Bristol to be first cycling city?

[Martin]

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disp...sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=20904884

Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.

After the B2B fiasco (which is still ongoing), the malago green way,
plus a couple of other dedicated cycle routes that the council are
trying to get rid of, they win this money, and come kind of cycling status.

Still, 11.4million will buy a lot of white paint.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> <http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=disp
> layContent&sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=20904884>
>
> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.

Didn't Lancaster become a cycling city several years ago?

Did Bristol beat Stoke-on-Trent on alphabetical order?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:22:29 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disp...sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=20904884
>
>Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
>Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.
>
>After the B2B fiasco (which is still ongoing), the malago green way,
>plus a couple of other dedicated cycle routes that the council are
>trying to get rid of, they win this money, and come kind of cycling status.

Perhaps "the B2B fiasco" and others were all part of the political
manouvering to get the £11,400,000.

>Still, 11.4million will buy a lot of white paint.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:26:26 +0100,
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
>> Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=disp
>>> layContent&sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=20904884>
>>>
>>> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
>>> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.
>> Didn't Lancaster become a cycling city several years ago?
>
> It's only a cycling town...

Wash your mouth out.

Lancaster is a city.

Those born within its historic fiefdom (including this writer) are still
entitled to toast the Duke instead of that upstart, the Monarch.

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 19/06/2008 22:22, Martin wrote:
> After the B2B fiasco (which is still ongoing),

I was rather under the impression that was over (for the time being),
since Bradshaw explicitly and publicly ruled it out following his trip
to Cambridge a couple of weeks ago.

> the malago green way,
> plus a couple of other dedicated cycle routes that the council are
> trying to get rid of, they win this money, and come kind of cycling status.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[Martin]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 19/06/2008 22:22, Martin wrote:
>> After the B2B fiasco (which is still ongoing),
>
> I was rather under the impression that was over (for the time being),
> since Bradshaw explicitly and publicly ruled it out following his trip
> to Cambridge a couple of weeks ago.

I am not totally convinced it has been ruled out whilst the council are
still promoting other parts of the BRT

Also as you are aware, there is the problem with Bath council wanting to
use the Bath end of the route, which IMHO is the nicer end.

>> the malago green way, plus a couple of other dedicated cycle routes
>> that the council are trying to get rid of, they win this money, and
>> come kind of cycling status.
>

 

[Geoff Lane]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
>>>> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.
>>> Didn't Lancaster become a cycling city several years ago?
>>
>> It's only a cycling town...
>
> Wash your mouth out.
>
> Lancaster is a city.

So is Exeter, yet Cycle England calls it a "demonstration town"

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/dt_exeter.php

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:01:09 -0500, Geoff Lane <[email protected]>
wrote:

>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>>>> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
>>>>> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.
>>>> Didn't Lancaster become a cycling city several years ago?
>>>
>>> It's only a cycling town...
>>
>> Wash your mouth out.
>>
>> Lancaster is a city.
>
>So is Exeter, yet Cycle England calls it a "demonstration town"
>
>http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/dt_exeter.php

Perhaps the terms "town" and "city" sound more sexy than "city" and
"metropolis".

 

[Geoff Lane]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>>>> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
>>>>>> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.
>>>>> Didn't Lancaster become a cycling city several years ago?
>>>>
>>>> It's only a cycling town...
>>>
>>> Wash your mouth out.
>>>
>>> Lancaster is a city.
>>
>>So is Exeter, yet Cycle England calls it a "demonstration town"
>>
>>http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/dt_exeter.php
>
> Perhaps the terms "town" and "city" sound more sexy than "city" and
> "metropolis".

So, the question is just what (in the eyes of Cycling England etc.) is the
difference between a "town" and a "city"?

I don't think it can be the usual requirement for a cathedral, because both
Lancaster and Exeter have those. It can't be the denomination of the
cathedral because AFAICT Lancaster's is Catholic while Exeter's is
Anglican.

 

[JNugent]

Geoff Lane wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
>>>>> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.

>>>> Didn't Lancaster become a cycling city several years ago?

>>> It's only a cycling town...

>> Wash your mouth out.
>> Lancaster is a city.

> So is Exeter, yet Cycle England calls it a "demonstration town"

> http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/dt_exeter.php

That shows you how much "Cycling England" knows, doesn't it?

 

[Geoff Lane]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> So is Exeter, yet Cycle England calls it a "demonstration town"
>
>> http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/dt_exeter.php
>
> That shows you how much "Cycling England" knows, doesn't it?

Not really.

I suspect that you'd consider London to be a city yet Googling for "London
Town" just returned nearly half a million results. Also searching for
"Exeter town" returned nearly 8,000 results and for "Lancaster town"
returned about 11,000. In each case, I searched for the exact phrase. IOW,
referring to cities as "towns" is common enough to be widely accepted.

I'm more interested in knowing what makes Bristol a "cycling city" and what
it will have (or have not) different to "cycling towns".

 

[JNugent]

Geoff Lane wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>> So is Exeter, yet Cycle England calls it a "demonstration town"
>>> http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/dt_exeter.php
>> That shows you how much "Cycling England" knows, doesn't it?
>
> Not really.
>
> I suspect that you'd consider London to be a city

The term "London" has several different meanings, with not all of them
even referring to the same patch of ground.

London is a city, yet London is not a city whilst containing two of
them. I would never describe London as a city unless talking of "The City".

> yet Googling for "London
> Town" just returned nearly half a million results. Also searching for
> "Exeter town" returned nearly 8,000 results and for "Lancaster town"
> returned about 11,000. In each case, I searched for the exact phrase. IOW,
> referring to cities as "towns" is common enough to be widely accepted.

I don't like Lancaster being referred to as a "town". It's a city.

> I'm more interested in knowing what makes Bristol a "cycling city" and what
> it will have (or have not) different to "cycling towns".

Well, it's big(ish) for a start.

 

[Geoff Lane]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> I don't like Lancaster being referred to as a "town". It's a city.

but one with a Town Hall, as even Lancaster City Council call it.
http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/General.asp?id=SX9452-A7806DA1

 

[Paul Boyd]

Martin said the following on 19/06/2008 22:22:

> Apparently Bristol has won 11.4 million in a competition to become
> Britain's first cycling city. The mind boggles.

Indeed it does! I wonder how they will use the money to reform the very
aggressive attitude of many motorists in Bristol. Aggressive to
everyone else that is, not just cyclists.

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

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 20/06/2008 10:30, Geoff Lane wondered:
> So, the question is just what (in the eyes of Cycling England etc.) is the
> difference between a "town" and a "city"?
>
> I don't think it can be the usual requirement for a cathedral, because both
> Lancaster and Exeter have those.

I believe it's to do with population, which is why the city of Bath
applied to be a demonstration town and why the Bristol bid was actually
a combined bid by Bristol and South Gloucestershire (i.e. most of the
Greater Bristol area) rather than just Bristol City Council.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[JNugent]

Geoff Lane wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
> news[email protected]:
>
>> I don't like Lancaster being referred to as a "town". It's a city.
>
> but one with a Town Hall, as even Lancaster City Council call it.
> http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/General.asp?id=SX9452-A7806DA1

There's a Town Hall in Liverpool. And one in Manchester.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Geoff Lane <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:

> > Perhaps the terms "town" and "city" sound more sexy than "city" and
> > "metropolis".
>
> So, the question is just what (in the eyes of Cycling England etc.) is the
> difference between a "town" and a "city"?
>
> I don't think it can be the usual requirement for a cathedral, because both
> Lancaster and Exeter have those. It can't be the denomination of the
> cathedral because AFAICT Lancaster's is Catholic while Exeter's is
> Anglican.

Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.

I'm intrigued about Cycling England's distinction.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[JNugent]

JNugent wrote:
> Geoff Lane wrote:
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news[email protected]:
>>
>>> I don't like Lancaster being referred to as a "town". It's a city.
>>
>> but one with a Town Hall, as even Lancaster City Council call it.
>> http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/General.asp?id=SX9452-A7806DA1
>
> There's a Town Hall in Liverpool. And one in Manchester.

The term "City Hall" (which at first glance appears more logical for the
town halls of England's big cities) has a distinctly un-British sound
about it.

The only "City Hall" in England of which I am aware is not the seat of
government of a proper city, but of an urban agglomeration (effectively
a metropolitan county) which contains two cities but is not one itself.

 

[Martin]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Geoff Lane <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I don't think it can be the usual requirement for a cathedral, because both
>> Lancaster and Exeter have those. It can't be the denomination of the
>> cathedral because AFAICT Lancaster's is Catholic while Exeter's is
>> Anglican.
>
> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.

The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)

 

[Geoff Lane]

Martin <[email protected]> wrote in news:6CW6k.5748$Nn.5740
@newsfe09.ams2:

>> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
>> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.
>
> The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)

But Rochester is a city (http://www.city-of-rochester.org.uk/) and I
suspect that Blackburn is too from Googling "blackburn city".

I have access to the on-line Oxford Reference, so I looked up the
"official" definition of "city". Here's what came back from the Concise
Oxford English Dictionary:

"a large town, in particular ( Brit. ) a town created a city by charter and
typically containing a cathedral. ~ N. Amer. a municipal centre
incorporated by the state or province."

The definition of a city used to be "a town that has a cathedral", and so
was somewhere a Bishop had his seat. I'm not sure when this changed, but
all that now seems required is a charter.

WRT what makes a cycling city, I have a feeling from Danny's comment about
population size that it's the scope of the project. So I'm watching what
happens in Bristol with interest.