On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:37:52 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>"John B"  wrote in message 
>news:248a4c4e-729b-4cf8-908d-8130fc9459b6@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 1 Jul, 22:58, "Stephen"  wrote:
>>> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:u92l64lu3gv6isl9iigdd2m3g0gsj178q9@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:28:20 +0100, "Stephen" 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in 
>>> >>message
>>> >>news:1ijdij0.1z0j5xj8l0t79N%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>>> >>> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> > So you are admitting to breaking the law by cycling on the 
>>> >>>> > pavement
>>> >>>> > as
>>> >>>> > its
>>> >>>> > irrespective of whether or not there's any pedestrians on it.
>>>
>>> >>>> Determined to get me 'banged up', aren't you? I presume you
>>> >>>> never break any laws - in which case I am unable to argue
>>> >>>> with you.
>>>
>>> >>> I'd argue that more of a crackdown on cyclists on pavements is
>>> >>> necessary, not least because then the poor provision for cyclists on 
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> roads might stand a chance of being addressed. However, while you may
>>> >>> not cycle on pavements when there are pedestrians around, I encounter
>>> >>> cyclists on the pavement in the centre of Manchester all the time, 
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> it's extremely antisocial. Personally, I'd get rid of the cars (or at
>>> >>> least ban them from half of the streets) and let the cyclists take 
>>> >>> over
>>> >>> the roads. Imagine the sight of Oxford Road being turned into a cycle
>>> >>> lane! :)
>>>
>>> >>I'm all for letting the cyclists take over the roads if they're also
>>> >>willing
>>> >>to pay for them as well. Somehow don't think that they'll like that 
>>> >>idea.
>>>
>>> > Bearing in mind that **** tax diminishes with vehicle size and that
>>> > e.g. electric vehicles have a nil rate, maybe cyclists would be on a
>>> > negative rate ?
>>>
>>> Well that was totally predictable. You want cars banished from places but
>>> still want the motorist to pay for the roads you'd then have exclusive 
>>> use
>>> of.
>>
>> Trucks damage road surfaces significantly; cars damage road surfaces a
>> bit; bikes damage road surfaces not at all. If you don't think it
>> makes sense to levy takes accordingly, you are weird.
>>
>Granted that the tax levied should be in accordance with the size. But if 
>its exclusively for bikes as is being suggested there won't be any motor 
>vehicles on it at all. So will the cyclists be willing to pay for their 
>exclusive use of a road is what the question was?
>Before you answer to say cycles don't do much damage the frost and other 
>weather does plus you need to keep it clear of weeds as this also does 
>damage. So I ask again will cyclists be prepared to pay towards the upkeep 
>of their exclusive road? 
>
One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
the rest of the carriageway.

Why was it, that back in the 1960s, when car ownership was way less and the
working man's transportation was a push bike or the bus or train or a
combination of all of them all, 99.9% of all cyclists obeyed the rules of
the road?

You never saw cyclists riding on the pavement, you never saw cyclists
running red lights, you never saw cyclists riding the wrong way on one way
streets you never saw cyclists riding at night without lights, you never saw
cyclists riding against the flow of traffic, no matter if they were 8 or 80.



--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West

Charles Ellson  wrote:
>
>One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>the rest of the carriageway. 


I would love to know where this alleged piece of "Government policy"
is written down.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:49:09 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>Charles Ellson  wrote:
>>One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>>bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>>the rest of the carriageway. 
>
>I would love to know where this alleged piece of "Government policy"
>is written down.

I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
encourage people to ride bikes.

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

"Roger T."  wrote:
>
>Why was it, that back in the 1960s, when car ownership was way less and the
>working man's transportation was a push bike or the bus or train or a
>combination of all of them all, 99.9% of all cyclists obeyed the rules of
>the road?
>
>You never saw cyclists riding on the pavement, you never saw cyclists
>running red lights, you never saw cyclists riding the wrong way on one way
>streets you never saw cyclists riding at night without lights, you never saw
>cyclists riding against the flow of traffic, no matter if they were 8 or 80.


That's because cyclists were more law-abiding then, and more
considerate of other people.  Motorists were also more law-abiding and
considerate.  

In fact everyone was, whether they drove a car, or rode a bike, or
neither.  This is not just about the roads - the changes have affected
the whole of society.

As motorists have become less law-abiding, laws have been tightened
and expended to deter anti-social behaviour, as in other areas of
society (in other words, not just on the roads).  But cycling has not
been made subject to the law in anything like the same way.  

This has encouraged near-anarchy among a small but increasingly and
aggressively anti-social subset of cyclists.  They don't recognise any
of the rules of the road as applying to *them*.   I suppose that isn't
just "near-anarchy".  :-(

What is needed is to extend the law to cover cycling in the same way
as it covers drivers of motor vehicles.  Compulsory testing of
cyclists and their bikes, compulsory insurance and compulsory
licensing including the obligation to carry a clearly visible
registration number are desperately needed to bring cyclists within
the same legal framework as other road vehicle users and thereby
improve cyclists' behaviour.  

Without this framework, the current level of anarchy will only get
worse.

Rian van der Borgt <rvdborgt+@evonet.be> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:49:09 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>>Charles Ellson  wrote:
>>>One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>>>bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>>>the rest of the carriageway. 
>>
>>I would love to know where this alleged piece of "Government policy"
>>is written down.
>
>I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
>encourage people to ride bikes.


Yes, I was also sceptical.  That was until my local council published
figures showing a significant increase in cycling in the town
following completion of a high profile cycle lane project.

I am not in a position to question or verify the figures, so I have to
accept that the cycle lane project *has* encouraged more to take up
cycling.  Perhaps, like me, many people have been dissuaded from
walking because of the new hazards posed by the combined cycle/foot
paths, and some have taken up cycling?  

I'm just a cynic, though.  I have an excellent bicycle that I hardly
ever ride now, at least partly because of the aggressive anti-social
behaviour of other cyclists.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:58:33 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>Rian van der Borgt <rvdborgt+@evonet.be> wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:49:09 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>>>I would love to know where this alleged piece of "Government policy"
>>>is written down.
>>
>>I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
>>encourage people to ride bikes.
>
>Yes, I was also sceptical.  That was until my local council published
>figures showing a significant increase in cycling in the town
>following completion of a high profile cycle lane project.
>
>I am not in a position to question or verify the figures, so I have to
>accept that the cycle lane project *has* encouraged more to take up
>cycling.

But - you say it was high-profile. Did cycling increase because of a
combination of the cycle lane *and* a campaign to create a positive
image of cycling? In that case, you can't really separate the two and
you certainly can't say it's because of the cycle lane. Positive
campaigns alone also increase the number of cyclists.

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

Rian van der Borgt <rvdborgt+@evonet.be> wrote:
>
>But - you say it was high-profile. Did cycling increase because of a
>combination of the cycle lane *and* a campaign to create a positive
>image of cycling? In that case, you can't really separate the two and
>you certainly can't say it's because of the cycle lane. Positive
>campaigns alone also increase the number of cyclists.


You're right, there was a high profile campaign to encourage cycle use
which was timed with the completion of each phase of the network.
There was also a blaze of publicity when the project was completed,
and further publicity when it gained an award.

Given all that publicity, it is surprising that more people didn't
turn to cycling!  ;-)

"Roger T."  wrote in message 
news:9931073ed3371608406049603c2fc7e6@grapevine.islandnet.com...
> Why was it, that back in the 1960s, when car ownership was way less and 
> the
> working man's transportation was a push bike or the bus or train or a
> combination of all of them all, 99.9% of all cyclists obeyed the rules of
> the road?
>
> You never saw cyclists riding on the pavement, you never saw cyclists
> running red lights, you never saw cyclists riding the wrong way on one way
> streets you never saw cyclists riding at night without lights, you never 
> saw
> cyclists riding against the flow of traffic, no matter if they were 8 or 
> 80.
>
>
That's because in those days the Police used to take swift action on any 
cyclist who carried out those illegal acts. Now they don't seem to want to 
be bothered so the cyclists who break the law continue to do so and now 
think its the norm and their right.

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:e7ql6415gtqvprt04cmoov4ifdta06lovo@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:37:52 +0100, "Stephen" 
> wrote:
>
>>"John B"  wrote in message
>>news:248a4c4e-729b-4cf8-908d-8130fc9459b6@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 1 Jul, 22:58, "Stephen"  wrote:
>>>> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:u92l64lu3gv6isl9iigdd2m3g0gsj178q9@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:28:20 +0100, "Stephen" 
>>>> > 
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in
>>>> >>message
>>>> >>news:1ijdij0.1z0j5xj8l0t79N%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>> >>> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>> > So you are admitting to breaking the law by cycling on the
>>>> >>>> > pavement
>>>> >>>> > as
>>>> >>>> > its
>>>> >>>> > irrespective of whether or not there's any pedestrians on it.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> Determined to get me 'banged up', aren't you? I presume you
>>>> >>>> never break any laws - in which case I am unable to argue
>>>> >>>> with you.
>>>>
>>>> >>> I'd argue that more of a crackdown on cyclists on pavements is
>>>> >>> necessary, not least because then the poor provision for cyclists 
>>>> >>> on
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> roads might stand a chance of being addressed. However, while you 
>>>> >>> may
>>>> >>> not cycle on pavements when there are pedestrians around, I 
>>>> >>> encounter
>>>> >>> cyclists on the pavement in the centre of Manchester all the time,
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> it's extremely antisocial. Personally, I'd get rid of the cars (or 
>>>> >>> at
>>>> >>> least ban them from half of the streets) and let the cyclists take
>>>> >>> over
>>>> >>> the roads. Imagine the sight of Oxford Road being turned into a 
>>>> >>> cycle
>>>> >>> lane! :)
>>>>
>>>> >>I'm all for letting the cyclists take over the roads if they're also
>>>> >>willing
>>>> >>to pay for them as well. Somehow don't think that they'll like that
>>>> >>idea.
>>>>
>>>> > Bearing in mind that **** tax diminishes with vehicle size and that
>>>> > e.g. electric vehicles have a nil rate, maybe cyclists would be on a
>>>> > negative rate ?
>>>>
>>>> Well that was totally predictable. You want cars banished from places 
>>>> but
>>>> still want the motorist to pay for the roads you'd then have exclusive
>>>> use
>>>> of.
>>>
>>> Trucks damage road surfaces significantly; cars damage road surfaces a
>>> bit; bikes damage road surfaces not at all. If you don't think it
>>> makes sense to levy takes accordingly, you are weird.
>>>
>>Granted that the tax levied should be in accordance with the size. But if
>>its exclusively for bikes as is being suggested there won't be any motor
>>vehicles on it at all. So will the cyclists be willing to pay for their
>>exclusive use of a road is what the question was?
>>Before you answer to say cycles don't do much damage the frost and other
>>weather does plus you need to keep it clear of weeds as this also does
>>damage. So I ask again will cyclists be prepared to pay towards the upkeep
>>of their exclusive road?
>>
> One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
> bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
> the rest of the carriageway.

Well that's a new one to me. Never seen that reported before. Can you please 
point us all to the official Government site where this information is?

But still doesn't answer the question of who will fund roads if exclusively 
for cyclists? The weather often does more damage than cars so who will fund 
the repairs?

Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are 
unwilling to pay for them.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:e22n645vrql6a4j7gmoailj11suusk5u3i@4ax.com...
> Rian van der Borgt <rvdborgt+@evonet.be> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:49:09 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>>>Charles Ellson  wrote:
>>>>One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>>>>bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>>>>the rest of the carriageway.
>>>
>>>I would love to know where this alleged piece of "Government policy"
>>>is written down.
>>
>>I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
>>encourage people to ride bikes.
>
>
> Yes, I was also sceptical.  That was until my local council published
> figures showing a significant increase in cycling in the town
> following completion of a high profile cycle lane project.
>
> I am not in a position to question or verify the figures, so I have to
> accept that the cycle lane project *has* encouraged more to take up
> cycling.  Perhaps, like me, many people have been dissuaded from
> walking because of the new hazards posed by the combined cycle/foot
> paths, and some have taken up cycling?
>
> I'm just a cynic, though.  I have an excellent bicycle that I hardly
> ever ride now, at least partly because of the aggressive anti-social
> behaviour of other cyclists.
>

Remember this;

There are lies, damned lies and statistics!!

Very true!

"Stephen"  wrote:

>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:e22n645vrql6a4j7gmoailj11suusk5u3i@4ax.com...
>> Rian van der Borgt <rvdborgt+@evonet.be> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:49:09 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>>>>Charles Ellson  wrote:
>>>>>One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>>>>>bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>>>>>the rest of the carriageway.
>>>>
>>>>I would love to know where this alleged piece of "Government policy"
>>>>is written down.
>>>
>>>I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
>>>encourage people to ride bikes.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I was also sceptical.  That was until my local council published
>> figures showing a significant increase in cycling in the town
>> following completion of a high profile cycle lane project.
>>
>> I am not in a position to question or verify the figures, so I have to
>> accept that the cycle lane project *has* encouraged more to take up
>> cycling.  Perhaps, like me, many people have been dissuaded from
>> walking because of the new hazards posed by the combined cycle/foot
>> paths, and some have taken up cycling?
>>
>> I'm just a cynic, though.  I have an excellent bicycle that I hardly
>> ever ride now, at least partly because of the aggressive anti-social
>> behaviour of other cyclists.
>>
>
>Remember this;
>
>There are lies, damned lies and statistics!!


Having worked with statistics for most of my professional career, I
would point out that, without good statistics, all you have is lies.

It is worth making an effort to understand statistics, in particular
their inaccuracies and limitations.  But without good statistics, we
might as well give up.

"Stephen"  wrote:
>
>Well that's a new one to me. Never seen that reported before. Can you please 
>point us all to the official Government site where this information is?


Oi!  I copyrighted that question earlier.  ;-)

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:0rcn64p3kq89pussqmk7ued0g8garmbmrd@4ax.com...
> "Stephen"  wrote:
>>
>>Well that's a new one to me. Never seen that reported before. Can you 
>>please
>>point us all to the official Government site where this information is?
>
>
> Oi!  I copyrighted that question earlier.  ;-)
>
Yep I know but didn't read your post until I'd posted this.

However the more the merrier to get to see where the information is! (not?)!

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:14:48 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>news:e7ql6415gtqvprt04cmoov4ifdta06lovo@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:37:52 +0100, "Stephen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"John B"  wrote in message
>>>news:248a4c4e-729b-4cf8-908d-8130fc9459b6@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 1 Jul, 22:58, "Stephen"  wrote:
>>>>> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:u92l64lu3gv6isl9iigdd2m3g0gsj178q9@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:28:20 +0100, "Stephen" 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in
>>>>> >>message
>>>>> >>news:1ijdij0.1z0j5xj8l0t79N%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>>> >>> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>> > So you are admitting to breaking the law by cycling on the
>>>>> >>>> > pavement
>>>>> >>>> > as
>>>>> >>>> > its
>>>>> >>>> > irrespective of whether or not there's any pedestrians on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>> Determined to get me 'banged up', aren't you? I presume you
>>>>> >>>> never break any laws - in which case I am unable to argue
>>>>> >>>> with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> I'd argue that more of a crackdown on cyclists on pavements is
>>>>> >>> necessary, not least because then the poor provision for cyclists 
>>>>> >>> on
>>>>> >>> the
>>>>> >>> roads might stand a chance of being addressed. However, while you 
>>>>> >>> may
>>>>> >>> not cycle on pavements when there are pedestrians around, I 
>>>>> >>> encounter
>>>>> >>> cyclists on the pavement in the centre of Manchester all the time,
>>>>> >>> and
>>>>> >>> it's extremely antisocial. Personally, I'd get rid of the cars (or 
>>>>> >>> at
>>>>> >>> least ban them from half of the streets) and let the cyclists take
>>>>> >>> over
>>>>> >>> the roads. Imagine the sight of Oxford Road being turned into a 
>>>>> >>> cycle
>>>>> >>> lane! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> >>I'm all for letting the cyclists take over the roads if they're also
>>>>> >>willing
>>>>> >>to pay for them as well. Somehow don't think that they'll like that
>>>>> >>idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Bearing in mind that **** tax diminishes with vehicle size and that
>>>>> > e.g. electric vehicles have a nil rate, maybe cyclists would be on a
>>>>> > negative rate ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that was totally predictable. You want cars banished from places 
>>>>> but
>>>>> still want the motorist to pay for the roads you'd then have exclusive
>>>>> use
>>>>> of.
>>>>
>>>> Trucks damage road surfaces significantly; cars damage road surfaces a
>>>> bit; bikes damage road surfaces not at all. If you don't think it
>>>> makes sense to levy takes accordingly, you are weird.
>>>>
>>>Granted that the tax levied should be in accordance with the size. But if
>>>its exclusively for bikes as is being suggested there won't be any motor
>>>vehicles on it at all. So will the cyclists be willing to pay for their
>>>exclusive use of a road is what the question was?
>>>Before you answer to say cycles don't do much damage the frost and other
>>>weather does plus you need to keep it clear of weeds as this also does
>>>damage. So I ask again will cyclists be prepared to pay towards the upkeep
>>>of their exclusive road?
>>>
>> One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>> bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>> the rest of the carriageway.
>
>Well that's a new one to me. Never seen that reported before. Can you please 
>point us all to the official Government site where this information is?
>
You won't find it in so few words but it is one of the spin-offs
mentioned or implied by various local government sites (including
TfL).

>But still doesn't answer the question of who will fund roads if exclusively 
>for cyclists? The weather often does more damage than cars so who will fund 
>the repairs?
>
>Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are 
>unwilling to pay for them. 
>

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:3jjn64po2gvg373o4mqms9mto4pg328218@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:14:48 +0100, "Stephen" 
> wrote:
>
>>> One of the main points of cycle lanes is to encourage people to ride
>>> bikes instead of driving cars thus leaving less cars causing damage to
>>> the rest of the carriageway.
>>
>>Well that's a new one to me. Never seen that reported before. Can you 
>>please
>>point us all to the official Government site where this information is?
>>
> You won't find it in so few words but it is one of the spin-offs
> mentioned or implied by various local government sites (including
> TfL).
>

That's like a politicians answer as implied is not the same as having the 
information in an official government report. So still no answer. I'm sure 
it doesn't exist but let someone prove me wrong.

"collybs"  wrote in message 
news:5fbbbe66-8679-4280-aa7e-5f3ea5fcd771@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >If you had to visit a property
>>on that road you're not going to leave your vehicle clear of the cycle 
>>lane
>>as then it would be in the middle of the road.
>
> According to the highway code ( 
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm
> ) you should not if it has a solid line
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
> [Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]
>
Thanks for the confirmation that if the cycle lane hasn't a solid line 
(within the specified times) and there's no waiting restrictions then its 
not illegal to park if you have to visit, load, unload, etc., somewhere 
within the vicinity.

What strikes me with all this discussion is that a lot of cyclists, but it 
has to be said not all, do consider it to be acceptable for them to break 
the law by riding on pavements, going through red lights, not stopping at 
pedestrian crossings, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc.,etc., 
but they strongly protest if any motorist, in what they consider to be nasty 
vehicles, dares to so much impede their way even if legal.

But am I correct in thinking that vehicles (even though steam driven) were 
actually on the roads before bicycles? Even more so if you consider horse 
powered vehicles.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:12 +0100, Charles Ellson
 quoted:

>>Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are 
>>unwilling to pay for them. 

Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
but are unwilling to pay for them?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:db645475-cd2d-41df-b625-f1bbbc0ef079@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 3:58 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
> Rian van der Borgt  wrote:
>
>
>
> >But - you say it was high-profile. Did cycling increase because of a
> >combination of the cycle lane *and* a campaign to create a positive
> >image of cycling? In that case, you can't really separate the two and
> >you certainly can't say it's because of the cycle lane. Positive
> >campaigns alone also increase the number of cyclists.
>
> You're right, there was a high profile campaign to encourage cycle use
> which was timed with the completion of each phase of the network.
> There was also a blaze of publicity when the project was completed,
> and further publicity when it gained an award.
>
> Given all that publicity, it is surprising that more people didn't
> turn to cycling! ;-)

Maybe good cycle paths don't encourage people turn to cycling, but
just preserve those who cycle so that eventually there are more of
them.

Most cycle lanes in this country have tended to be places where the
authorities stored their broken glass, and they weren't maintained at
all.

But in London, the situation really has improved a lot in recent years.

So why don't you all get together and pay for the maintenance of these 
dedicated cycle ways? The motorist already has to in the amount of tax they 
pay of varying degrees dependant on the vehicle.

As I have said in an earlier posting in reply to someone who says the cycles 
don't wear out the roads, its the weather and weeds that do more damage. So 
if you want exclusive cycle ways get a means of funding to maintain them.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:486bf077.441237861@news.individual.net...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:12 +0100, Charles Ellson
>  quoted:
>
>>>Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are
>>>unwilling to pay for them.
>
> Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
> but are unwilling to pay for them?
>
But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths 
(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist. 
The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay for 
the exclusive cycle ways they want?

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths 
>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist. 
>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay for 
>the exclusive cycle ways they want? 

This is true, though you're perhaps forgetting that cycle paths, if
well-designed and thus if cyclists choose to use them, are of benefit
to the motorist as well, as the bicycles are then not in their way.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Roger T. wrote:
> Why was it, that back in the 1960s, when car ownership was way less and the
> working man's transportation was a push bike or the bus or train or a
> combination of all of them all, 99.9% of all cyclists obeyed the rules of
> the road?

The roads were much clearer of cars then, and there were a 
lot fewer traffic lights.

But mainly ...  there was a different outlook on life. 
People were actually afraid of the authorities. But you
can't turn back the clock.

Charlie

Rian van der Borgt wrote:

> 
> I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
> encourage people to ride bikes.
> 

They definitely encourage me. Is that real evidence?

Charlie

Stephen wrote:

> Everyone is a pedestrian

These car-mad days, don't be so sure!

Charlie

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:12 +0100, Charles Ellson
> quoted:
>
>>>Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are 
>>>unwilling to pay for them. 
>
>Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>but are unwilling to pay for them?


Strange how you appear to think you aren't a pedestrian.  ;-)

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>news:486bf077.441237861@news.individual.net...
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:12 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>  quoted:
>>
>>>>Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are
>>>>unwilling to pay for them.
>>
>> Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>> but are unwilling to pay for them?
>>
>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths 
>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist. 
>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay for 
>the exclusive cycle ways they want? 
>
Directly or indirectly, the vast majority of pedestrians pay council
tax.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:16:13 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>>Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>>but are unwilling to pay for them?
>
>Strange how you appear to think you aren't a pedestrian.  ;-)

The point was that there isn't a specific pedestrian tax, just general
taxation, which is also what funds the use of roads for cyclists.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:33:40 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
>wrote:
>>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths 
>>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist. 
>>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay for 
>>the exclusive cycle ways they want? 
>
>This is true, though you're perhaps forgetting that cycle paths, if
>well-designed and thus if cyclists choose to use them, are of benefit
>to the motorist as well, as the bicycles are then not in their way.

I fail to understand how cycle paths can be a benefit to anyone when
they cause far more accidents than they avoid.

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:21:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> So why don't you all get together and pay for the maintenance of these 
> dedicated cycle ways? The motorist already has to in the amount of tax they 
> pay of varying degrees dependant on the vehicle.
>
> As I have said in an earlier posting in reply to someone who says the cycles 
> don't wear out the roads, its the weather and weeds that do more damage. So 
> if you want exclusive cycle ways get a means of funding to maintain them. 

Properly informed cyclists don't want cycle paths. You can take a look
at for example <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html> to get
an idea why.

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:56:42 +0100, Charlie Hulme wrote:
>Rian van der Borgt wrote:
>>I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
>>encourage people to ride bikes.
>
>They definitely encourage me. Is that real evidence?

If you want to draw conclusions from a sample with N=1 ...

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

Rian van der Borgt wrote:

> 
> Properly informed cyclists don't want cycle paths. You can take a look
> at for example <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html> to get
> an idea why.
> 

Safety is not the only issue though. It is more pleasant to 
cycle without cars and juggernaut trucks roaring past you
a metre away belching out their foul fumes.

Charlie

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:31:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:
>On Jul 3, 9:03 am, Rian van der Borgt  wrote:
>>Properly informed cyclists don't want cycle paths. You can take a look
>>at for example <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html> to get
>>an idea why.
>
>This is about separate cycle paths, which I am not generally in favour
>of*, but most of this discussion has been about cycle lanes in
>appropriate places in the road, which can be helpful.
>
>My general preference is for real roads to be made safe for cycling,
>with appropriate use of lanes and green boxes at junctions, rather
>than for cyclists to be exiled to slow, crappy paths.

I'd still like to see any evidence, though, to support that cycle lanes
will improve safety for cyclists. I don't know any, but any references
would be welcome.

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:fb2af066-1bad-432a-8c1a-f1aa42c3dc2b@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 9:03 am, Rian van der Borgt  wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:21:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Properly informed cyclists don't want cycle paths. You can take a look
> at for example <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html> to get
> an idea why.

This is about separate cycle paths, which I am not generally in favour
of*, but most of this discussion has been about cycle lanes in
appropriate places in the road, which can be helpful.

My general preference is for real roads to be made safe for cycling,
with appropriate use of lanes and green boxes at junctions, rather
than for cyclists to be exiled to slow, crappy paths.


*Not least bcause they generally have a crappy surface and are covered
with broken glass.

====

As long as the surface is good and there are few side turnings, I much 
prefer cycling on a totally separate track, mainly because of the greater 
separation between me and the fast-moving traffic. Keeping a bike that is 
travelling at 15-20 mph segregated from cars, lorries and buses travelling 
at up to 60 mph seems a good idea. Lorries and buses can create considerable 
side wind as they pass at that speed, even if they give you plenty of 
clearance.

Unfortunately many cycle tracks have problems: they are often too narrow to 
allow one bike to overtake another or for two bikes to pass in opposite 
directions without both bikes having to move very close to the verge and/or 
to slow down. Side turnings can be a pain, not least because the dropped 
kerb to cross the side road is often placed a considerable distance from the 
road that you were cycling parallel with, so you have to slow down 
considerably to negotiate the tight turns, even if you've checked both ways 
to make sure there are no cars and therefore that it will be safe to cross 
at full speed.

I loathe the use of green cycle lanes close to junctions: they encourage 
cyclists to do exactly what they should be banned from doing, namely 
overtaking left-turning cars on the left. A vehicle that is turning left 
should be positioned as close to the kerb as possible, not six feet away 
with a lane of cyclists on the left who expect you to wait for them even 
though your are indicating and are in front of them (whatever happened about 
obeying the HC rule about never overtaking a vehicle that is indicating to 
turn on the side that you are about to pass them?).

Mortimer wrote:

> I loathe the use of green cycle lanes close to junctions: they encourage 
> cyclists to do exactly what they should be banned from doing, namely 
> overtaking left-turning cars on the left. A vehicle that is turning left 
> should be positioned as close to the kerb as possible, not six feet away 
> with a lane of cyclists on the left who expect you to wait for them even 
> though your are indicating and are in front of them (whatever happened about 
> obeying the HC rule about never overtaking a vehicle that is indicating to 
> turn on the side that you are about to pass them?). 
> 

The idea is to be able to reach the advanced stop area while 
traffic is stopped, not that the lane should be used while
vehicles are moving. As such, they are quite useful. 
Misused, they can, like many things in life, be dangerous.

Charlie

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:486c66a7.471494176@news.individual.net...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:16:13 +0100, Tony Polson
>  wrote:
>
>>>Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>>>but are unwilling to pay for them?
>>
>>Strange how you appear to think you aren't a pedestrian.  ;-)
>
> The point was that there isn't a specific pedestrian tax, just general
> taxation, which is also what funds the use of roads for cyclists.
>
So why should we all have to pay for the ones who choose to have a bicycle? 
Its one thing paying for the paths the pedestrians use through Council Tax, 
as we're all pedestrians, but why have to also pay for the cyclists when its 
their choice? Its my choice to have a car and like everyone else with a car 
I then have to pay more taxes to allow me to use it on the roads. That's my 
choice so if someone chooses to use a bicycles why shouldn't they pay for 
using it on the cycle paths or even provision of the cycle lanes?

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:uh3o649e07s44s3cjrd5r5s66o5o1eu1n6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
> wrote:
>
>>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
>>news:486bf077.441237861@news.individual.net...
>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:12 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>  quoted:
>>>
>>>>>Strange the cyclists promote and demand these exclusive roads but are
>>>>>unwilling to pay for them.
>>>
>>> Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>>> but are unwilling to pay for them?
>>>
>>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths
>>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist.
>>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay 
>>for
>>the exclusive cycle ways they want?
>>
> Directly or indirectly, the vast majority of pedestrians pay council
> tax.

Exactly!
So pedestrians are paying for the paths they use through the council tax.
To use a vehicle is a choice people make so pay for this through taxes to 
use the vehicle on the road.
Equally to use a cycle is also a choice but they seem to suggest here that 
everyone else should pay for them especially what they consider to be nasty 
motorists. Bring in a bicycle tax to pay for the lanes and paths they use 
and demand (although a few don't want these before anyone shouts!).

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:486bf414.442163508@news.individual.net...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
> wrote:
>
>>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths
>>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist.
>>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay 
>>for
>>the exclusive cycle ways they want?
>
> This is true, though you're perhaps forgetting that cycle paths, if
> well-designed and thus if cyclists choose to use them, are of benefit
> to the motorist as well, as the bicycles are then not in their way.
>
So what you're saying is that the motorist should stump up yet more cash to 
fund the cycle paths? Its like blackmail saying we'll keep getting in your 
way until you give us the cycle paths. So why can't the money be raised from 
cyclists if they choose to use a bicycle and want their exclusive bit to 
cycle on?

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:GQSak.31137$AH5.6927@newsfe09.ams2...
> Rian van der Borgt wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd also like to see any real evidence that bike lanes (or paths)
>> encourage people to ride bikes.
>>
>
> They definitely encourage me. Is that real evidence?
>
Not really as its just one in a population of how many millions?

So to counter that, it hasn't encouraged me at all.

In fact I think that the money could be better spent in the provision of 
improving local bus services. After all more people use these than bicycles 
so put the money where it will benefit a greater number of people.

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:n1Tak.134765$8H5.107342@newsfe10.ams2...
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Everyone is a pedestrian
>
> These car-mad days, don't be so sure!
>
Oh but I am sure.

As soon as they get out of the car they become a pedestrian despite how few 
steps they take.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:96eabdaa-3c33-4aef-b812-4b5a42aedb82@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 10:16 pm, "Stephen"  wrote:
> "collybs"  wrote in message
>
> news:5fbbbe66-8679-4280-aa7e-5f3ea5fcd771@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > >If you had to visit a property
> >>on that road you're not going to leave your vehicle clear of the cycle
> >>lane
> >>as then it would be in the middle of the road.
>
> > According to the highway code (
> >http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm
> > ) you should not if it has a solid line
>
> > 140
> > Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> > drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> > times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> > broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> > cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
> > [Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]
>
> Thanks for the confirmation that if the cycle lane hasn't a solid line
> (within the specified times) and there's no waiting restrictions then its
> not illegal to park if you have to visit, load, unload, etc., somewhere
> within the vicinity.
>
> What strikes me with all this discussion is that a lot of cyclists, but it
> has to be said not all, do consider it to be acceptable for them to break
> the law by riding on pavements, going through red lights, not stopping at
> pedestrian crossings, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc.,etc.,
> but they strongly protest if any motorist, in what they consider to be 
> nasty
> vehicles, dares to so much impede their way even if legal.

I don't recall anyone in this discussion advocating breaking the law.

This was certainly the case by statements that it was okay to ride on the 
pavements when its clearly illegal to do so. It has also been stated by even 
cyclists here that there are cyclists who do break the law by riding on 
pavements, going through red lights, not stopping at pedestrian crossings, 
going the wrong way down one way streets, etc.,etc.
All of these actions of breaking the law are dangerous as they have the 
potential of creating a fatal incident.

Rian van der Borgt <rvdborgt+@evonet.be> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:21:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> So why don't you all get together and pay for the maintenance of these 
>> dedicated cycle ways? The motorist already has to in the amount of tax they 
>> pay of varying degrees dependant on the vehicle.
>>
>> As I have said in an earlier posting in reply to someone who says the cycles 
>> don't wear out the roads, its the weather and weeds that do more damage. So 
>> if you want exclusive cycle ways get a means of funding to maintain them. 
>
>Properly informed cyclists don't want cycle paths. You can take a look
>at for example <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html> to get
>an idea why.


I loved this phrase:

"Lack of user discipline a major problem and likely to be difficult to
correct."

"Stephen"  wrote:
>
>In fact I think that the money could be better spent in the provision of 
>improving local bus services. After all more people use these than bicycles 
>so put the money where it will benefit a greater number of people. 


Agree 100%.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
>wrote:
>
>>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths 
>>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a motorist. 
>>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay for 
>>the exclusive cycle ways they want? 
>
>This is true, though you're perhaps forgetting that cycle paths, if
>well-designed and thus if cyclists choose to use them, are of benefit
>to the motorist as well, as the bicycles are then not in their way.


Here in Aylesbury we have the worst of both worlds.  Lots of money has
been spent on new cycle paths, but many cyclists just ignore them and
continue to ride in the road.

Apparently the cycle paths have won an award.  Obviously the award was
not given by cyclists!

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:16:13 +0100, Tony Polson
> wrote:
>
>>>Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>>>but are unwilling to pay for them?
>>
>>Strange how you appear to think you aren't a pedestrian.  ;-)
>
>The point was that there isn't a specific pedestrian tax, just general
>taxation, which is also what funds the use of roads for cyclists.


We are all pedestrians.  We all contribute towards Council Tax, which
is where the budget for pavements and footpaths comes from.  You can
ask your council how much of your Council Tax goes to pay for this.  

The highways budget is treated separately and all councils get block
grant from central government which goes towards this.  Some money
from Council Tax is also used but this also goes towards facilities
for pedestrians such as pedestrian crossings and bridges.

Motorists have to pay to use the roads via the Motor Vehicle Licence.
It would only be fair if cyclists also paid to use the roads (and
cycle paths which motorists cannot use) via a Cycle Licence.

Tony Polson wrote:

> Motorists have to pay to use the roads via the Motor Vehicle Licence.
> It would only be fair if cyclists also paid to use the roads (and
> cycle paths which motorists cannot use) via a Cycle Licence.  

I'm tired of this now. It's not going to happen, however 
unfair and however much you would like to see it.

Charlie

Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>
>I'm tired of this now.


Then don't waste your time replying.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>> I'm tired of this now.
> 
> 
> Then don't waste your time replying.
> 

OK, I won't.

Charlie

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:vA5bk.76466$GF6.41790@newsfe27.ams2...
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>>> I'm tired of this now.
>>
>>
>> Then don't waste your time replying.
>>
>
> OK, I won't.
>
There goes a voice of defeat!

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:ldip6492m4grj9a4ks9mt4lfdm9s2dnr3r@4ax.com...
> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:29:45 +0100, "Stephen" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But a big difference. Everyone is a pedestrian or at least uses footpaths
>>>(including wheelchairs, etc.) but not everyone is a cyclist or a 
>>>motorist.
>>>The motorists are taxed so what about money coming from cyclists to pay 
>>>for
>>>the exclusive cycle ways they want?
>>
>>This is true, though you're perhaps forgetting that cycle paths, if
>>well-designed and thus if cyclists choose to use them, are of benefit
>>to the motorist as well, as the bicycles are then not in their way.
>
>
> Here in Aylesbury we have the worst of both worlds.  Lots of money has
> been spent on new cycle paths, but many cyclists just ignore them and
> continue to ride in the road.
>
> Apparently the cycle paths have won an award.  Obviously the award was
> not given by cyclists!
>
But if they used the cycle paths they'd have no reason to moan on their 
soapboxes about motorists or be able to hold them up.
How about cyclists have to pay a toll to use the roads towards them 
increasing emissions? What(!), I hear all the cyclists say, yes that's right 
you're increasing emissions. All the vehicles stuck behind a cyclist having 
to crawl in a low gear thus using up fuel when they could be in a high gear 
and getting considerable more miles out of the fuel if not being held up by 
cyclists.
Now who's going to bite first........

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:36:41 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:

>Safety is not the only issue though. It is more pleasant to 
>cycle without cars and juggernaut trucks roaring past you
>a metre away belching out their foul fumes.

Agreed.

It is true that paths are generally slower, but if riding on a quality
cycle track with priority over side streets etc as found on the
Netherlands, the journey is so much more pleasant due to the lack of
heavy traffic that I don't mind it taking slightly longer.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:23052c95-0b20-401b-8869-e64b59e1fda5@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 12:18 pm, "Stephen"  wrote:
> "MIG"  wrote in message
>
> news:96eabdaa-3c33-4aef-b812-4b5a42aedb82@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 10:16 pm, "Stephen"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "collybs"  wrote in message
>
> >news:5fbbbe66-8679-4280-aa7e-5f3ea5fcd771@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >If you had to visit a property
> > >>on that road you're not going to leave your vehicle clear of the cycle
> > >>lane
> > >>as then it would be in the middle of the road.
>
> > > According to the highway code (
> > >http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm
> > > ) you should not if it has a solid line
>
> > > 140
> > > Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> > > drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> > > times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> > > broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> > > cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
> > > [Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]
>
> > Thanks for the confirmation that if the cycle lane hasn't a solid line
> > (within the specified times) and there's no waiting restrictions then 
> > its
> > not illegal to park if you have to visit, load, unload, etc., somewhere
> > within the vicinity.
>
> > What strikes me with all this discussion is that a lot of cyclists, but 
> > it
> > has to be said not all, do consider it to be acceptable for them to 
> > break
> > the law by riding on pavements, going through red lights, not stopping 
> > at
> > pedestrian crossings, going the wrong way down one way streets, 
> > etc.,etc.,
> > but they strongly protest if any motorist, in what they consider to be
> > nasty
> > vehicles, dares to so much impede their way even if legal.
>
> I don't recall anyone in this discussion advocating breaking the law.
>
> This was certainly the case by statements that it was okay to ride on the
> pavements when its clearly illegal to do so. It has also been stated by 
> even
> cyclists here that there are cyclists who do break the law by riding on
> pavements, going through red lights, not stopping at pedestrian crossings,
> going the wrong way down one way streets, etc.,etc.
> All of these actions of breaking the law are dangerous as they have the
> potential of creating a fatal incident.- Hide quoted text -

No doubt in some medieval times, advocating changes to the law was
deemed to be breaking the law.

But until such times if, and a big IF, the law is changed then its still 
breaking the law. Full stop!!!!

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:48640b9b-c0cb-4ace-a2b3-b0ed28037398@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 5:06 pm, "Stephen"  wrote:
> "Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
>
> news:vA5bk.76466$GF6.41790@newsfe27.ams2...> Tony Polson wrote:
> >> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> >>> I'm tired of this now.
>
> >> Then don't waste your time replying.
>
> > OK, I won't.
>
> There goes a voice of defeat!

If you want to "win", you'll still have to explain how the payment of
taxes happens on a voluntary basis by people deciding that not only do
they owe something, but that they know who to pay it to when no one is
asking.

All this stuff about "why won't the cyclists pay ..." is just
nonsense.  If the relevant authorities set taxes, people pay them.  If
they don't, they don't.

It is mischievous to suggest that the non-payment of non-required
taxes implies some kind of refusal or demand for special treatment.

No no no. What I want to know is that if the cyclists are demanding their 
own cycle paths and lanes then why don't we find some way of them paying for 
these. But unfortunately you go to prove that some cyclists just want what 
they consider nasty motorists to pay for what they want. So why don't we 
devise a tax for cycles to pay for all the cycle paths and lanes they want? 
Don't you think that that'll be fair as pedestrians, which includes all of 
as, pay the council tax and anyone who opts to be a motorist has to pay the 
taxes to use the roads. So why don't you think that cyclists shouldn't 
contribute some form of tax if they wish to use their dedicated cycle paths 
and lanes?

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:21:21 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:36:41 +0100, Charlie Hulme
> wrote:
>>Safety is not the only issue though. It is more pleasant to 
>>cycle without cars and juggernaut trucks roaring past you
>>a metre away belching out their foul fumes.
>
> Agreed.
>
>It is true that paths are generally slower, but if riding on a quality
>cycle track with priority over side streets etc as found on the
>Netherlands, the journey is so much more pleasant due to the lack of
>heavy traffic that I don't mind it taking slightly longer.

Also if you take into account that your risk to have an accident is at
least 50% higher compared to riding on the normal carriageway?

Regards,

          Rian

-- 
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: rvdborgt+@evonet.be  www: http://www.evonet.be/~rvdborgt/

Rian van der Borgt wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:21:21 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:36:41 +0100, Charlie Hulme
>>  wrote:
>>> Safety is not the only issue though. It is more pleasant to 
>>> cycle without cars and juggernaut trucks roaring past you
>>> a metre away belching out their foul fumes.
>> Agreed.
>>
>> It is true that paths are generally slower, but if riding on a quality
>> cycle track with priority over side streets etc as found on the
>> Netherlands, the journey is so much more pleasant due to the lack of
>> heavy traffic that I don't mind it taking slightly longer.
> 
> Also if you take into account that your risk to have an accident is at
> least 50% higher compared to riding on the normal carriageway?

The statistics you have directed us to don't mean, in any 
sense at all, that *my* risk is 50% higher. I ride my bike 
with care.

Charlie

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:57:28 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:16:13 +0100, Tony Polson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Strange that pedestrians promote and demand these exclusive pavements
>>>>but are unwilling to pay for them?
>>>
>>>Strange how you appear to think you aren't a pedestrian.  ;-)
>>
>>The point was that there isn't a specific pedestrian tax, just general
>>taxation, which is also what funds the use of roads for cyclists.
>
>
>We are all pedestrians.  We all contribute towards Council Tax, which
>is where the budget for pavements and footpaths comes from.  You can
>ask your council how much of your Council Tax goes to pay for this.  
>
Pavements and footpaths are highways. AFAIAA the only separate
accounting is for footpaths and bridleways which are not associated
with carriageways.

>The highways budget is treated separately and all councils get block
>grant from central government which goes towards this.  Some money
>from Council Tax is also used but this also goes towards facilities
>for pedestrians such as pedestrian crossings and bridges.
>
>Motorists have to pay to use the roads via the Motor Vehicle Licence.
>It would only be fair if cyclists also paid to use the roads (and
>cycle paths which motorists cannot use) via a Cycle Licence.  
>
If such a tax was based on "the polluter/damager pays in proportion"
then a cycle tax would possibly cost more to administer than the
amount requiring to be collected.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:19:34 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:

>> Also if you take into account that your risk to have an accident is at
>> least 50% higher compared to riding on the normal carriageway?
>
>The statistics you have directed us to don't mean, in any 
>sense at all, that *my* risk is 50% higher. I ride my bike 
>with care.

The opinion has been ventured, and I probably agree with it, that the
reason why this statistic comes up is that more inexperienced cyclists
will choose to ride on the cycle path (or pavement) than the road,
thus leading to a natural increase in accident rates, however good the
path.

The Redways in MK are in some ways badly-designed (but they are
generally better there than not there, and I think most MK residents
would agree that), but I can't see how they are hugely more dangerous
than a 70mph dual-carriageway which is the alternative.  Dangerous or
not, though, they are vastly more pleasant than riding with cars and
lorries flying past at high speed, IMO.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.