The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?  (Read 4886 times)

Offline rightcharlie

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Here's a suggestion make making cities of the future more cycle-friendly...


[MOD EDIT - PLEASE PHRASE THE TITLES OF YOUR POSTS AS QUESTIONS, IN LINE WITH OUR FORUM POLICY, AND MAKE THE POST RELEVANT TO THE LINK TOO! - THANKS, CHRIS]
« Last Edit: 02/09/2009 22:17:54 by chris »


 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Re: Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #1 on: 02/09/2009 20:37:05 »
Question of money, I would say. And it might not be great to be above cars/trucks and their fumes. And when someone falls of the elevated lane (and this might happen often) they could get hurt more than being hit/touched by a car in traffic. A fence would help.
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Re: Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #2 on: 02/09/2009 20:45:15 »
Errr.. Cost
 

lyner

  • Guest
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #3 on: 02/09/2009 22:49:28 »
I couldn't imagine cyclists wanting to pay and they would have to.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #4 on: 03/09/2009 09:10:01 »
Right Charlie..... How appropriate.

A few problems with this idea;

The cost would be phenomenal.
No guarantee it would be properly used. Cyclists would not go on it, or come of too soon, if it meant going an extra mile or so.
There would be ramps all over the place.
Retailers & other businesses would object to a cycle lane partially blocking the view of their signs.
Mrs Robinson does not want cyclists passing her bedroom window at all hours.
Emergency access.

I think there may be several more very good reasons why this idea is as daft as box of lights.

Mrs Robinson - "Oi!!! You dirty old perv. You've been past my window 25 times in the last 1/4 hour. Now bugger off..... & get that dirty mac cleaned.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #5 on: 03/09/2009 20:20:56 »
Let's just wait a few decades and the problem of smelly, fast, and dangerous personal vehicles will go away shortly after the oil has gone away (or become unaffordable). No need to work on elevated bike lanes for a few decades only to find out that they have become unnecessary.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #6 on: 04/09/2009 00:59:56 »
Oi! You lot! Knock it off!

Charlie is trying to offer a solution to a major problem. It should not be dismissed out of hand. Lots of countries are much more bike friendly than the UK. Bikes not only prevent lots of environmental problems, they also help to keep people fit. There are probably many additional benefits.

Perhaps Charlie's idea will have to be adjusted to eliminate some concerns. So what? It's a concept, and it should be studied carefully.

Charlie, one thought. Would it be possible to make the system "one way". If so, you could blow air into the "tubes" so that the cyclists always have a gentle breeze behind them. I suppose the speed of the "breeze" could also be increased on uphill sections.

The cost of producing the "breeze" might not be insignificant, but if it gets people to use the system, it could be well worth it.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2009 01:41:14 by Geezer »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #7 on: 04/09/2009 08:06:48 »
Oi! You lot! Knock it off!

Charlie is trying to offer a solution to a major problem. It should not be dismissed out of hand. Lots of countries are much more bike friendly than the UK. Bikes not only prevent lots of environmental problems, they also help to keep people fit. There are probably many additional benefits.

Perhaps Charlie's idea will have to be adjusted to eliminate some concerns. So what? It's a concept, and it should be studied carefully.

Charlie, one thought. Would it be possible to make the system "one way". If so, you could blow air into the "tubes" so that the cyclists always have a gentle breeze behind them. I suppose the speed of the "breeze" could also be increased on uphill sections.

The cost of producing the "breeze" might not be insignificant, but if it gets people to use the system, it could be well worth it.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Proper Right Charlie wants to take an environmentally friendly means of transport and turn it into exactly the opposite. Think of the phenomenal cost in terms of both finance and the environment. How many millions of barrels of oil would be used in the construction of such a system in London alone. Oil would be required for some of the materials used (plastics), for the manufacture of all materials, for the construction site plant machinery and for the transport of materials, plant and manpower.

If the system were enclosed, as you suggest, the tunnels would have to be ventilated. A clear plastic/perspex tunnel would become like a greenhouse. Make it a reflective surface to help keep the temperature down, and it will require lighting. Either way, this would add still more high cost in both monetary and environmental terms.

Leave the pushbike where it is and it will continue to be an environmental success. Start playing around with it, in this manner, and you turn into a demon.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #8 on: 04/09/2009 13:33:39 »
It would probably be cheaper to fit every car/lorry/bus with a high pitched siren inside the vehicle that would go off when a driver strayed into the cycle lanes we already have.

These lanes are pretty good at helping responsible cyclists get from getting from A-B so long as some thoughtless w**ker doesn't cut you up or park in them!

I wouldn't mind one of those things on a roundabout near me - where a bus driver tried to run me down (crushing my bike!).
 

lyner

  • Guest
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #9 on: 05/09/2009 11:46:13 »
Whever bicycles are mentioned, people polarise. Many cyclists complain about their 'treatment' by motorised road users and many drivers complain about the behaviour of cyclists. There is some right on both sides. BUT, until cyclists are seen to be contributing financially to their use of the roads, they have a weak argument. Until they are forced to have some insurance cover then they cannot be regarded as having the same status as paying road users. The pavements have now become 'acceptable' for the use of cyclists and there is a lot of really anti social behaviour indulged in by a significant number of cyclists regarding pedestrians (what happened to the cycle bell?). In fact, pedestrians are in the same position on some pavements as cyclists are on the roads.
Motorists are viewed as the bad guys and it is true that they are often 'blind' to cyclists but you only need to drive for a mile or so to see some cyclist putting themself (actually, usually, HIMself) at risk or demonstrating absolutely no awareness of other traffic.

The roads cost money and so do cycle lanes. Why should cyclists contribute in some way? Rightiousness is not enough!

Edit
Was that Freudian? I meant why SHOULDN'T they?
« Last Edit: 05/09/2009 16:21:34 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #10 on: 05/09/2009 16:59:25 »
Wonder how they do it in Holland? They seem have it reasonably well sorted out there. Any Dutch posters out there? I suppose Nizzle would almost qualify.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #11 on: 05/09/2009 23:45:23 »
Yes, here's a Dutch poster .....
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #12 on: 06/09/2009 18:09:06 »
..and it's even about bicycles! (Why is the rotten little kid pounding a nail into the tire with his clog?)
 

Offline OnlyJustWilliam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #13 on: 02/08/2010 10:41:22 »
@sophiecentaur

"whenever bicycles are mentioned people polarize"
Ah now be fair, so far it's only yourself that's polarized; talk about freudian projection!

But seriously though, as for the question you asked
"why do bicyclst not pay insurance, because they ought to contribute to the roads..?" (i'm paraphrasing, of course)

Well we have to deal with those things separately, because they have nothing to do with one another (insurance doesn't pay for the roads, it insures)

But, that's a question, why not insurance?

Actually there is optional bicycle insurance, but few insurance companies offer it; they think it's a joke. And they're right: it is a joke. Scientific reasons why bicycles should not have insurance, and cars should: because a car is a half ton hunk of steel traveling at forty miles an hour, and if it hits you then you're dead! If it hits something else, it smashes it to peices. Whereas bikes (four stone traveling at ten miles an hour) are not knowen for smeering pedistrians entrails over the ashpalt, and bike crashes almost never result in serious damage to either rider or bike. They pick themselves up and go on their way.

So the reason why bikes dont have insurance is because insurance is for dangerous things like cars, bungie jumping and surgeons.

Bikes fit into the category of thing that are dangerous only to idiots, like plastic bags, and polystyrene.

Bicycle insurance makes as much sense as walking insurance.

On to point two, why dont bicyclists pay for the roads?

Again this question can be simply answered: they do, and you're and halfwit.


Road tax (vehicle licensing) actually has nothing to do with paying for the roads. Infact there is no such thing as 'road tax' at all. It's actually called Vehicle Excise Duty. Untill recently it was charged on the basis of how large the engine size on the basis that bigger engine means faster, heavier car, and there for more destruction of the roads. However it is now based on carbon-dioxide emissions, and is in fact a stealth carbon tax.

New road building and cycle lanes are funded directly out if income tax, vehicle excise duty or 'road tax' does not, and never did, pay for the building of roads nor cycle lanes. So bicyclist pay for the roads already, and let's face totaly unfairly. Almost all the major road building of the last thirty years has been building new motorways. And bicycles aren't alowed on motorways! So why do they have to pay for that?

Vehicle Exise Duties are used the pay for the upkeep of the roads. But what causes the roads to need upkeep?

Simple - heavy things moving at high speed over the roads degrade them over the space of about ten years or so, and then they've to be resurfaced. The high speed heavy things are CARS. Every time a car drives over the roads it destroys them a little, and that's why they pay the so-called 'road tax', to offset the damage they're doing.

Bikes are neither heavy enough, nor move fast enough, to do damage to the road top. Bicycle's don't destroy the roads so why should they have to pay to repair the damage done by cars? Infact most modern ashphalt roads where orginally build for bicycles, and would be in fine nick today 100 years later had the car not come along and ripped them up.

Cars destroy the roads so cars pay to repair them - simples!

There are other parts of maintaing a road of course, for example in winter the snow-falls plows and gritters must come out to keep the roads open. Bicycles benifit from this as much as cars, so they should pay for that, but as far as i recall the gritters and snow plows are owned by the councils and payed for out of council tax - so the bicyclist already pay for that!

If your argument is that bikes simply take up room on the roads and therefor should pay, that argument is facile and incorrect: because cars don't pay according to the amount of room they take up. A hatchback doesn't get a discount, nor a SUV a higher rate simply because of their volume. Only in London where the Congestion Charge is in force do people actually pay for occupying road space (but not by area, simply by occupying). Elswhere you are free to drive a disgusting four-by-four / urban-assualt-vehicle, and consume two lanes of traffic all to your self and run everyone else off the road. Nowhere are you asked to pay because you are occupying road area.

Moreover a call for people to pay according to occupying the road an argument would be self defeating, indeed stupid. A bicycle takes up roughly an eighth the area of a car on the road. Everytime someone decides to bike rather than drive seven eights new road space is freed up for the remaining car users. So from the car user's persepective, the best way for the car user to get the maximum out of his taxes, to have the fastest commute, to drive in the least traffic, to occupy the most space on the road, is to do everything possible to encourage other-people to bike. Even if drivers where paying by area-of-road-occupied (which they aren't) the best use they could make of this money is to put some of the money into a loss leader bike lane, and free up the remainder of the road for themselves.

So to sumarise
1, bikes dont pay insurance for the same reason walkers dont pay insurance, because that would be stupid.
2, car drives pay because they destroy the roads, and they pay only and in direct proportion to how much they destroy the roads
3, bicyclists already pay for building roads through income taxes, and mantaining roads through conucil taxes
4, more people using bikes means more room for cars, so quit whineing

So, i think it total, your argument that bicycle users should pay either 'road tax' or insurance, is ridiculious, and based on a set of false assumptions about what taxes actually pay for, and how they are raised.


What you say is true, righteousness is not enough, but it's nice to see you managing so well with total ignorance.

Yours
A commited non-biker.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do we need a mezzanine level roadway for cyclists?
« Reply #13 on: 02/08/2010 10:41:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums