Nuxx:Fc5ba87a-ba31-46b1-b35a-d70f813f0b41@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cycling on pavements Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:30:30 -0700 (PDT) References: <4a1a4037$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>  <4a1a5009_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>  <4a1a55f4$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> Lines: 35 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243269030 28085 127.0.0.1 (25 May 2009 16:30:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3049 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:704027

On May 25, 9:25=A0am, Bod  wrote: > mileburner wrote: > > "Bod"  wrote in message > >news:4a1a5009_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com... > > >> Agreed but I was talking specifically about cyclists ignoring the road > >> cycle lanes (sorry,I should have made that clearer). > > > Too right. Road cycle lanes are painted in the wrong place often making= them > > dangerous to use. It is generally better to ride about 0.5 metres to th= e > > right of the kerbside cycle-lane-cum-danger-zone. > > Kerbside cycle lane are brilliant IMHO.I've never felt safer than when > I'm riding in them.I don't know what all the fuss is about.

The fuss, at least in some cases (especially on here), is about two things:

1. Wanting an excuse to hold up motorists and stop them overtaking (i.e. the same thing that "primary position" is really about). c.f. the incredible row that met suggestions that it should be legally mandatory for cyclists to use perfectly good cycle lanes a few feet from the road. Can't have those cars being unimpeded, even if it would mean that the cyclists were safer as well. (As usual, pissing off motorists comes *before* cyclists' safety.)

2. Wanting cyclists to be seen as "proper traffic", which apparently they're not the minute that they use a cycle lane, however much safer and more practical for all road users that would be. (Apparently you're just supposed to ignore the fact that cyclists are slower, smaller and more vulnerable than motor traffic, and pretend that they're exactly the same in every way...unless of course there is some perceived advantage to the anti-car movement in not doing so.)