471–480 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is in the New Forest National Park. You can’t just go constructing massive structures because drivers are too lazy to read signs.
As the body count begins to rise we’ll see how much that really matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poland also loves stop signs. Actually, Poland just loves signs in general which is a problem: https://d-w24.ppstatic.pl/g2/6b/6f/65/116789_1258901612_33ec...
Well, one reason for that amount of signage is that there are multiple roads from the right and some of those signs only extend to the next junction. There's simply no way to have fewer of those signs. Same for the pedestrian crossings. Some of the signs are only relevant to pedestrians and cyclists, or motorists looking for a place to park, so it's not that bad.
- pedestrian/cyclists signs can be made on the pavement instead
- which lane goes where is repeated 3 times - if it's so that you know them when you join the road, 2 can be moved to the side roads instead
- one of the right of way signs can go
- no parking can be replaced with a chain / bolards
- the end of pedestrian/cyclist path is useless since it's reopened after the crossing
Poland puts the repeated signs after each and every tiny side road. Many countries don't do that. Instead they rely on more informative big signs over the intersections that can be visible from further away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? No. Why do you think this is relevant? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of your argument.
You are correct in pointing out that it doesn't have much to do with the rest of my argument. I posed it as a question because I think a lot of the opinions around this issue (like many or most issues) stem from emotions. In this case I think this argument comes from a sense of fairness: motorists have to pay tax / have insurance / pass a test; so why shouldn't cyclists? I think if you consider whether we would even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road? Others road users must have one. ---- It's a shame I'm getting downvoted, but the current state of affairs is that in cities like London bicycles, cars and trucks will be sharing the road for the near-mid future. I'd rather not have trucks or cars in the city, and ideally cyclists would have their own road separate from cars and pedestrians, but I think that'…
sad to see your comment down voted but there are laws that bicyclist have to obey and they should prove they know them. this would include showing they understand the protective gear requirements and how proper attire protects them. it isn't uncommon near some bike parks where I am for groups to block intersections which only serves to aggravate drivers. The are required in many areas to pass through intersections li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
waiting in a queue of traffic at a light or junction is very dangerous for a cyclist When I'm approaching traffic lights and there's a queue of traffic and no bike box, I stop my bike at the tail of the queue, in the middle of the lane - just like I would on my motorbike or in my car. I'm curious as to what you think the danger is in that situation?
A driver coming up behind you as you're starting to set off ( or immediately after you've fallen down) when the queue ahead of you is already moving. Somehow you tend to blend into the queue visually - the driver doesn't see you as separate from the vehicle in front of you, and doesn't realise you're still there when the vehicle starts moving (or does realise you're there, but rushes past you unsafely) - and the risk…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Some rural areas" is in reality almost every mile of road outside of towns. You've clearly never walked in the countryside.
> You've clearly never walked in the countryside. I've lived in the countryside for 14 years. I don't walk on the roads where I live. The roads are narrow and there is no place to walk as the side of the roads are raised embankments built from tree roots. Looks like this: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C41G6T/country-lane-with-trees-form...
The place to walk in that situation is on the road. As someone who has decades of experience as a pedestrian, that road looks eminently walkable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume drivers are also thinking of the fuel tax they pay, not solely the excise tax. The UK has some of the highest rates of fuel taxation in the world.
Which is something you pay, at least in abstract, for someone else to clean up the carbon dioxide you litter the atmosphere with. If you dpn't want to pay the cleaning fee, don't litter -- take the bike!
This chart suggests that it's the latter (substantially a road tax more than a carbon tax): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fuel-duty#rates
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can do 30-40 on the bicycle paths, and bicycle paths are not used by pedestrians.
You can if they are maintained. Most dedicated bike paths around me have ripples in the surface from tree roots and have never been resurfaced since they were built. Using a road bike with skinny tires on them is bone jarring at low speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most roads in the UK are perfectly well designed to handle bike traffic. But they are not designed for the massive quantity of vehicle traffic travelling at relatively high speed on roads originally designed for a different age. Danger to cyclists are a symptom of this wider problem which we have no real solution for. Also, this particular junction is terribly designed for cars and will result in collisions.
I disagree vehemently. While my experience on UK roads isn't that big, I have not seen any well designed bicycle road. Even the roads in the residential areas I've seen are quite bad; small, many cars parked on them (bad for visibility) and of considerable lacking quality. The bicycle roads in London are just lines painted on top of whatever surface the route encounters: curbs, manholes, poles in the middle of the ro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.
No, I don't think so? 1. Pedestrians move at much slower speeds than bicycles. If two pedestrians walk into each at 5mph the damage is much lower than if two cyclists collide at 30mph. 2. Since pedestrians move much slower than bicycles they can manoeuvre much faster. The stopping distance for a walking pedestrian is less than 1m, the stopping distance for a bycicle travelling at 30mph is much greater. 3. If two pede…
Did you know that in Sweden, the legal maximum speed of a electric bike is 15mph? Anything faster and it is classified as a moped and you need a driving license. Did you also know that the average speed of a bike in a city in the Netherlands is around 9mph? In context, a common running speed is 8mph.
So here is the stage. Two bikes are traveling more than 300% faster than the average speed and about 200% the legal limit of a electric bike, and they collide. My question would not be if that situation is safer if two pedestrians walk into each other, but rather why two bikes is traveling that fast in the first place.