Nuxx:Bdd272f2-0535-4dd0-8cf7-3facf51a8444@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: To Those who Don't Want Cycle Lanes Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:42:55 -0800 (PST) References: <4153e463-3366-4752-9618-8986398976df@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 53 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.173 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1234215775 27464 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2009 21:42:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.173; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3552 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:685472

On Feb 8, 7:44=A0pm, "Simon Mason"  wrote: > "AndyC"  wrote in message > > news:gmn6kt$jc$1@news.motzarella.org... > > > > > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > >news:4153e463-3366-4752-9618-8986398976df@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com..= . > >> What would you prefer in this case? =A0To share lane 1 with traffic? > >> What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles > >> in the way that they have done here? =A0How about worrying less about > >> cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being > >> practical and actually staying safe? > > >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/Octob..= . > > > Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane on > > every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a lane t= oo? > > I think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it would have the > > cagers whinging... > > They already are. We have many roads in Hull like this: > > http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/images/hull.jpg > > Which the website describes thus in an "anti car measures" gallery: > > "This major radial dual-carriageway in Hull has been reduced from two lan= es > to one by turning the left lane into parking bays and a cycle lane. This = is > a widespread trend on four-lane urban main roads, and inevitably reduces > capacity and increases congestion."

All true. The author of that site is a very sensible man. Hand on heart, how do you *honestly* think measures like the above come about?

1. "How can we make things easier for cyclists? I know, let's put in a cycle lane which none of them want or will use."

2. "How can we make things harder for motorists? I know, let's reduce their roadspace by putting in a cycle lane/putting in a bus lane/ creating a buildout/changing the road markings/etc/etc."

How else can you explain why there have been examples of bus lanes being put in on routes where there were *no* buses? If the authorities wanted to, they could use roadspace a hell of a lot more efficiently so that motorists *and* cyclists had what they wanted. But they don't want to.