The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
that thought they were banks is £38bn.

How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
2) Adequate policing to enforce not only this limit, but also normal
competent driving standards.

Total cost: not free, but not a lot.

James

On 29 Sep, 22:46, "james.an...@gmail.com" 
wrote:
> On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
>
> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> > The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> > that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>
> > How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> > we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>
> 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
> 2) Adequate policing to enforce not only this limit, but also normal
> competent driving standards.
>
> Total cost: not free, but not a lot.

Every man, woman and child in the country could get
several new bikes.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.annan@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
>> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>>
>> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
>> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>
> 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas

Except London inside (and including) the inner ring road.

Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except 
buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any 
significant speed.

tom

-- 
I am predictable. I worry about this, but then I think, "I am predictable
but right, so I don't care." -- coffeeandink

On Sep 30, 6:48 am, Bo...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 29 Sep, 22:46, "james.an...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
>
> > <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> > > The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> > > that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>
> > > How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> > > we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>
> > 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
> > 2) Adequate policing to enforce not only this limit, but also normal
> > competent driving standards.
>
> > Total cost: not free, but not a lot.
>
> Every man, woman and child in the country could get
> several new bikes.

Just about every man, woman and child in the country already has an
unused bike. At least, everyone who would consider using one.

James

On Sep 30, 7:21 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
> > <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> >> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>
> >> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> >> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>
> > 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
>
> Except London inside (and including) the inner ring road.
>
> Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
> buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
> significant speed.

I disagree: even in London, motorised transport has an important role
to play - certainly for deliveries, but some personal transport as
well. I may also have reason to be grateful for an ambulance or fire
engine one day (well I have no intention of ever living in London, but
I suspect the residents would feel the same way). Given that motorised
traffic will always be present, the important thing to do is to tame
it IMO. Of course some more pedestrianised areas (with exceptions for
cycles) would usually be a good thing. But even there, there will be
delivery vehicles...

Oh, another cheap improvement would be to prevent through traffic on
some streets (again, with exceptions for cycles).

James

Tom Crispin wrote:
> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
> 
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

Give every person capable of cycling a thousand pounds. Take it away 
again if they haven't cycled 1000 miles by the end of the year.

Colin McKenzie


-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the 
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:46:04 -0700 (PDT), "james.annan@gmail.com"
 said in
:

>1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
>2) Adequate policing to enforce not only this limit, but also normal
>competent driving standards.
>Total cost: not free, but not a lot.

Or just Mondermanise the place.  Remove all the huge yellow-backed
reflective signs that allow people to hammer along country roads
secure in the knowledge that they will be warned by Them if they
need to slow down for a bend.  Remove all kerbstones.  Burn off all
psychlepath markings, shut down the traffic lights, tear up the mini
roundabouts... think of the savings in maintenance costs!

Oh, and pass a presumed fault law like the Dutch have for incidents
where users of benign modes are injured by motorists.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 29 Sep, 21:12, Tom Crispin
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

Ruthlessly track down every stolen bicycle and make the chavs who did
it sweep the broken glass off the streets.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:55:56 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
(Psycholist) wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:46:04 -0700 (PDT), "james.annan@gmail.com"
> said in
>:
>
>>1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
>>2) Adequate policing to enforce not only this limit, but also normal
>>competent driving standards.
>>Total cost: not free, but not a lot.
>
>Or just Mondermanise the place. 

ffs - you could not make it up : absolutely perfect:

Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list.

A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling who have such an extraordinary psychological problem
that they have invented their own "language" to justify their views
and conditions.


Keep taking the medication.


--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:55:56 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> (Psycholist) wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:46:04 -0700 (PDT), "james.annan@gmail.com"
>>  said in
>> :
>>
>>> 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
>>> 2) Adequate policing to enforce not only this limit, but also normal
>>> competent driving standards.
>>> Total cost: not free, but not a lot.
>> Or just Mondermanise the place. 
> 
> ffs - you could not make it up : absolutely perfect:

It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the 
use of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the 
late Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.

"Shared Space" turns the conventional road safety mantra (of blaming 
motorists for everything) on its head.  It basically says that if 
motorists aren't treated like idiots, by regulating them into the 
ground, but are allowed to act as human beings, by being allowed to 
negotiate priorities of road use with other road users, rather than 
being forced to obey signs, signals and regulations under pain of fines, 
licence endorsements and bans, they will act like human beings, and 
won't behave like idiots.

The "headline" manifestations of its use are the removal of cues, such 
as kerbs and road markings, which differentiate "road" from "pavement", 
and the removal of traffic lights and road signs which attempt to 
artificially regulate priorities.  The result is that using the road, 
whether on foot, bicycle or in a car relies on human interactions to 
establish, basically, who goes first, as all modes have equal priority 
at all times.

The results of its implementation are generally impressive.  Road 
casualties are virtually eliminated, and, into the bargain, congestion 
is reduced, because traffic speeds reduce and road space is used more 
efficiently.

Many here abhor it because it works without punishing motorists and 
without relying on speed limits, and because it proves that motorists 
aren't inherently bad or dangerous, and that it is subconscious 
behaviour prompted by the design of the road environment, and not the 
deliberate meditated behaviour of motorists, which has led to the 
unacceptable level of road casualties we currently suffer.

The downside (for the anti-motorist) is that it also recognises that a 
comprehensive motorway network is essential for efficient high-speed 
motorised travel between urban centres, and to remove through traffic 
from town centres.

-- 
Matt B

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
> 
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

i'd vote for more for changing the roads so that it is possible to walk
from a to b with out being caged in by railings, etc. and dark
underpasses (do these people have no imagination?) i don't think the
bike will ever be a massive player in transport but for short local
journeys walking can be, if you can give people a way to cross the trunk
routes with out feeling like your playing chicken more may well walk
than car,

i think the car is here to stay in one form or another.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

james.annan@gmail.com  wrote:

> On Sep 30, 7:21 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
> > > <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> > >> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> > >> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
> >
> > >> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> > >> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
> >
> > > 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
> >
> > Except London inside (and including) the inner ring road.
> >
> > Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
> > buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
> > significant speed.
> 
> I disagree: even in London, motorised transport has an important role
> to play - certainly for deliveries, but some personal transport as
> well. I may also have reason to be grateful for an ambulance or fire
> engine one day (well I have no intention of ever living in London, but
> I suspect the residents would feel the same way). Given that motorised
> traffic will always be present, the important thing to do is to tame
> it IMO. Of course some more pedestrianised areas (with exceptions for
> cycles) would usually be a good thing. But even there, there will be
> delivery vehicles...
> 
certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you
wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly be
faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.

so a public transport system that could cope with people doing more than
going into central would be fairly high on my wish list, after all who
wants to sit in a traffic jam?

> Oh, another cheap improvement would be to prevent through traffic on
> some streets (again, with exceptions for cycles).
> 
> James

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

"Matt B"  wrote in message 
news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...

> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use 
> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late 
> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
...
> Many here abhor it

Matt, that's a lie.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:02:58 +0100, Clive George wrote:

> "Matt B"  wrote in message 
> news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use 
>> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late 
>> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
> ...
>> Many here abhor it
> 
> Matt, that's a lie.

MattB is a known troll - hertofore absent for quite some time following a
period when the regulars here decided to ignore him.

Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?

Roger Merriman wrote:
>  i don't think the
> bike will ever be a massive player in transport but for short local
> journeys walking can be, if you can give people a way to cross the trunk
> routes with out feeling like your playing chicken more may well walk
> than car,
> 
> i think the car is here to stay in one form or another.

I would suggest you visit the NL.  Plenty of cars, plenty of
pedestrians, plenty of folk who won't use a bike, but cycling /is/ a
massive player in transport.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B"  wrote in message 
> news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use 
>> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late 
>> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
> ...
>> Many here abhor it
> 
> Matt, that's a lie.

ITHM "many here abhor an insistence that it can be applied liberally
absolutely anywhere and in all circumstances so I can keep harping on
about speed cameras being Evil"...

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"_"  wrote in message 
news:16ttevvuh4of9.2x3oljcxf6ya$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:02:58 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>
>> "Matt B"  wrote in message
>> news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the 
>>> use
>>> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the 
>>> late
>>> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
>> ...
>>> Many here abhor it
>>
>> Matt, that's a lie.
>
> MattB is a known troll - hertofore absent for quite some time following a
> period when the regulars here decided to ignore him.
>
> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?

s'ok, he's back in the ignore list - but I felt that particular lie needed 
correction.

POHB wrote:
> On 29 Sep, 21:12, Tom Crispin
>> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
>> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
> 
> Ruthlessly track down every stolen bicycle and make the chavs who did
> it sweep the broken glass off the streets.

20mph speed limit in residential areas and speed cams every 100 yards, i 
reckon that would mean no income tax for maybe the first few years of 
operation until a)the message finally got through or b)there was no one 
left with a driving license

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:28:46 +0100, Clive George wrote:


>> MattB is a known troll - hertofore absent for quite some time following a
>> period when the regulars here decided to ignore him.
>>
>> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?
> 
> s'ok, he's back in the ignore list - but I felt that particular lie needed 
> correction.

Yebbut -

That's what trolls do - tell more and more egregious lies, hoping to get a
reply.  They don't want to be right, what they want is an argument.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:00:00 +0100
NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:

> certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you
> wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly
> be faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.
> 
How about a fast train service travelling in both directions around
the M25, with stops every 5 miles or so?

"_"  wrote in message 
news:10u8ej05nbc0v.1xhjlda7pys50$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:28:46 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>
>
>>> MattB is a known troll - hertofore absent for quite some time following 
>>> a
>>> period when the regulars here decided to ignore him.
>>>
>>> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?
>>
>> s'ok, he's back in the ignore list - but I felt that particular lie 
>> needed
>> correction.
>
> Yebbut -
>
> That's what trolls do - tell more and more egregious lies, hoping to get a
> reply.  They don't want to be right, what they want is an argument.

Granny, have this egg. Put your lips there...

Peter Clinch  wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> >  i don't think the
> > bike will ever be a massive player in transport but for short local
> > journeys walking can be, if you can give people a way to cross the trunk
> > routes with out feeling like your playing chicken more may well walk
> > than car,
> > 
> > i think the car is here to stay in one form or another.
> 
> I would suggest you visit the NL.  Plenty of cars, plenty of
> pedestrians, plenty of folk who won't use a bike, but cycling /is/ a
> massive player in transport.
> 
> Pete.

i have and yes you do see a fair amount of bikes, NL is probably the
exeption to prove the rule.

it (cycle use in NL) also probably falls off somewhat sharply as you get
out of the heavly built up areas.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:13:37 GMT, _
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:02:58 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>
>> "Matt B"  wrote in message 
>> news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
>> 
>>> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use 
>>> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late 
>>> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
>> ...
>>> Many here abhor it
>> 
>> Matt, that's a lie.
>
>MattB is a known troll - hertofore absent for quite some time following a
>period when the regulars here decided to ignore him.
>
>Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?


If you really want to do the group a favour I would stop your silly
game.

If you want the group to turn to rat shit - then continue as you are.

On Sep 29, 9:12 pm, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

Put at least some of that £38bn into building trains and buses that
can actually carry cycles.

Richard

Roger Merriman wrote:

> i have and yes you do see a fair amount of bikes, NL is probably the
> exeption to prove the rule.

I would say the exception that proves the rule doesn't actually /have/
to be a rule.  NL has kept putting a lot of effort into cycling.

> it (cycle use in NL) also probably falls off somewhat sharply as you get
> out of the heavly built up areas.

A bit like the number of people, of course...  Those two factors just
/might/ be related! ;-)

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B"  wrote in message 
> news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use 
>> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late 
>> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
> ...
>> Many here abhor it
> 
> Matt, that's a lie.

Check out what "Ian Smith", "spindrift" and others have written about 
such schemes, or the concept, in the past.

-- 
Matt B

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:00:00 +0100
> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> 
>> certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you
>> wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly
>> be faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.
>>
> How about a fast train service travelling in both directions around
> the M25, with stops every 5 miles or so?

Too far out. M25 was meant for bypassing London on journeys that, by 
train, are best done by going in and out again. But there are a lot of 
suburb to suburb journeys that are quickest by going out to M25, round, 
and in again - despite the huge extra mileage.

Rather than a full orbital railway, it would be better to have 
north-south and east-west links about 5 miles out from the centre, 
linking radial lines. This is in addition to the existing North, East, 
and West London Lines, which are a bit close in. Taking these lines is 
rarely quicker than going into London and out again - unless you can 
cycle to/from the stations both ends and thereby avoid interchanges.

Colin McKenzie

-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the 
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Rob Morley  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:00:00 +0100
> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> 
> > certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you
> > wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly
> > be faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.
> > 
> How about a fast train service travelling in both directions around
> the M25, with stops every 5 miles or so?

might well work rather well you know.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

_  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:28:46 +0100, Clive George wrote:
> 
> 
> >> MattB is a known troll - hertofore absent for quite some time following a
> >> period when the regulars here decided to ignore him.
> >>
> >> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?
> > 
> > s'ok, he's back in the ignore list - but I felt that particular lie needed
> > correction.
> 
> Yebbut -
> 
> That's what trolls do - tell more and more egregious lies, hoping to get a
> reply.  They don't want to be right, what they want is an argument.

as aposed to your blanks?

if you want to starve them then starve them.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Peter Clinch  wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> 
> > i have and yes you do see a fair amount of bikes, NL is probably the
> > exeption to prove the rule.
> 
> I would say the exception that proves the rule doesn't actually /have/
> to be a rule.  NL has kept putting a lot of effort into cycling.
> 
they do seem to have, mostly in people's attitude to using a bike, i see
folk when i'm at home drive off to pick up their kids from school
judging by the time, it probably would be no slower to walk, but they
don't

NL does though have factors that make it a prime target for bikes, it is
flat, it is also very built up, with a far more even spread than say the
uk. ie towns rather than cities.

> > it (cycle use in NL) also probably falls off somewhat sharply as you get
> > out of the heavly built up areas.
> 
> A bit like the number of people, of course...  Those two factors just
> /might/ be related! ;-)
> 
yes, but a doesn't mean that once out of the city there is a low
population, just more spread out, SE england is prime example it's
pritty packed in


> Pete.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Matt B  wrote:

> Clive George wrote:
> > "Matt B"  wrote in message 
> > news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
> > 
> >> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use
> >> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late
> >> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
> > ...
> >> Many here abhor it
> > 
> > Matt, that's a lie.
> 
> Check out what "Ian Smith", "spindrift" and others have written about
> such schemes, or the concept, in the past.

they do not in any way = many. which ever way you want to cook the
books.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Roger Merriman wrote:

> NL does though have factors that make it a prime target for bikes, it is
> flat, it is also very built up, with a far more even spread than say the
> uk. ie towns rather than cities.

The UK is a big place, and within that big place are areas that are
densely populated with towns running into one another where bikes are a
good solution, just as they are in NL.
ISTM the primary difference between the NL and such places is more about
the general realisation that a bike is a useful, sensible, often
preferable form of transport rather than a fringe device for the
superfit and/or madmen and/or people that can't afford a Proper car.

> yes, but a doesn't mean that once out of the city there is a low
> population, just more spread out

So if you look at bike usage the density of use will fall, just like the
population density does.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Matt B wrote:

> Clive George wrote:
>> "Matt B"  wrote in message 
>> news:6keic9F7g44mU1@mid.individual.net...
>> 
>>> It's a bit of a smart alec way of saying it, but what he means is the use 
>>> of the "Shared Space" philosophy as demonstrated and promoted by the late 
>>> Hans Monderman of the Netherlands.
>> ...
>>> Many here abhor it
>> 
>> Matt, that's a lie.
>
> Check out what "Ian Smith", "spindrift" and others have written about 
> such schemes, or the concept, in the past.

I'm pretty dubious about it myself, but perhaps mostly through ignorance.

Can anyone point me to studies of this approach which looked at it (a) 
long-term, say over five years and (b) in societies with entrenched 
motor-centric street use attitudes (like the UK, unlike the Netherlands)?

Is it really indicated for use on country lanes as well as in towns, as 
Chappers suggests? I can see it working in towns, where it basically 
amounts to making all streets pedestrian areas on which cars happen to be 
permitted, but out in the sticks, where mean free paths are longer and 
pedestrians less dense, i have a hard time imagining that it would make 
drivers drive more safely. My imagination is of course a limited and 
imperfect tool, though.

tom

-- 
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:04:14 +0100
Colin McKenzie  wrote:

> Too far out. M25 was meant for bypassing London on journeys that, by 
> train, are best done by going in and out again. But there are a lot
> of suburb to suburb journeys that are quickest by going out to M25,
> round, and in again - despite the huge extra mileage.

Precisely.  So put in place a fast efficient congestion-free service
that allows people to do what they're already doing, but using public
transport instead of private motor vehicles.  It's a lot easier to put
a couple of train tracks around the M25 than do anything in central
London.  PT, cycle or drive to one of the M25 circular stations, take
one of the trains that runs every 5 minutes to somewhere near your
destination, then PT/cycle the rest of the way.  Rather than having a
big hub in the centre you have maybe twenty small hubs on the
periphery, where there's plenty of room for facilities and never any
need for people to travel across town unless they want to, plus none of
the congestion that results from everyone joining/leaving at a central
location.

Tom Anderson  writes:

> I'm pretty dubious about it myself, but perhaps mostly through ignorance.

All the places I've heard it described as a success have been
intersections, not streets.  For it to work along the length of a
street I think it would need a "critical mass"(sic) of non-motorised
traffic that the cars have to slow down for - otherwise, where are the
sources of conflict that will cause them to negotiate?  You can't do
it all with speed humps - some of the least cycle-friendly roads I
have ever had the misfortune to use have been the ones with
traffic-so-called-calming where the cars are so intent on getting the
right approach to speed pillows or buildouts that they're oblivious to
everything else.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea.  I just think it's not the
panacea that some claim it will be, and overselling it is doing it no
favours.


-dan

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.annan@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 30, 7:21 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
>>> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
>>>> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>>
>>>> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
>>>> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>>
>>> 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
>>
>> Except London inside (and including) the inner ring road.
>>
>> Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
>> buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
>> significant speed.
>
> I disagree: even in London, motorised transport has an important role to 
> play - certainly for deliveries, but some personal transport as well.

What sort of 'some personal transport' were you thinking of?

Deliveries, and working transport for people like plumbers and others who 
need heavy equipment for their job, are the big holes in this idea, i 
admit. If i could think of a way to handle those needs without motor 
vehicles, i think we'd have a winner. The compromise position would be to 
restrict and regulate: only allow such vehicles where there was an genuine 
need (with a framework for evaluating this and then enforcing it - 
although god alone knows how you'd manage that), and require that the 
vehicles used meet certain standards for maximum size, maximum blind 
spots, etc.

Another idea would be to restrict these vehicles to a subset of streets, 
such that they could always get to within one or two hundred metres of any 
destination (a distance over which walking, trolleys and wheelbarrows are 
perfectly workable), but so that most streets were motor-vehicle-free, 
which would give pedestrians and cyclists the room they rightly deserve.

> I may also have reason to be grateful for an ambulance or fire engine 
> one day (well I have no intention of ever living in London, but I 
> suspect the residents would feel the same way).

I wasn't thinking of banning those - they have an implicit right to go 
wherever they like, as they do with current pedestrianised spaces.

It'd also be possible for motor vehicles of any size to go anywhere where 
they were unavoidably needed - moving a huge crane into a construction 
site, say. Again, that's as it is now - it's handled as a special case.

> Given that motorised traffic will always be present, the important thing 
> to do is to tame it IMO.

I just don't accept that that's a given.

> Of course some more pedestrianised areas (with exceptions for cycles) 
> would usually be a good thing. But even there, there will be delivery 
> vehicles...

Yes. But if those can be trollies and milkfloats instead of vans, we've 
made a huge improvement!

> Oh, another cheap improvement would be to prevent through traffic on 
> some streets (again, with exceptions for cycles).

That would be an excellent (and politically plausible, unlike my 
suggestions) first step.

tom

-- 
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Roger Merriman wrote:

> james.annan@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 30, 7:21 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
>>>> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
>>>>> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
>>>>> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>>>>
>>>> 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
>>>
>>> Except London inside (and including) the inner ring road.
>>>
>>> Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
>>> buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
>>> significant speed.
>
> certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you 
> wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly be 
> faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.

Absolutely. I wouldn't suggest suppressing outer-outer trips by car unless 
we had a vastly better public transport system. It does make the outer 
suburbs rather cycle-unfriendly (i rode from Finsbury Park to North 
Finchley via Wood Green not long a go - and hope to never do so again!), 
but there's not really a practical alternative at the moment.

That's why i suggested closing the inner ring road (the boundary of the 
central congestion charging zone), and not the North/South Circular or the 
M25. Those roads would still exist to facilitate outer-outer and 
cross-London journeys. The inner ring only helps if you're making a 
journey with one end in an inner suburb, and those are journeys that *can* 
be made easily by public transport, and so should be.

> so a public transport system that could cope with people doing more than 
> going into central would be fairly high on my wish list, after all who 
> wants to sit in a traffic jam?

Absolutely. Let me know if you come up with anything!

tom

-- 
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
>> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>>
>> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
>> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
>
> i'd vote for more for changing the roads so that it is possible to walk 
> from a to b with out being caged in by railings, etc. and dark 
> underpasses (do these people have no imagination?) i don't think the 
> bike will ever be a massive player in transport but for short local 
> journeys walking can be,

So why wouldn't bikes be? A bike can do the same kind of trips that 
walking can, but faster, and can do longer trips too - up to a few miles 
with no difficulty at all, even for 'normal' people. And since the 
majority of all trips are of such a length

> if you can give people a way to cross the trunk routes with out feeling 
> like your playing chicken more may well walk than car,
>
> i think the car is here to stay in one form or another.

Yes. But, like horses before it, that doesn't mean it belongs in urban 
areas.

tom

-- 
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Colin McKenzie wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:00:00 +0100
>> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>> 
>>> certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you 
>>> wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly 
>>> be faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.
>>
>> How about a fast train service travelling in both directions around the 
>> M25, with stops every 5 miles or so?
>
> Too far out. M25 was meant for bypassing London on journeys that, by 
> train, are best done by going in and out again. But there are a lot of 
> suburb to suburb journeys that are quickest by going out to M25, round, 
> and in again - despite the huge extra mileage.
>
> Rather than a full orbital railway, it would be better to have 
> north-south and east-west links about 5 miles out from the centre, 
> linking radial lines. This is in addition to the existing North, East, 
> and West London Lines, which are a bit close in. Taking these lines is 
> rarely quicker than going into London and out again - unless you can 
> cycle to/from the stations both ends and thereby avoid interchanges.

The trouble is the interchanges - going via the centre means changing once 
(hopefully), from one radial line to another, whereas using an orbital 
segment means changing twice, from inward radial to orbital, and then from 
orbital to outward radial. Unless the service is ludicrously frequent, 
that means spending a lot of time waiting.

A better solution might be to build an orbital line, but with junction 
with the radials, and then run services which go in to the radial, around 
a bit, and then out. We discussed this on uk.transport.london yonks ago, 
and i think the conclusion was that going a third of the way round the 
orbital was optimal. If the train you came in on doesn't go out on the 
right orbital, you should be able to change onto once which does somewhere 
along the orbital segment. We have a situation a bit like this with the 
subsurface lines - if you come from Barking and want to go to Moor Park, 
you come in on the Hammersmith & City, orbit partway round the circle on 
it, and change onto the Metropolitan somewhere between Liverpool Street 
and Baker Street.

Back-of-the-envelope doodling also suggests that a network comprising an 
array of interlocking spirals, as in a sunflower:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucapost/694780262/

would also support efficient inter-suburb journeys while also providing 
fast radial journeys. It's too late to start building something like that, 
though!

tom

-- 
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

In article ,
 Tom Anderson  wrote:

> >> Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
> >> buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
> >> significant speed.
> >
> > I disagree: even in London, motorised transport has an important role to 
> > play - certainly for deliveries, but some personal transport as well.
> 
> What sort of 'some personal transport' were you thinking of?
> 
> Deliveries, and working transport for people like plumbers and others who 
> need heavy equipment for their job, are the big holes in this idea, i 
> admit. If i could think of a way to handle those needs without motor 
> vehicles, i think we'd have a winner. The compromise position would be to 
> restrict and regulate: only allow such vehicles where there was an genuine 
> need (with a framework for evaluating this and then enforcing it - 
> although god alone knows how you'd manage that), and require that the 
> vehicles used meet certain standards for maximum size, maximum blind 
> spots, etc.

Another big step for safety would be to require each new car to be 
fitted with a mobile phone 'detector' directed at the driver.  If at any 
time a call was made from or received (and answered) by the driver's 
mobile terminal whilst the vehicle was moving, the call would be logged.  
The driver would have one calendar month to justify his use of the 
telephone.  Valid 'excuses' would be say, a medical emergency, or the 
driver (or someone else) being a victim of road rage, or whatever.  

Failure to justify the call within one month, would involve automatic 
revocation of the driving licence for five years.  Refusal (as distinct 
from 'inability') to justify the call, or repeat offenders, would be 
jailed for two years.  No appeals, no whingeing that 'it was my 
daughter's birthday!', no moaning about 'losing my job' due to a ban.  
Maybe I'm a selfsh cunt, but my life is worth more than any fucker's 
job.  

I guarantee that accidents due to mobile phone use would all but 
_vanish_ within twelve months.

-- 
aigle_de_la_route
Surly Long Haul Trucker
http://2x2wheels.org/

_ said the following on 30/09/2008 13:13:

> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?

Do you mean that you are deliberately propagating threads or posts by 
trolls by always feeding them with an auto-reply?

We are quite capable of blocking those who we see fit ourselves, without 
having some vigilant adding an extra additional post to every troll 
post.  At home, you have been KF'ed as a troll yourself for your 
auto-replies.  Rather ironic, I think.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

aigle_de_la_route wrote:
>
> I guarantee that accidents due to mobile phone use would all but 
> _vanish_ within twelve months.

What proportion of "accidents" which occur whilst a mobile phone is in 
use by an involved driver do you think are /caused/ by the use of the 
phone, rather than merely /correlate/ with it?

-- 
Matt B

In article ,
 Matt B  wrote:

> aigle_de_la_route wrote:
> >
> > I guarantee that accidents due to mobile phone use would all but 
> > _vanish_ within twelve months.
> 
> What proportion of "accidents" which occur whilst a mobile phone is in 
> use by an involved driver do you think are /caused/ by the use of the 
> phone, rather than merely /correlate/ with it?

<fx: waves hand dismissively>

Don't bog me down with details...  :-P

-- 
aigle_de_la_route
Surly Long Haul Trucker
http://2x2wheels.org/

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:50:22 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:

> _ said the following on 30/09/2008 13:13:
> 
>> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?
> 
> Do you mean that you are deliberately propagating threads or posts by 
> trolls by always feeding them with an auto-reply?

No:

a) my "Don't feed the Troll" reply only occures once per thread, and only
if the Troll starts the thread; and

b) to avoid seeing it filter by subject.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:50:22 +0100, Paul Boyd 
wrote:

>_ said the following on 30/09/2008 13:13:
>
>> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?
>
>Do you mean that you are deliberately propagating threads or posts by 
>trolls by always feeding them with an auto-reply?
>
>We are quite capable of blocking those who we see fit ourselves, without 
>having some vigilant adding an extra additional post to every troll 
>post.  At home, you have been KF'ed as a troll yourself for your 
>auto-replies.  Rather ironic, I think.


What a truly sensible post.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:12:24 GMT, _
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:50:22 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:
>
>> _ said the following on 30/09/2008 13:13:
>> 
>>> Should I add him to the "Don't feed the Troll" auto-reply list?
>> 
>> Do you mean that you are deliberately propagating threads or posts by 
>> trolls by always feeding them with an auto-reply?
>
>No:
>
>a) my "Don't feed the Troll" reply only occures once per thread, and only
>if the Troll starts the thread; and
>
>b) to avoid seeing it filter by subject.


When were you elected to carry out this function?

You really are pathetic - do you not think that anyone  - if they
wanted to - could start a thread using a false name?

Is that what you want?

 
--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:11:25 +0200, aigle_de_la_route
 said in
:

><fx: waves hand dismissively>

Try waving it at the killfile, MattB is a troll of long and
inglorious history.

Looks like he was trying to claim that using a mobile on the road -
which has been found to impair your driving as much as being over
the alcohol limit - is somehow not a /cause/ of collisions.  In the
same way that driving like a fuckwit is not a /cause/ of them, only
correlated, presumably.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:15:12 +0100, Daniel Barlow 
said in <87y7198van.fsf@toy.config>:

>All the places I've heard it described as a success have been
>intersections, not streets.

Kensington High Street.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  writes:

>>All the places I've heard it described as a success have been
>>intersections, not streets.
>
> Kensington High Street.

Really?  Which bits?  The part I know (bottom of Kensington Church St
and maybe haf a mile either side) has two lanes in each direction and
is used by fast buses and taxis which are certainly *not* giving way
to anyone who wants to cross the road


-dan

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:44:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:15:12 +0100, Daniel Barlow 
>said in <87y7198van.fsf@toy.config>:
>
>>All the places I've heard it described as a success have been
>>intersections, not streets.
>
>Kensington High Street.
>
>Guy

Is that were you raced your  work colleague to the office?



--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On 30 Sep, 17:42, aigle_de_la_route
 wrote:
> In article ,
>  Tom Anderson  wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
> > >> buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
> > >> significant speed.
>
> > > I disagree: even in London, motorised transport has an important role to
> > > play - certainly for deliveries, but some personal transport as well.
>
> > What sort of 'some personal transport' were you thinking of?
>
> > Deliveries, and working transport for people like plumbers and others who
> > need heavy equipment for their job, are the big holes in this idea, i
> > admit. If i could think of a way to handle those needs without motor
> > vehicles, i think we'd have a winner. The compromise position would be to
> > restrict and regulate: only allow such vehicles where there was an genuine
> > need (with a framework for evaluating this and then enforcing it -
> > although god alone knows how you'd manage that), and require that the
> > vehicles used meet certain standards for maximum size, maximum blind
> > spots, etc.
>
> Another big step for safety would be to require each new car to be
> fitted with a mobile phone 'detector' directed at the driver.  If at any
> time a call was made from or received (and answered) by the driver's
> mobile terminal whilst the vehicle was moving, the call would be logged.
> The driver would have one calendar month to justify his use of the
> telephone.  Valid 'excuses' would be say, a medical emergency, or the
> driver (or someone else) being a victim of road rage, or whatever.
>
> Failure to justify the call within one month, would involve automatic
> revocation of the driving licence for five years.  Refusal (as distinct
> from 'inability') to justify the call, or repeat offenders, would be
> jailed for two years.  No appeals, no whingeing that 'it was my
> daughter's birthday!', no moaning about 'losing my job' due to a ban.
> Maybe I'm a selfsh cunt, but my life is worth more than any fucker's
> job.
>
> I guarantee that accidents due to mobile phone use would all but
> _vanish_ within twelve months.
>

While we're into wiring, how much of the £38 billion would be used up
by fitting cars with the kit to automatically park themselves as soon
as a mobile phone was used by the driver?
Or how about fitting all cars with speed controllers to limit them to
20mph maximum in town, and wiring the urban roads to control them
automatically? Too expensive, I suppose. Might save a bit on car
theft. Police cyclists could deal with the chase. (Another saving).

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:11:25 +0200, aigle_de_la_route
>  said in
> :
> 
>> <fx: waves hand dismissively>
> 
> Try waving it at the killfile, MattB is a troll of long and
> inglorious history.

Using which definition of a troll?

> Looks like he was trying to claim that using a mobile on the road -
> which has been found to impair your driving as much as being over
> the alcohol limit - is somehow not a /cause/ of collisions.  

Ha ha.  Which part of the sentence "What proportion of "accidents" which 
occur whilst a mobile phone is in use by an involved driver do you think 
are /caused/ by the use of the phone, rather than merely /correlate/ 
with it?" leads you to that conclusion.

As you brought up the subject of drink-driving.  Did you know that 
police campaigns against "drink driving", in which they stop and 
breathalyse drivers randomly without an "accident" having occurred, tend 
to reveal the rather uncomfortable fact that the population of drivers 
over the blood-alcohol limit are actually under represented in the 
blood-alcohol level statistics collected following accidents.

-- 
Matt B

In article ,
 "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:11:25 +0200, aigle_de_la_route
>  said in
> :
> 
> ><fx: waves hand dismissively>
> 
> Try waving it at the killfile, MattB is a troll of long and
> inglorious history.

I'll have to read more closely the various posters' names, then.  


-- 
aigle_de_la_route
Surly Long Haul Trucker
http://2x2wheels.org/

Daniel Barlow  wrote:

> Tom Anderson  writes:
> 
> > I'm pretty dubious about it myself, but perhaps mostly through ignorance.
> 
> All the places I've heard it described as a success have been
> intersections, not streets.  For it to work along the length of a
> street I think it would need a "critical mass"(sic) of non-motorised
> traffic that the cars have to slow down for - otherwise, where are the
> sources of conflict that will cause them to negotiate?  You can't do
> it all with speed humps - some of the least cycle-friendly roads I
> have ever had the misfortune to use have been the ones with
> traffic-so-called-calming where the cars are so intent on getting the
> right approach to speed pillows or buildouts that they're oblivious to
> everything else.

In my experience, our speed humps and chicanes are rather too friendly
to foolish drivers (the sort who complain that the humps damage cars and
yet don't appear to realise that they could slow down and avoid the
damage). [1] We often have plastic bollards which appear to be designed
to cause minimal damage in the event of a collision.

Many such obstacles in Germany are, for example, whopping great big
trees or big heavy raised flower beds. These do a far better job, to my
mind, of signalling a need to slow down than a big '30' sign on an
otherwise unchanged road.

Another difference between our roads and those of Germany is that we
have rather more hedgerow in the countryside which has the effect of
making junctions less obvious.

Cheers,
Luke

[1] Having said that, my wife drives a Mini. The road clearance on that
is genuinely very low.

-- 
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:14:58 +0100
notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

> [1] Having said that, my wife drives a Mini. The road clearance on
> that is genuinely very low.
> 
It shouldn't be, but they have a tendency to sag with age.  Check the
knuckle joints are OK, and the trumpets haven't been cut down (a
popular mod in its time).  If they're OK you need to either replace the
cones to restore the original ride height, or fit some HiLos so you can
adjust it.

Rob Morley  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:14:58 +0100
> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
> 
> > [1] Having said that, my wife drives a Mini. The road clearance on
> > that is genuinely very low.
> > 
> It shouldn't be, but they have a tendency to sag with age.  Check the
> knuckle joints are OK, and the trumpets haven't been cut down (a
> popular mod in its time).  If they're OK you need to either replace the
> cones to restore the original ride height, or fit some HiLos so you can
> adjust it.

Oh. Thanks. SWMBO has been informed.

Cheers,
Luke


-- 
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Roger Merriman wrote:
>>  i don't think the
>> bike will ever be a massive player in transport but for short local
>> journeys walking can be, if you can give people a way to cross the trunk
>> routes with out feeling like your playing chicken more may well walk
>> than car,
>>
>> i think the car is here to stay in one form or another.
> 
> I would suggest you visit the NL.  Plenty of cars, plenty of
> pedestrians, plenty of folk who won't use a bike, but cycling /is/ a
> massive player in transport

...for certain low (and rather local) values of "massive".

The car is rather more "massive" in the Netherlands, as we all know.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:11:25 +0200, aigle_de_la_route
>  said in
> :
> 
>> <fx: waves hand dismissively>
> 
> Try waving it at the killfile, MattB is a troll of long and
> inglorious history.
> 
> Looks like he was trying to claim that using a mobile on the road -
> which has been found to impair your driving as much as being over
> the alcohol limit - is somehow not a /cause/ of collisions.  In the
> same way that driving like a fuckwit is not a /cause/ of them, only
> correlated, presumably.

You *do* know that it's not illegal, don't you?

>"Richard Fairhurst"  wrote

>Put at least some of that £38bn into building trains and buses that
>can actually carry cycles.

Aye, that's probably the best idea, along with better public transport 
generally.  Improving public transport would make more space on the road for 
bikes and more bike journeys practical.  It's a sensible integrated 
transport system including bikes that we really need, not white lines 
painted on the pavement.

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote
>>All the places I've heard it described as a success have been
>>intersections, not streets.
>
> Kensington High Street.

That must be a different Kensington High Street than the one I cycle down 
twice a day, which is a normal busy 4-lane road full of buses, taxis 
4x4-driving shoppers etc. (and lots of cyclists), with standard pelicon 
crossings and traffic-light junctions .

Tom Anderson  wrote:

>   This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
>   while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
> 
> ---910079544-1489723620-1222792076=:17022
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> 
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Roger Merriman wrote:
> 
> > Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> >> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> >> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
> >>
> >> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> >> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
> >
> > i'd vote for more for changing the roads so that it is possible to walk
> > from a to b with out being caged in by railings, etc. and dark 
> > underpasses (do these people have no imagination?) i don't think the
> > bike will ever be a massive player in transport but for short local
> > journeys walking can be,
> 
> So why wouldn't bikes be? A bike can do the same kind of trips that 
> walking can, but faster, and can do longer trips too - up to a few miles
> with no difficulty at all, even for 'normal' people. And since the 
> majority of all trips are of such a length
> 
they can but once you start picking things up it does become a effort
and people tend to go for the easiest.

> > if you can give people a way to cross the trunk routes with out feeling
> > like your playing chicken more may well walk than car,
> >
> > i think the car is here to stay in one form or another.
> 
> Yes. But, like horses before it, that doesn't mean it belongs in urban
> areas.
> 
the car is such a atractive way of travelling, and certinaly rather
tangled cities like london, with public transport set up like it is, a
car remains a useful choice.

> tom

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Tom Anderson  wrote:

>   This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
>   while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
> 
> ---910079544-1535247755-1222791953=:17022
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> 
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Roger Merriman wrote:
> 
> > james.annan@gmail.com  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 30, 7:21 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 30, 5:12 am, Tom Crispin
> >>>> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> >>>>> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> >>>>> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) 20mph limit as standard in all urban areas
> >>>
> >>> Except London inside (and including) the inner ring road.
> >>>
> >>> Because driving should be banned altogether there, of course. Well, except
> >>> buses, and you really don't have to worry about those getting up to any
> >>> significant speed.
> >
> > certinaly london, and i'm using inside M25 for this. is a sod if you
> > wish to travel outer to outer, via public transport. a car can easly be
> > faster even if it spends a lot of time sitting in traffic.
> 
> Absolutely. I wouldn't suggest suppressing outer-outer trips by car unless
> we had a vastly better public transport system. It does make the outer
> suburbs rather cycle-unfriendly (i rode from Finsbury Park to North 
> Finchley via Wood Green not long a go - and hope to never do so again!),
> but there's not really a practical alternative at the moment.
> 
i live nr Bushy park and close by there is richmound park plus the
thames path, so sometimes it can be very cycle friendly. few miles away
though and it's all urban clear ways etc....

> That's why i suggested closing the inner ring road (the boundary of the
> central congestion charging zone), and not the North/South Circular or the
> M25. Those roads would still exist to facilitate outer-outer and 
> cross-London journeys. The inner ring only helps if you're making a 
> journey with one end in an inner suburb, and those are journeys that *can*
> be made easily by public transport, and so should be.
> 
might well be option though still leaves the outer parts still only
looking centraly.

> > so a public transport system that could cope with people doing more than
> > going into central would be fairly high on my wish list, after all who
> > wants to sit in a traffic jam?
> 
> Absolutely. Let me know if you come up with anything!
> 
heh.

> tom

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Tom Crispin wrote:
> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
> 
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?

1) a lot of Sheffield stands in suitable locations with CCTV, preferably 
some covered.
2) a lot of paint striper.
3) removal of VAT (or adding subsidies) on bike spares, e.g. tyres, 
brake blocks, cables etc.
4) Free maintenance centres for bikes.
5) Plenty of public education programmes (for cyclists and non-cyclists).
6) More cycle training.
7) A lot of petrol, and a very big box of matches.

3 and 4, would encourage those who have a bike that needs repairing, to 
carry on cycling. It would also be a help to those who cycle a lot, 
without wasting money on new bikes for those that will never use them.

5 would include not cycling on the footpath, keeping a sensible distance 
from lorries and parked cars etc, and to educate motorists on cyclists 
needs.

Quoting  _  :
>a) my "Don't feed the Troll" reply only occures once per thread, and only
>if the Troll starts the thread; and

Note that a series of substantively identical posts is cancellable spam.
Knock it off.
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Today is First Chedday, September - a public holiday.

On 01 Oct 2008 14:57:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Quoting  _  :
>>a) my "Don't feed the Troll" reply only occures once per thread, and only
>>if the Troll starts the thread; and
>
>Note that a series of substantively identical posts is cancellable spam.
>Knock it off.

I don't think he is that bright.
He has set himself the objective of destroying the group - he is well
on the way.




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On 1 Oct, 09:42, "POHB"  wrote:

> Aye, that's probably the best idea, along with better public transport
> generally.  Improving public transport would make more space on the road for
> bikes and more bike journeys practical.  It's a sensible integrated
> transport system including bikes that we really need, not white lines
> painted on the pavement.

Exactly.

--
Dave...

Bod43@hotmail.co.uk schrieb:
[38b £]
> Every man, woman and child in the country could get
> several new bikes.
> 

Several? Maybe exactly one.

On 01/10/2008 19:44, Jens Müller said,

> Several? Maybe exactly one.

UK.rec.cycling.  Population of UK is approx 60 million.  £38bn divided 
by 60m people gives £633 each.

OK then, half a bike each :-)

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:12:22 +0100,
    Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> The cost of the Government's bail out of failed building societies
> that thought they were banks is £38bn.
>
> How would a £38bn investment in cycling in Britain change the choices
> we make, and how could such an investment be made most effectively?
It doesn't need 38bn - in fact, spending such a large amount would just
be a gravy train for "consultants" and wouldn't get anything useful done
at all.

I've just returned from Paris. It's been a number of years since I was
last there and it's changed incredibly. Velib bike hire (free for 30
mins) on nearly every street. Wide pavements without a bike lane
anywhere (I saw exactly one bike specific lane and that was a contraflow
along an otherwise one way street). Very wide bus and cycle lanes.
Pedestrian crossings on every single junction - and you get a green man
during the time that cars going in the same direction do. Longer streets
get crossings along their length as well. Cars rarely doing more than
20mph. Walking back from the station this evening, my road has parked
cars down both sides, much like most of the roads in Paris. But while in
Paris the cars will be doing 20mph or less - after all, there's always
the risk that a pedestrian will step out somewhere along the way - along
my road they're doing 30mph+.

So spend the money on schemes like that.

Tim.


-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/    http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Quoting  Paul Boyd  :
>On 01/10/2008 19:44, Jens Müller said,
>>Several? Maybe exactly one.
>UK.rec.cycling.  Population of UK is approx 60 million.  £38bn divided 
>by 60m people gives £633 each.

Perhaps not all those 60m people can ride a bicycle - I don't mean
"won't", but some of them are tiny babies, very elderly, blind, etc.
-- 
David Damerell  flcl?
Today is First Stilday, September - a weekend.

On 02 Oct 2008 17:35:45 퍝 (BST)
David Damerell  wrote:

> Quoting  Paul Boyd  :
> >On 01/10/2008 19:44, Jens Müller said,
> >>Several? Maybe exactly one.
> >UK.rec.cycling.  Population of UK is approx 60 million.  £38bn
> >divided by 60m people gives £633 each.
> 
> Perhaps not all those 60m people can ride a bicycle - I don't mean
> "won't", but some of them are tiny babies, very elderly, blind, etc.

They get their own tandems in case someone comes along who wants to
take them for a ride.  :-)

"Tim Woodall"  a écrit:

> I've just returned from Paris. It's been a number of years since
> I was last there and it's changed incredibly. Velib bike hire (free
> for 30 mins) on nearly every street. Wide pavements without a
> bike lane anywhere (I saw exactly one bike specific lane and
> that was a contraflow along an otherwise one way street).

I like Paris as a cycling city, but it's far from perfect. Bike lanes are 
actually fairly common, both on (e.g. boulevard Magenta) and off pavement. 
Some are useful, many are not, but the crucial difference from the UK 
situation is than many lanes (those marked with a circular blue panel) are 
compulsory. There are places where these lanes change from one side of the 
carriageway to the other, and to stay within the law cyclists are supposed 
to cross from one side to the other. There are others, such as the one along 
the Tuileries end of the rue de Rivoli where a narrow compulsory lane runs 
between what is effectively a busy taxi rank and a row of hotels with 
porters, drivers, guests, trolleys and luggage milling to and fro.

James Thomson