Nuxx:19502b56-126b-4583-b916-957b8e9fcab7@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <19502b56-126b-4583-b916-957b8e9fcab7@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: To Those who Don't Want Cycle Lanes Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:54:20 -0800 (PST) References: <4153e463-3366-4752-9618-8986398976df@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <0854508c-de89-467d-8c8d-5020b22f0d05@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 35 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 1234216461 29744 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2009 21:54:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v42g2000yqj.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: 3020 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:685475

On Feb 9, 12:39=A0am, JNugent  wrote: > Jon wrote: > > On 8 Feb, 13:18, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >> 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? > > > The cycle lane on my route to work does the opposite - it segregates > > very slow or stopped motor traffic from commuter cyclists nipping > > along at 12-15mph. > > The problem is that being next to the kerb it places the moving > > cyclists on the inside of the stopped/crawling cars, vans, etc and > > that pedestrians crossing the road between these stopped cars, etc, > > often do not take account of this and step out... > > This is because of the plain idiocy of allowing privileged overtaking > (whether by buses or bicycles/motor-bikes)on the nearside - it's crazy. > > Overtaking should be done on the offside. > > You know it makes sense.

Better still, get rid of many bus lanes, and restrict the times of most of the others. And have a rule that you can't be fined for going into a bus lane if there's no bus/bike/taxi within a certain distance. No-one who genuinely wanted bus lanes for the stated reason (rather than because they disliked motorists) could possibly complain about that.

The unofficial "put in a bus lane or otherwise restrict roadspace if there are two normal lanes in one direction on anything but primary A roads" rule that exists in places such as London is daft, and obscenely anti-motorist.