Council tax and budget in Barnet

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Eugenio Mastrov, Mar 16, 2004.

  1. "Pete Biggs" <pcurrant{remove_dried_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Simon Brooke wrote:
    > > Face it, if your council is spending zero on cycling,
    > > this is an unqualified Good Thing. Council-built cycling
    > > 'facilities' are at best neutral, and many are actively
    > > dangerous.
    >
    > ...Like the narrow green cycle lanes on the extreme
    > outside of roundabouts. Barnet has some of these but I
    > suppose it would cost
    money
    > to get rid of them.
    >

    Well, they could be worse, in fact they used to be worse, or
    at least more amusing. When first put in, the lanes used to
    have give way signs painted on the road at each entrance
    leg. In other words, if one cycled in the bike lane, one
    would have had to give way every ninety degrees, whereas if
    one moved six inches sideways, out of the lane, one would
    regain one's normal priority.

    I assume that the give way signs were used because the
    council know perfectly well that the design they were using
    was dangerous, and wanted to make the accidents all "the
    cyclists' fault".

    There used to be one council transport bureaucrat who knew
    about cycling, and he attended one of the monthly meetings
    of Barnet Cyclists. At the meeting he attended I mocked the
    roundabout lanes. The give way markings (but not the lanes)
    mysteriously vanished about six weeks later, all except for
    one, on Deansbrook Lane, where the removal men got things a
    bit wrong, and left the situation about right of way rather
    confused. I'm not sure if that one is fixed yet.

    And people wonder why I say that the London Cycle Network is
    almost universally designed by idiots, for idiots.

    In other London boroughs' news, we found a good lane in
    Shoreditch recently, at Arnold Circus. It's only 56" long -
    so short that if you park a bike in it, tthe bike overhangs
    each end of the lane.

    Jeremy Parker
     


  2. Jon Senior wrote:

    > "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote
    > in message
    >>In other London boroughs' news, we found a good lane in
    >>Shoreditch recently, at Arnold Circus. It's only 56" long
    >>- so short that if you park a bike in it, tthe bike
    >>overhangs each end of the lane.
    > A photo of that one, or one very similar appeared in in C+
    > a few months back. You have to wonder at the mind that can
    > give the go ahead to that sort of project and not be so
    > embarassed that they commit Hari Kiri.

    You're putting in an advanced stop line, stupid law says you
    have to provide a lead-in lane, you don't want to encourage
    cyclists into wrong road positioning. Solution? Put in a
    token lead-in lane a metre or two long.

    Colin McKenzie
     
  3. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    "Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You're putting in an advanced stop line, stupid law says
    > you have to provide a lead-in lane, you don't want to
    > encourage cyclists into wrong road positioning. Solution?
    > Put in a token lead-in lane a metre or two long.

    Oh those. They're ten a penny around here. The photo showed
    a small tarmaced <sp?> patch which appeared to be isolated
    from any other paths (cycle or otherwise), which had been
    put in next to the road. They may it on the C+ website, but
    I don't know.

    Jon
     
  4. "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]>typed

    > There used to be one council transport bureaucrat who
    > knew about cycling, and he attended one of the monthly
    > meetings of Barnet Cyclists. At the meeting he attended I
    > mocked the roundabout lanes. The give way markings (but
    > not the lanes) mysteriously vanished about six weeks
    > later, all except for one, on Deansbrook Lane, where the
    > removal men got things a bit wrong, and left the
    > situation about right of way rather confused. I'm not
    > sure if that one is fixed yet.

    I'll have a look for you.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
     
  5. Colin McKenzie wrote:

    > You're putting in an advanced stop line, stupid law says
    > you have to provide a lead-in lane,

    Are you sure about this? There's some on my commute without
    lead-in lanes...

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  6. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Well, they could be worse, in fact they used to be worse,
    > or at least more amusing. When first put in, the lanes
    > used to have give way signs painted on the road at each
    > entrance leg. In other words, if one cycled in the bike
    > lane, one would have had to give way every ninety degrees,
    > whereas if one moved six inches sideways, out of the lane,
    > one would regain one's normal priority.
    >
    > I assume that the give way signs were used because the
    > council know perfectly well that the design they were
    > using was dangerous, and wanted to make the accidents all
    > "the cyclists' fault".

    I worry whether these things give the duller sort of
    motorist the impression that cyclists have to give way on
    the roundabout generally, whether in or out of the lane or
    even on a different roundabout without a suicide lane.

    --
    Dave...
     
  7. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:34:32 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >> You're putting in an advanced stop line, stupid law says
    >> you have to provide a lead-in lane,

    >Are you sure about this? There's some on my commute without
    >lead-in lanes...

    They are all /supposed/ to have lead-in lanes not least
    because otherwise it is technically illegal for a cyclist to
    enter the box while the light is red, which rather defeats
    the object.

    Needless to say in the continued absence of a Clue many
    councils have failed to make this obvious connection.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
    Washington University
     
  8. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Colin McKenzie wrote:
    >
    > > You're putting in an advanced stop line, stupid law says
    > > you have to provide a lead-in lane,
    >
    > Are you sure about this? There's some on my commute
    > without lead-in lanes...

    There's one like that about 200 yards from my house (just
    here http://makeashorterlink.com/?E69F254D7 [1]). I
    imagine they left the lead-in lane out because there
    simply isn't room for it. Of course that also means that a
    cyclist arriving at the back of the queue can't get to the
    ASL anyway.

    [1] Full link is http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=51-
    4770&y=172083&z=1&sv=514750,172250&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newma-
    p.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

    --
    Dave...
     
  9. The one here: http://tinyurl.com/28nm7 /had/ a lead-in lane,
    but then They took it away again so they could fit two lanes
    of tin boxes in. Otherwise the poor things going north up
    Kingsland Road sometimes had to wait behind those turning
    right into Whiston Road. Becuase of the clue-free nature of
    the drivers involved, though, plenty of them sit in the
    outside lane (because that's the FAST lane, innit!) for a
    while, suddenly realise they're not going anywhere and pull
    into the left lane without use of mirrors, indicators, due
    care, attention or the display of the ravages of
    intelligence. Bah!

    On the same bit of map, the one at the junction of the
    southbound Kingsland Road and Hackney Road never had a lead-
    in lane at all, AFAIK. About 50% of cyclists using it go
    down the middle of the road and enter it from the right.

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  10. "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote
    > in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > Well, they could be worse, in fact they used to be
    > > worse, or at
    least
    > > more amusing. When first put in, the lanes used to have
    > > give way signs painted on the road at each entrance leg.
    > > In other words,
    if
    > > one cycled in the bike lane, one would have had to give
    > > way every ninety degrees, whereas if one moved six
    > > inches sideways, out of
    the
    > > lane, one would regain one's normal priority.
    > >
    > > I assume that the give way signs were used because the
    > > council
    know
    > > perfectly well that the design they were using was
    > > dangerous, and wanted to make the accidents all "the
    > > cyclists' fault".
    >
    > I worry whether these things give the duller sort of
    > motorist the impression that cyclists have to give way on
    > the roundabout
    generally,
    > whether in or out of the lane or even on a different
    > roundabout without a suicide lane.
    >

    Well, look on the bright side, if there are bike lanes, and
    if you are conspicuously avoiding them, then this is an
    immediate warning flag to the dim motorists that you are
    dangerously unpredictable, and afraid of nothing. The
    reaction will probably be to steer well clear of you.

    The motorists who do understand you will be those who know
    enough about cycling to empathize with you

    Jeremy Parker
     
  11. "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]>typed

    > "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > > > Well, they could be worse, in fact they used to be
    > > > worse, or at
    > least
    > > > more amusing. When first put in, the lanes used to
    > > > have give way signs painted on the road at each
    > > > entrance leg. In other words,
    > if
    > > > one cycled in the bike lane, one would have had to
    > > > give way every ninety degrees, whereas if one moved
    > > > six inches sideways, out of
    > the
    > > > lane, one would regain one's normal priority.
    > > >
    > > > I assume that the give way signs were used because the
    > > > council
    > know
    > > > perfectly well that the design they were using was
    > > > dangerous, and wanted to make the accidents all "the
    > > > cyclists' fault".
    > >
    > > I worry whether these things give the duller sort of
    > > motorist the impression that cyclists have to give way
    > > on the roundabout
    > generally,
    > > whether in or out of the lane or even on a different
    > > roundabout without a suicide lane.
    > >

    > Well, look on the bright side, if there are bike lanes,
    > and if you are conspicuously avoiding them, then this is
    > an immediate warning flag to the dim motorists that you
    > are dangerously unpredictable, and afraid of nothing. The
    > reaction will probably be to steer well clear of you.

    > The motorists who do understand you will be those who know
    > enough about cycling to empathize with you

    Cover of latest CTC magazine shows cyclists in training
    blissful disregard of farcility in Westminster...

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
     
Loading...
Loading...