As Easy As Riding A Bike
Well-Known Member
wrong - setting aside their current spasm on Blackfirars Bridge they've moved on (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/2012-mayoral-election
wrong - setting aside their current spasm on Blackfirars Bridge they've moved on (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)
wrong - setting aside their current spasm on Blackfirars Bridge they've moved on (except for the Camden lot, who are fruitcakes)
I'm not going to excuse your selective quotation. And I simply don't believe that separate lanes increase safety. And further I don't care. I just don't want them. And I'm happy to say we won't be getting them. So all is well.
And...........barbaric. Yes. I'll stick with that. Barbarism of a particularly delicate and suburban kind, but, nonetheless.......count the barriers between the front door on the left of the picture and the front door on the right of the picture. Are these people neighbours? Or are they simply receptacles in to which transport consultants pour their wisdom?
I think you answered your own question in your last paragraph.Outside some specific needs (such as providing permeability) widescale cycle lane provision shouldn't be required. Indeed, in my extensive travels around the Nordic region, I note that most town centres haven't got cycle provision, they have simply removed the car (or at least reduced the accessibility of the centre for them). Cycle provision falls out naturally from the space along with much improved pedestrian environment.
like the standard suburban street. I think the carriageway is 24 feet wide, but I might be out of date. Sufficient carriageway space for cars to park on both sides and for two cars to pass each other in opposite directions.In your own words then Dell - show me the drawing. What would your version of this street look like?
like the standard suburban street. I think the carriageway is 24 feet wide, but I might be out of date. Sufficient carriageway space for cars to park on both sides and for two cars to pass each other in opposite directions.
If there's a problem with rat-running, barrier at one end to make a home zone. Cheap and cheerful.
so - to take the examples provided by David Hembrow -
English street - fine and dandy (not keen on the islands)
Dutch street (despite being wider) - nasty
In your own words then Dell - show me the drawing. What would your version of this street look like? I know what this would look like in the UK with our planners - that cycle path would be converted to car use.
sorry. We do have some pedestrian build-outs from the footpath round here, and they are a bit of a menace to cyclists (although they're doubtless a boon to pedestrians) - but that's the first I've heard of islands being called 'pedestrian build-outs'.The top photo is the A19 into York, so like many approach roads into towns and cities will carry a 40mph limit.
The bottom one is on the outskirts of s-Hertogenbosch, again serving the same function but with a 50kph limit.
Red Light - what you've described is pretty much exactly what the Dutch would use for Woonerfs (a catchphrase that the IAM seem to have latched on to but misrepresented). CROW has lots of drawings on that.
Dell - You can't call them 'Islands' or 'Pinch Points' but latest CouncilSpeak is 'pedestrian build outs'. And I bet cycling into the centre of that Dutch town is less of a pain than driving.
sorry. We do have some pedestrian build-outs from the footpath round here, and they are a bit of a menace to cyclists (although they're doubtless a boon to pedestrians) - but that's the first I've heard of islands being called 'pedestrian build-outs'.
(runs screaming from room thinking, for some reason, of roundabouts and Logan's Run http://www.youtube.c...h?v=xSnLU9nyFSA )Hang on - aren't 'refuges' the 'traffic islands' and 'pedestrian build-outs' should thus be 'traffic peninsulas'?
Edit - and does that mean the British equivalent of 'jaywalkers' are 'refugees' ?