honesty wrote:So you still want to mix the 6 year olds with the 20 tonne trucks then?
I asked you not to put words in my mouth.
honesty wrote:So you still want to mix the 6 year olds with the 20 tonne trucks then?
TonyR wrote:honesty wrote:So you still want to mix the 6 year olds with the 20 tonne trucks then?
I asked you not to put words in my mouth.
TonyR wrote:What's supposed to be a landmark major arterial route for cyclists in a city where cycling is becoming a dominant mode of transport has been designed at the recommended width for a low traffic cycle lane and in places to the minimum width (because otherwise it might slow car journeys). Of course its rubbish.
And your defence of it seems to be its not as bad rubbish as the worse rubbish we've been given. Actually it is worse. Its no wider but is expected to carry much higher flows which will have to all travel at the speed of the slowest cyclist because there is no overtaking room.
And please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say stuff the six year olds. I said control motor vehicles so that a six year old can cycle in Central London rather than build a rubbish facility that I doubt any six year old will use anyway. Its too narrow with cyclists going the other way and doesn't allow them to do anything other than cycle from one end to the other and back because there is nowhere else that is segregated to go on to
aspiringcyclist wrote:Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation.
aspiringcyclist wrote:I agree that the restricting to 3m is definitely not something we want and it seems to be pandering to unsubstantiated worries. Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation. I'm confused about your argument. Are you against cycling infrastructure or just bad cycling infrastructure?
honesty wrote:TonyR wrote:honesty wrote:So you still want to mix the 6 year olds with the 20 tonne trucks then?
I asked you not to put words in my mouth.
I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify your statement. Explain how "control traffic so that a six year old can cycle" is not having said 6 year old cycle in the same road as the 20 tonne truck?
aspiringcyclist wrote:Sorry the post was directed to TonyR. Another problem with Tavistock place and the superhighway are the unforgiving kerbs, decreasing the usable width.
aspiringcyclist wrote:I agree that the restricting to 3m is definitely not something we want and it seems to be pandering to unsubstantiated worries. Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this, it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation
TonyR wrote:honesty wrote:
I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify your statement. Explain how "control traffic so that a six year old can cycle" is not having said 6 year old cycle in the same road as the 20 tonne truck?
Well if you can't work that one out..........
or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.
The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.
The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.
mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.
or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.
The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.
Prove it.
The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.
Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.
There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.
fluffybunnyuk wrote:I think the design test for infrastructure should be would you let an 8 year old use it.