Squashme wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Andy Morris wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which
>>>>>> are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).
>>>>> I saw three in succession mount the pavement in Heckmondwike to pass
>>>>> traffic waiting to turn right from the A638 onto the B6177 that had
>>>>> backed up to the Cemetery Road turn.
>>>>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=heckmondwike&sll=5...
>>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/4mjqen
>>>>> Not at full speed but faster than a lot of cyclists.
>>>> You see what you did there?
>>>> You agreed with what I posted.
>>> This may help:-
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3zu8mr
>>> 19 June 2008
>>> "Calls have been made for action to tackle rat-running in a narrow
>>> residential road in Bath.
>>> People living in Greenway Lane, Bear Flat, have been concerned for
>>> years about the amount of traffic using it.
>>> They say they are living in constant fear that someone will be killed
>>> by speeding motorists who use the pavement as part of the road.
>>> Resident Jamie South, who says his seven-year-old son William was
>>> nearly hit by a car recently, said: "Something needs to be done
>>> urgently to stop motorists speeding down the road.
>>> "Cars use the pavements to get around each other and it shouldn't be
>>> allowed. My son was nearly run down because of cars driving along the
>>> pavement." "
>> See: <http://tinyurl.com/5dl6vw>
>> I know the area (to a limited extent). Greenway Lane is a useful route
>> from the cheap(ish) student accommodation around Bear Flat to the
>> University of Bath campus at Claverton Down. I'm sure it's useful for
>> other purposes too. I object to this churlish phrase "rat-running". The
>> road is a valuable through route of importance in the local network, not
>> a residential cul-de-sac. Alternatives are few and would be a longish
>> diversion via Combe Down (past even more people' houses, of course) or
>> through the crowded city centre and the permanently-congested A4/A36.
>> The real answer, of course, is not to obstruct it with parked vehicles.
> I see. So that causes the driving on pavements.
It certainly does, in areas like that where the road is significantly
obstructed. Of course, you've missed the point. No-one has said that you
never see a car or van (nor even a lorry) on a footway. The proposition
is that they do not drive along footways at normal travelling speeds as
an alternative to using the carriageway. Even you must see that there
are occasions when mounting the footway (at comparatively low speed) is
the only option other than staying put until the obstruction is removed
- I haven't said otherwise. This is another apples and oranges game.
> The locals only have themselves to blame for being motorists with cars to park.
Parking is best off-road. Additionally, parking simply ought not to be
allowed where it will seriously obstruct free passage along the highway
(double-yellow lines - remember why we have them?). I believe that there
is a strong case for restricting motor vehicle keeping only to addresses
where there is off-street parking - or where the keeper has an off-plot
off-street space nearby which he actually uses).
Of course, many of the drivers bumping up onto the footway to get round
obstructions (and vehicles coming the other way in the narrower parts of
that road) will BE the very locals who are doing the complaining.
They're there more often than anyone else and their cars are just as
unable to fly over obstructions as anyone else's.
> If you tried, you could probably defend pavement cyclists.
If they are simply getting around an obstruction (and travelling at a
low speed nowhere near the speeds that they usually do on the footway),
I can do that in the twinkle of an eye. No problem whatever. I hope you
find that reassuring.
> How about "The
> real answer, of course, is to make the roads safer, by motorists
> changing their behaviour, and, of course, decreasing their overall
> numbers"?
???
> What about this one? Won't be the motorists fault, so who do we blame?
> http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/1.112473
> "He said some motorists park on double yellow lines across the road
> and risk running through four lanes of traffic to reach the parade. Co-
> owner Kath Renucci added: “We’ve seen people getting hit by cars and
> bouncing off the bonnets. And we’ve seen motorists driving down the
> pavements.”Someone will probably end up getting killed in the end.”"
Parking on double yellow lines not the motorists' fault(s)?
It certainly is - it's illegal.
Did you SERIOUSLY think that I would defend it?
