On 12/06/2011 20:01, Bob W wrote:
John Sessoms
On the subject of our tulip-munching cousins, I've just found a
rather
interesting little factoid on this website:
<http://holland.cyclingaroundtheworld.nl/Five-reasons.html>.
"Holland has got the best cycle lane network in the world. You can
cycle on
more than 19.000 kilometres of bicycles paths and lanes. It makes
cycling in
Holland enjoyable and safe (Holland is the fourth safest country as
far as
traffic concerns. Only the U.K., Sweden and Norway have lower numbers
of
fatalities)"
Interesting, huh?
I'd be interested in why the UK, Sweden& Norway have lower numbers. Is
it because they're safer places to ride or because they have fewer
cyclists? Or something else?
it's lower traffic fatalities - all traffic, not just cycling. The thing I
found interesting about the factoid is that people here are always banging
on about how many Dutch people cycle, and why can't the UK be more like the
Netherlands, yet apparently the UK is a safer place to be a road user, which
kind of makes all those wishes a bit silly really.
I have no idea why this is, but I do suspect at least part of the reason is
that organisations like the CTC, among others, are constantly struggling to
make sure that bicycles are recognised as normal traffic and treated as
such.
I'd also be interested if pedestrians share the cycle lanes? The photos
illustrating them make them look like what we call greenways around
here; mixed use pedestrian& cycle ways.
I hate shared-use pedestrian and cycle ways - they are the worst of all
possible worlds, and they are one of several reasons why I object to cycle
lanes in general. Pedestrians slow cyclists down, and cyclists mow
pedestrians down. Nobody likes it except drivers. For utility cycling such
as city commuting or fitness cycling, the cyclist wants to go at a decent
pace, which is only possible on main roads shared with motor traffic.
20-25mph is common for cycle commuters, but it would be impossible and
irresponsible on a shared-use path, and is impossible if you're obliged
either by law or by physical barriers to use a narrow cycle-only path
because a) the paths are shit, and b) Miss Marples gets in the way on her
Pashley.
What we do in London, and perhaps New York ought to do this if they don't
already, is have lanes which can only be used by buses, black cabs and
cyclists. They are monitored by licence-plate-reading cameras, so drivers
who stray into them get a hefty fine.
And there's the nub of the reason for lower casualties. Traffic in the
above countries is highly regulated and laws are enforced vigorously.
Per vehicle/mile, the UK is probably the safest. Sweden and Norway
together probably have a smaller total population than the number of
vehicles on UK roads.
Recently they've also been opened up to motor-cyclists, which to me seems to
be working reasonably well, although it can be unpleasant to be stuck behind
them at the lights; and paradoxically it coincides with an increase in
collisions between motor bikes and cars.
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
