segregated cycling paths/routes

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

'Such traffic' quite clearly refers to the 'motorised vehicle' mentioned in the line above.

Once again you choose to pick apart how I've said something rather than offer an alternative to what I'm saying.

This is totally pointless, you don't seem to have any valid additions to give to the discussion and have totally ignored the questions I posited.

you are unbelievable

I have not picked apart anything in my posting a question for clarification. I start out by saying I did not understand what you were talking about. I identiified what it was I did not understand and asked you to explain what you meant by the particular phrase.

how is that picking apart what you posted?

Its called trying to unsderstand what is being posted, so I can respond appropriately to it without making wrong assumptions like you admit to doing.

simple_salmon

Sorry Spen; I'm no longer interested.

I've said what I believe to be the correct way forward and offered published evidence as to why I believe that.

No-one has offered any other published evidence to the contrary although I will be interested if they do since this is my job and I wish to do it properly.

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

It was fun whilst it lasted but that is now my lot.

MrChuck

simple_salmon wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

For me this one is an argument with valid points on both sides. II welcome away from road cycle facilities - I'm talking about paths that do not run alongside the road - often built on old railway lines or canal routes etc. I would be all in favour of campaigning for those kind of cycle paths.

It's where paths run alongside roads that I think there is a real danger that we would become obliged to use them. In fact did the Highway Code include advice that we should use cycle paths where provided or did the protests prevent that being included ? Now as we all know these paths are not going to be a real alternative to the road for most proficient riders. On the whole then I think Spen is right - an organisation that campaigned specifically for cycle lanes away from the road would be putting our right to use the road at risk. At the very least these lanes would narrow the road and as we've seen in Derby where they've squeezed bus lanes into existing roads - narrow lanes are not cyclist friendly.

+1
Those wishing for segregated lanes should be careful what they wish for. Aside from reinforcing the already far-too-prevalent view that we are second class citizens on the road, any segregated lane that is realistically ever going to be built is going to suck for any experienced and reasonably fit cyclist using their bikes as serious transport, and that's assuming even the right people are working on it- it's just not practical to do it otherwise.

As for evidence of segregated facilities not making life harder for riders on the roads, if it's from other countries then I'm not sure it's as simple as saying it worked in Sweden/Holland/Wherever so it'll work here- it's about attitude as much as infrastructure.

BTW Tom, I think the Highway Code wording was indeed amended in the end!

The evidence I offered was from the DfT and based on case studies from around the UK. So far no-one else has offered any published evidence that contradicts this view.

The argument I have been making (as a fit and experienced cyclist) is that if we wish OTHER types of people to take up cycling and leave their cars at home then we may have to provide them with some traffic-free routes IN ADDITION TO improving driver behaviour on the roads.

I'm interested in what the DfT might have to say so had a quick look back through this thread and the only DfT reference I've found is to this report:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/work/ngtravelplansworklessons5783.pdf

Is this the one you meant? I've skimmed through it and haven't seen anything addressing the issue of whether segregated facilities make cyclists less welcome on the roads.

As I said though, I skimmed it so might have missed it- can you point me in the right direction?

Porgy

simple_salmon wrote:

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

I don't think he ignored the question - his answer seemed to be that young people should not be cycling at all.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

I don't think he ignored the question - his answer seemed to be that young people should not be cycling at all.

Really?

Perhaps you could point out where I have said that?

If I have such a view, then perhaps you might like to explain why I am involved with probably the most successful children's cycling club in England, and have been from within a few weeks of its inception.

Or is this another attempt by you and or Salmon to invent things that those who disagree with you have said

So Where did I say children should not be cycling?

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Sorry Spen; I'm no longer interested.

I've said what I believe to be the correct way forward and offered published evidence as to why I believe that.

No-one has offered any other published evidence to the contrary although I will be interested if they do since this is my job and I wish to do it properly.

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

It was fun whilst it lasted but that is now my lot.

Its funny that you are not interested when its pointed out that YET again in this thread you are making false accusations against me and accusing me of things I have neither said or done.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

I don't think he ignored the question - his answer seemed to be that young people should not be cycling at all.

Really?

Perhaps you could point out where I have said that?

If I have such a view, then perhaps you might like to explain why I am involved with probably the most successful children's cycling club in England, and have been from within a few weeks of its inception.

Or is this another attempt by you and or Salmon to invent things that those who disagree with you have said

So Where did I say children should not be cycling?

[You may need to get shopping

However:
1. That does not mean your 3 year old needs to cycle to the shops - there are many potential possible alternatives including: -
a) home delivery shopping
b) walking to the shops
c) taking child in child seat/ trailer bike/ trailer etc
d) taking a taxi
e) arranging lift from friend/ neighbour

You CHOOSE that you want to take your child cycling. That is your choice and one you are entitled to make, but it is a CHOICE, not a need.

and when i asked you at what age do you think its ok for a child to start cycling you gave no answer. I took that as "never".

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Sorry Spen; I'm no longer interested.

I've said what I believe to be the correct way forward and offered published evidence as to why I believe that.

No-one has offered any other published evidence to the contrary although I will be interested if they do since this is my job and I wish to do it properly.

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

It was fun whilst it lasted but that is now my lot.

Its funny that you are not interested when its pointed out that YET again in this thread you are making false accusations against me and accusing me of things I have neither said or done.

he's not interested becasue of your nit-picking and pedantic style, with no substantial point of view being put forward by yourself.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Sorry Spen; I'm no longer interested.

I've said what I believe to be the correct way forward and offered published evidence as to why I believe that.

No-one has offered any other published evidence to the contrary although I will be interested if they do since this is my job and I wish to do it properly.

I've asked you several times what you think younger and less experienced cyclists should do when they want/need to get somewhere without using a car and you've ignored the question.

It was fun whilst it lasted but that is now my lot.

Its funny that you are not interested when its pointed out that YET again in this thread you are making false accusations against me and accusing me of things I have neither said or done.

he's not interested becasue of your nit-picking and pedantic style, with no substantial point of view being put forward by yourself.

Ahh yes - the nit picking in pointing out that both of you repeatedly falsely accuse those who disagree with you of saying things they haven't?

The nit picking that means I ask for something to be explained when I do not understand it rather than do as others do and make false assumptions on what others say

The nit picking that resulted in my from the outset making proposals to tackle the problems rather than treat the solutions. Those proposals that have been simply ignored

The nit picking that points out the way the proposed changes would actually make the sitruation worse for road users.

If that is nit picking, then I'm proud to be a nit picker

spen666

Porgy wrote:

...]

and when i asked you at what age do you think its ok for a child to start cycling you gave no answer. I took that as "never".

So another time when you make up answers and attribute them to me

You and Salmon are incredible- you both repeatedly admit to making up answers on here and attributing them to those who you disagree with.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

...]

and when i asked you at what age do you think its ok for a child to start cycling you gave no answer. I took that as "never".

So another time when you make up answers and attribute them to me

You and Salmon are incredible- you both repeatedly admit to making up answers on here and attributing them to those who you disagree with.

i thought it was you who decided they knew better what i had meant to say than I did myself.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

I'm proud to be a nit picker

excellent

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

...]

and when i asked you at what age do you think its ok for a child to start cycling you gave no answer. I took that as "never".

So another time when you make up answers and attribute them to me

You and Salmon are incredible- you both repeatedly admit to making up answers on here and attributing them to those who you disagree with.

i thought it was you who decided they knew better what i had meant to say than I did myself.

and again.....