Another Delightful Farcility...

[Mike Causer]

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:31:00 +0000, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
>
> Why?

Because it's part of Sustrans' NR-6 :-/



Mike

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Alex
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
>>
>> Why?
>
> Councils put cycle paths in to go from A to B.
>
> However, when they find something in the way (such as lampposts, bus
> shelters, phone boxes, etc) they can't work out how to deal with it
> properly, so they don't even bother trying. They just stop the
> cyclepath and start it up a bit later.
>
> I'm guessing the one above is at the end of one such path.
>
> Another example is this near me:
>
> http://www.greenbank.org/misc/cyclepath.jpg
>
> It's part of a cyclepath which is designed for people who want to turn
> right from a small side road (behind the photo) and onto the main road.
>
> But there's a bus stop, lamp-post and rubbish bin there. So they just
> stop the cycle path, and start it up the other side of these obstacles.

Oh, that's a staggeringly good example. The cyclepath contra to the flow of
traffic in the adjacent lane, 3.6 times as dangerous as cycling on the
road; the textured pavement surface with grooves aligned to catch front
tyres and prevent the cyclist balancing; the random street furniture...

Have you submitted it to Warrington Cycle Campaign? AS an example of how
not to do it, that's classic.


--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

 

[dkahn400]

Mike Causer wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:38:58 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
> > In cases like this it is inconceivable that it's accidental. Creating
> > cycle farcilities enables anti-cycling officials to strike a blow against
> > cyclists while pretending to do the opposite.

> "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
> even malice and wickedness." Goethe.

You're too kind to them.

--
Dave...

 

[MJ Ray]

Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet>
> [...] I'm not sure what you mean by hostile terrain [...]

"More hostile terrain" is 3? railway bridges and $DEITY knows how many
turnings, compared to no railway bridges and straight on every time.

> [...] you have to jiggle further south around Marchfields
> Way http://www.pbhome.plus.com/marchfields.jpg then over the Great
> Western Bridge. God knows where you go from there on cyclepath.

I thought that is called Hildesheim Bridge, and I think I was told it
won't be made a cycle route because it's too steep for on-carriageway
and the paths can't be shared without raising the low bridge sides.

The map shows a cycle track link from Marchfields to Rector's Way and
then it could be Brighton, Clevedon and Walliscote or Beach into town.

> On second thoughts, I think I would just stick to using New Bristol Road
> and Locking Road after all to get into Weston if I was coming from the
> Summer Lane end! That is a straight line, more or less, and a darn
> sight easier

Indeed. The route enters from Ebdon, making Somerset Avenue even dafter.

--
MJR/slef
[email protected]

 

[Tony Raven]

dkahn400 wrote on 02/12/2006 00:16 +0100:
> Mike Causer wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:38:58 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
>>> In cases like this it is inconceivable that it's accidental. Creating
>>> cycle farcilities enables anti-cycling officials to strike a blow against
>>> cyclists while pretending to do the opposite.
>
>> "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
>> even malice and wickedness." Goethe.
>
> You're too kind to them.
>

I agree. There are too many examples across the country for it to have
happened by chance. There is method in there. The question is Why?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> b) They were probably a couple of meters short of some target.

[snip]

There are all too many people in the cycle traffic engineering field
who seem to be a couple of meters short of a target. However, I
wouldn't want to name names.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in

[snip]

> I agree. There are too many examples across the country for it to
> have happened by chance. There is method in there. The question
> is Why?

[snip]

Because their objective is ***always*** to, for a given amount of
money, construct the maximum length of bike facility.

Omitting dealing with the difficult bits subtracts negligible length,
and frees funding for considerable extra length elsewhere.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:14:02 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

> I agree. There are too many examples across the country for it to have
> happened by chance. There is method in there. The question is Why?

Because a) they don't care, and b) they don't have to care.

They don't care because the two big problems road planners have are
keeping the cars & trucks moving, and stopping them from hitting each
other. At a lower priority comes stopping the cars & trucks from hitting
street furniture. Pedestrians & cyclists are semi-autonomous, their
numbers are fewer, they don't follow markings, and about the only
plannable constraint that affects their path is a metal railing. So
including consideration of them in road design is absolutely at the bottom
of the list of priorities. (Unless they can be used as traffic calming,
see the current problems with a recently revamped road in Cambridge:
<http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/arburypark/> )


They don't /have/ to care because there /still/ isn't a design manual for
proper cycling facilities. The old Cycle Friendly Infrastructure never
got to be sufficiently recognised and although a small number of local
authorities have created their own standards (London for one), most have
no planning guidelines for cyclists whatsoever. The latest I've heard
about a new CFI is that it might be rolled into or superceded by Manual
for Streets, which in the draft from earlier this year was hardly a
comprehensive treatment. From the Introduction: "1.1.2 This first edition
focuses on residential and other lightly trafficked streets...". Oh
wonderful, /those/ aren't our problem.


In this area I think that Sustrans are badly failing us. That particular
junction is on NR-6 running north/south across Manchester and they should
be protesting vigorously about it. It is possible that they already have
protested, and if nothing happens I believe they should withdraw that
section from the NCN. If applied across the country something like 25% of
their "10,000 miles" would disappear -- maybe /that/ would get some
attention?


Mike

 

[Paul Boyd]

MJ Ray said the following on 02/12/2006 01:13:
>"More hostile terrain" is 3? railway bridges and $DEITY knows how many
> turnings, compared to no railway bridges and straight on every time.

I don't see the railway bridges as a problem - I go over two of 'em each
way on my commuter run. I'll agree that the extra farting about all
over the place is a pain though.

> I thought that is called Hildesheim Bridge

Funny that, so did I, but not on the map it isn't!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[al Mossah]

Paul Boyd wrote:
>The people responsible for many of the "facilities" shown really ought to be made
> to prove the workability of them by getting on two wheels and attempting
> to use them!
>
I would pay good money to watch that. Perhaps we could set up a series
of them for TV, and have Paxman to interview them afterwards (in the
hospital if necessary).

Must be a better programme idea than the usual stuff dreamed up by
unimaginative Meeja executives. Imagine usual scene..... group of
aformentioned execs sitting around a table when one of them says
something like:
"We should put another programme on hosted by Anne Robinson; she isn't
on TV very much, and she is very good".
And for some reason, instead of picking that person up and beating them
to a pulp before throwing him /her under the wheels of Jeremy
Clarkson's 4x4, they all nod sagely and say "Absolutely", "Quality
idea", "You the man" etc.

Rant over; off to lie down.

Peter.

 

[Al C-F]

Mike Causer wrote:

>
>
> "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
> even malice and wickedness." Goethe.
>

I like that. It's got more gravitas than 'Hanlon's razor - "Never
ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"'.
Especially because I don't know who Hanlon is/was.

 

[Al C-F]

Mike Causer wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:31:00 +0000, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> Because it's part of Sustrans' NR-6 :-/
>
>
>
> Mike

Jolly good. Providing mortal hazards to cyclists, just to dispense with
the 'sustainable' bit; and providing leisure routes that go nowhere, to
dispense with the 'transport' bit.

Can anyone come up with a better name?

 

[dkahn400]

Al C-F wrote:
> Mike Causer wrote:
> > "Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than
> > even malice and wickedness." Goethe.
>
> I like that. It's got more gravitas than 'Hanlon's razor - "Never
> ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"'.
> Especially because I don't know who Hanlon is/was.

I like it too. I don't accept Hanlon's razor as an explanation for
cycle farcilities because they are frankly beyond mere stupidity.
However, Jeremy's explanation has the ring of truth. The people
perpetrating them know they're ludicrous and they may even be dimly
aware how difficult they make life for cyclists, but they do it anyway
because it enables them to meet their targets and because they can't
see that it matters that much anyway.

--
Dave...

 

[MJ Ray]

Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet>
> MJ Ray said the following on 02/12/2006 01:13:
> > I thought that is called Hildesheim Bridge
>
> Funny that, so did I, but not on the map it isn't!

I've since checked the paper maps (including the NSC cycle map) and they
also show it as Hildesheim Bridge. Strange.

 

[Richard Webb]

Turner Prize entrant?

Richard Webb

 

[[email protected]]

Al C-F wrote:
Providing mortal hazards to cyclists, just to dispense with
> the 'sustainable' bit; and providing leisure routes that go nowhere, to
> dispense with the 'transport' bit.
>
> Can anyone come up with a better name?

Can't think of a name. For some reason talk of Sustrans always brings a
Talking Heads song to mind

We're on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin that ride to nowhere
Well take that ride

Iain