"Andrew May" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tony Raven said:
Andrew May said:
architects .... a triumph of design over function.
I think that is tautology ;-)
Tony
Why? I actually have a lot of respect for what some architects can do in difficult situations. I also sometime secretly wish that I had gone into architecture rather than engineering but that is another story. However I am also very well aware that some architects are quite capable of designing something that looks very impressive but actually fails to satisfactorily achieve what they set out to do. I fear that this bridge may be one of those occasions. Hence my comment.
Andrew
Too many times the highly trained architects have buggered things up. I worked in a school which won awards but you could either have heating - or you could have ventilation, the design was such that the ventilation sucked the hot air straight out of the rooms. Big buildings are projects that shouldn't go wrong - even in the details, ther'es so much lead time that any fault in the design should be spotted.
But the clue here is from the apparatchiks; "Despite the protests, council planning officers are recommended approval for what they say will become a "unique landmark attraction"." Which can be translated as 'we don't care how it works so long as it makes us and our beloved council leaders look good on the news.
architects .... a triumph of design over function.
I think that is tautology ;-)
Why? I actually have a lot of respect for what some architects can do in difficult situations. I also sometime secretly wish that I had gone into architecture rather than engineering but that is another story.
Architects (in general) don't design bridges in a meaningful sense. When they interfere too much, the bridge tends to wobble.
There are a very few architects that are also structural engineers.
Too many times the highly trained architects have buggered things up. I worked in a school which won awards but you could either have heating - or you could have ventilation, the design was such that the ventilation sucked the hot air straight out of the rooms. Big buildings are projects that shouldn't go wrong - even in the details, ther'es so much lead time that any fault in the design should be spotted.
I had the misfortune to work in two Richard Rogers buildings. Both had services on the outside that froze up in winter. One had air conditioning inlet and outlet vents on the floor so that in summer we all sat there with a chill breeze blowing out the vents, over our ankles and back down the vents while the rest of our bodies baked. Someone solved that one eventually by putting big pipes over the outlet vents to force the air to have to rise to get out. The other one had the ceilings suspended from an external suspension bridge like structure until a hard New Jersey frost shrank the cable and started pulling its anchor points out the ground. Both buildings long on concept short on practicality.
Then there's Zaha Hadid, probably the most famous living female architect whose architecture has been described as having "dramatic sculptural strength and lamentable functional weakness". Her response I believe was to say something like functionality is irrelevant, its the concept that matters.
We've got two bridges within 1/2 mile on a cycle/shared path in Llandulas / Colwyn Bay. One bridge is about 3feet wide, but has sides of metal sheeting about 6ft high and there is no request by 'Jobsworth' to get off and push. the other bridge is of a rustic construction about 5ft wide 15 ft long, but the side railings are only 3'6" high and attract walkers to watch the ducks. Here, however we have 'Cyclists dismount' instruction - usually forcefully brought to the attention of any mounted rider by pedestrians. IMHO these signs are only there to protect the local authority from any claims by cyclists, since there is no chance of falling off the metal clad bridge. Fred
Could it be that the council have got cold-feet over the prospect of defending claims against them for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves, and others, by riding onto, and along a moving structure.
I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. Presumably whilst the bridge is moving then *no-one* will be on it.
No, according to the architects, this one is designed thus: "The slowly revolving geometry allows people the unique experience of walking onto and riding on the bridge while it opens."[1]
If it is designed to allow for it, then presumably it can only be the council who have decided to disallow it.
Quoted message said:
If it's not moving it's no different to any other shared path.
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Cheeky <[email hidden]> gently breathed:
Quoted message said:
Unless they're bike cops. Mate just got nabbed for turning right across a major junction on an all-green pedestrian phase. Bike cop said "you give people like us a bad name"!! Got himself a NIP for it (failing to observe a traffic sign/signal I presume).
Good. Cyclists who ride through red lights and across pedestrian crossings on the pedestrian phase should have all their bikes confiscated and crushed. The law applies to everyone.
No, according to the architects, this one is designed thus: "The slowly revolving geometry allows people the unique experience of walking onto and riding on the bridge while it opens."[1]
Ah!
Quoted message said:
If it is designed to allow for it, then presumably it can only be the council who have decided to disallow it.
burtthebike said the following on 16/08/2007 18:33:
Quoted message said:
Oh, and Sustrans gave the bridge an award for being so good for cyclists. The local paper featured the story and took a picture which managed to mask the "cyclists dismount" signs.
I remember this story. You couldn't make it up, and it certainly doesn't do Sustrans any favours.
Tony Raven said the following on 17/08/2007 09:32:
Quoted message said:
Grammar and the lack of the word "must". Would you interpret the following as instructions or observations?
Seriously, what is the legal status of a "Cyclists dismount" sign? If the latter is, in law, an instruction is there anything to prevent you getting straight back on your bike again in the absence of a "No Cycling" sign? :-)
Tony Raven said the following on 17/08/2007 09:32:
Quoted message said:
Grammar and the lack of the word "must". Would you interpret the following as instructions or observations?
Seriously, what is the legal status of a "Cyclists dismount" sign? If the latter is, in law, an instruction is there anything to prevent you getting straight back on your bike again in the absence of a "No Cycling" sign? :-)
It is advisory - there is no law or regulation associated with it and is essentially there as a backside covering sign for the council. If you carry on cycling across whatever hazard they have identified and get hit they can say they did warn you so they are not liable. Nothing more, nothing less. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/023113ag.gif
Then there's Zaha Hadid, probably the most famous living female architect whose architecture has been described as having "dramatic sculptural strength and lamentable functional weakness". Her response I believe was to say something like functionality is irrelevant, its the concept that matters.
Tony Raven said the following on 17/08/2007 09:32:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Grammar and the lack of the word "must". Would you interpret the following as instructions or observations?
Quoted message said:
Seriously, what is the legal status of a "Cyclists dismount" sign? If the latter is, in law, an instruction is there anything to prevent you getting straight back on your bike again in the absence of a "No Cycling" sign? :-)
It is advisory - there is no law or regulation associated with it and is essentially there as a backside covering sign for the council. If you carry on cycling across whatever hazard they have identified and get hit they can say they did warn you so they are not liable. Nothing more, nothing less.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/023113ag.gif
Tony
Erm, might it not be referring to the fact that, if you continue riding, you will be riding along a footpath, where cycling is verboten? The problem with 'Cyclist Dismount' signs is that they get used in a wide variety of situations (e.g. at the end of a advisory cycle lane on a road where they are meaningless, not to say dangerous) and consequently get generally ignored. The mandatory 'No Cycling' sign requires a local Traffic Regulation Order, which in many cases would get objected to by the local constabulary who would have to enforce it, and hence requires more effort to put in place.
