we should form a UK cycling group and go and use their paths, to counter all the Aussies on the canals?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Rendelf

[Airfix Kid]

Where he may well have come in contact with an unlit pedestrian, but since that's not a car that's fine .

 

What I find offensive is that this dead cyclist had family and friends and, oddly enough, was a real person. I'm sure that all the people who knew him will all line up in agreement with you (who clearly knew him well, why else would you be entitled to an opinion) at how much of a complete a*se he was to go and get himself killed by a useless driver. Given her level of incompetence I'm not even sure he would have been safe on the footpath, she would probably have been drawn, like a moth to a flame, by the reflective jacket he was wearing and the lights on his bike and run him over anyway.

I agree with all of this and also find his 'reckless cow' comment sexist and offensive.

 

I imagine Gazza as a motorist driving a fair bit faster than the speed limit passing far too close to cyclists in the grounds that 'they shouldn't be there anyway'.

[gazza]

I agree with all of this and also find his 'reckless cow' comment sexist and offensive.

 

I imagine Gazza as a motorist driving a fair bit faster than the speed limit passing far too close to cyclists in the grounds that 'they shouldn't be there anyway'.

Sexist and offensive?! Wow! Just wow!!

As for your last comment, you must be good to tell that off a couple of posts on a forum

[Airfix Kid]

it's bloody obvious man. Petrolhead through and through.

[gazza]

it's bloody obvious man. Petrolhead through and through.

Being an arsehole isn't a pre requisite of being a petrolhead.

I personally don't like the idea of having a lycra clad Wally under my wheels so give them a wide berth and treat them with the distrust and disdain they deserve.

Edited July 22, 2016 by gazza

[Rendelf]

What a lovely way to start the morning!

[Airfix Kid]

Being an arsehole isn't a pre requisite of being a petrolhead.

I personally don't like the idea of having a lycra clad Wally under my wheels so give them a wide berth and treat them with the distrust and disdain they deserve.

I can only admire the way you combine both.

[gazza]

What happened to no personal attacks? Airfix kid, have you nothing better to do?

[Airfix Kid]

'selfish cow', 'arsehole', 'wally' hmm.

 

If I can't cycle down a road on which I'm legally entitled to be, with high-viz and lights without having someone like you driving angrily and putting my life in danger then yes, I'm going to disagree with you ( as well as the way you say it).

[gazza]

'selfish cow', 'arsehole', 'wally' hmm.

 

If I can't cycle down a road on which I'm legally entitled to be, with high-viz and lights without having someone like you driving angrily and putting my life in danger then yes, I'm going to disagree with you ( as well as the way you say it).

When have I ever said I drive angrily? You have a vivid imagination. Edited July 22, 2016 by gazza

[Airfix Kid]

yes, you did

 

http://www.brake.org.uk/events/15-facts-a-resources/facts/487-driver-stress

 

other links are available

[gazza]

yes, you did

 

http://www.brake.org.uk/events/15-facts-a-resources/facts/487-driver-stress

 

other links are available

What the hell are you on about?!!

[Rendelf]

Game, Airfix Kid.

[gazza]

I don't think so, I'd stick with making models, pseudo psychology is not his strong point.

Edited July 22, 2016 by gazza

[Jerra]

yes, you did

Could you give a number for the post in which he said he drove like that. I appear to have missed it and glancing back I can't find it. Many thanks.

[magnetman]

Is airfix kid the same person as wishful?

 

They seem to have remarkably similar output

I used to ride this path in and out of the Melbourne CBD daily....

 

 

 

 

 

 

This one is the Capital City Trail. It even has little LED cat's eyes (which aren't cat's eyes) in the centre of the track. It's perhaps 2 meters wide. Pedestrians use it too....as well as families out for walks, joggers jogging etc.

 

Such a pleasure to ride in that city....you can get almost anywhere without using a road. Perhaps we should form a UK cycling group and go and use their paths, to counter all the Aussies on the canals?

Looks very nice

 

Do they have many boats about? Looks ideal for canoeing.