Farcility of the Month

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Peter Owens, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. Peter Owens

    Peter Owens Guest

    "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Not its not the A36, its a dead end road effectively and the ribbing is
    > nothing more than the ribbed "this is the cycle side" marking you get on
    > many shared paths (which incidentally I have found to become lethally
    > slippery when covered with frost)
    >


    In this case it is probably a good thing. Falling off your bike before
    you head up the wrong side of a dual carriageway could well save your life.
     
    Tags:


  2. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

  3. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

  4. John Hearns

    John Hearns Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:37:24 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

    > My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of the
    > month in Warrington :)
    >
    > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm


    Are you seriously meant to give way at this side road,
    then continue on against the traffic in that six inch wide strip
    at the very edge of the pavement?
    These 'traffic engineers' should be shot with blunderbusses filled
    with their own you-know-what.
     
  5. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of the
    > month in Warrington :)
    >
    > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm


    Which is surely more evidence to support my case from the "Times
    Letters" thread that tax payer's money is being wasted on facilities
    provided /exclusively/ for cyclists, which they don't want, and which
    they don't contribute specifically as cyclists for.

    --
    Matt B
     
  6. John B

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > Tony Raven wrote:
    > > My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of the
    > > month in Warrington :)
    > >
    > > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm

    >
    > Which is surely more evidence to support my case from the "Times
    > Letters" thread that tax payer's money is being wasted on facilities
    > provided /exclusively/ for cyclists, which they don't want, and which
    > they don't contribute specifically as cyclists for.


    Take it up with the local Councillors and your MP.
    You have, haven't you?

    John B
     
  7. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    John B wrote:
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>Tony Raven wrote:
    >>
    >>>My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of the
    >>>month in Warrington :)
    >>>
    >>>http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm

    >>
    >>Which is surely more evidence to support my case from the "Times
    >>Letters" thread that tax payer's money is being wasted on facilities
    >>provided /exclusively/ for cyclists, which they don't want, and which
    >>they don't contribute specifically as cyclists for.

    >
    > Take it up with the local Councillors and your MP.
    > You have, haven't you?


    You bet! They treat you as some class of anarchist though for daring to
    challenge their exceedingly progressive and well thought through,
    government sponsored, cycling strategy.

    --
    Matt B
     
  8. John B

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > John B wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Take it up with the local Councillors and your MP.
    > > You have, haven't you?

    >
    > You bet! They treat you as some class of anarchist though for daring to
    > challenge their exceedingly progressive and well thought through,
    > government sponsored, cycling strategy.


    Which farcilities have you commented on and which MP did you contact?

    John B
     
  9. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    John B wrote:
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>John B wrote:
    >>
    >>>Take it up with the local Councillors and your MP.
    >>>You have, haven't you?

    >>
    >>You bet! They treat you as some class of anarchist though for daring to
    >>challenge their exceedingly progressive and well thought through,
    >>government sponsored, cycling strategy.

    >
    > Which farcilities have you commented on and which MP did you contact?


    It may compromise the position of a certain individual to say precisely,
    so if you don't mind I will refrain. Have you had such a fruitless
    experience?

    Do you oppose the use of tax payer's money to reserve and maintain vast
    tranches of the public highway for the exclusive use of cyclists?

    --
    Matt B
     
  10. John B

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > John B wrote:
    > >
    > > Matt B wrote:
    > >
    > >>John B wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Take it up with the local Councillors and your MP.
    > >>>You have, haven't you?
    > >>
    > >>You bet! They treat you as some class of anarchist though for daring to
    > >>challenge their exceedingly progressive and well thought through,
    > >>government sponsored, cycling strategy.

    > >
    > > Which farcilities have you commented on and which MP did you contact?

    >
    > It may compromise the position of a certain individual to say precisely,
    > so if you don't mind I will refrain.


    It will not compromise anyone's position if you just say which farcilities
    you have commented upon.
    Please tell.

    >
    > Do you oppose the use of tax payer's money to reserve and maintain vast
    > tranches of the public highway for the exclusive use of cyclists?


    i oppose use of taxpayer's money for unwanted, dangerous and ill-thought out
    schemes.

    Which one's have you opposed?

    John B
     
  11. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    John B wrote:
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>Do you oppose the use of tax payer's money to reserve and maintain vast
    >>tranches of the public highway for the exclusive use of cyclists?

    >
    > i oppose use of taxpayer's money for unwanted, dangerous and ill-thought out
    > schemes.


    Does that exclude /any/ that you are familiar with?

    --
    Matt B
     
  12. John B

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > John B wrote:
    > >
    > > Matt B wrote:
    > >
    > >>Do you oppose the use of tax payer's money to reserve and maintain vast
    > >>tranches of the public highway for the exclusive use of cyclists?

    > >
    > > i oppose use of taxpayer's money for unwanted, dangerous and ill-thought out
    > > schemes.

    >
    > Does that exclude /any/ that you are familiar with?


    It includes a good number I am familiar with.
    A small number of schemes do have some benefit.

    Now which farcilities have you commented upon to local councillors and your MP?

    Come on. Its not that difficult a question.

    John B
     
  13. Marz

    Marz Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of the
    > month in Warrington :)
    >
    > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm
    >
    > --
    > Tony
    >
    > "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    > right."
    > - Lord Hailsham


    Gobsmacked, I can't believe that sort of work gets approved. There are
    so many things wrong with that picture and just it goes to show that
    cyclists are, in the public eye, the arse-end of the traffic food
    chain. Looking at that photo I'm guessing that junction isn't the A36
    turn off, but is either a drive way or something and the ribbled
    concrete in the foreground is part of a ped crossing.

    I know in the USA, cities get tax breaks and financial benefits from
    the federal government based on the percentage of marked cycle paths
    they have, regardless of how useless the cycle paths are. I wonder if
    something similiar isn't going in that photo.

    I'll stick to the road.

    Laters,


    Marz
     
  14. Nobody Here

    Nobody Here Guest

    John B <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >> John B wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Matt B wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>John B wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>>Take it up with the local Councillors and your MP.
    >> >>>You have, haven't you?
    >> >>
    >> >>You bet! They treat you as some class of anarchist though for daring to
    >> >>challenge their exceedingly progressive and well thought through,
    >> >>government sponsored, cycling strategy.
    >> >
    >> > Which farcilities have you commented on and which MP did you contact?

    >>
    >> It may compromise the position of a certain individual to say precisely,
    >> so if you don't mind I will refrain.

    >
    > It will not compromise anyone's position if you just say which farcilities
    > you have commented upon.
    > Please tell.


    The only person he's worried about compromising the position of is himself.
    That's because he'd full of bullshit - he's never commented on them to
    any MP. All talk and no action, is out Twat B.

    --
    Nobby
     
  15. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    John B wrote:
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>John B wrote:
    >>
    >>>Matt B wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Do you oppose the use of tax payer's money to reserve and maintain vast
    >>>>tranches of the public highway for the exclusive use of cyclists?
    >>>
    >>>i oppose use of taxpayer's money for unwanted, dangerous and ill-thought out
    >>>schemes.

    >>
    >>Does that exclude /any/ that you are familiar with?

    >
    > It includes a good number I am familiar with.
    > A small number of schemes do have some benefit.


    You agree then, that the main consequence of the outlay of taxpayer's
    money for these 'facilities' for cyclists, which result in less space
    for other users, is inevitably more congestion.

    > Now which farcilities have you commented upon to local councillors and your MP?
    > Come on. Its not that difficult a question.


    Agreed, in principle the question /is/ a very easy one to answer.
    However, for the reasons I've already given, I cannot be too explicit.

    If you are interested in a general description of the schemes, rather
    than their specific locations, then I will try to oblige :)

    --
    Matt B
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>, John B ([email protected])
    wrote:
    >
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    > > John B wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Matt B wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>Do you oppose the use of tax payer's money to reserve and maintain vast
    > > >>tranches of the public highway for the exclusive use of cyclists?
    > > >
    > > > i oppose use of taxpayer's money for unwanted, dangerous and ill-thought out
    > > > schemes.

    > >
    > > Does that exclude /any/ that you are familiar with?

    >
    > It includes a good number I am familiar with.
    > A small number of schemes do have some benefit.
    >
    > Now which farcilities have you commented upon to local councillors and your MP?
    >
    > Come on. Its not that difficult a question.


    I called my Congressman and he said "Whoa!
    I'd like to help you, son, but you're too young to vote!"

    Pop quiz: Has TrollB /ever/ posted anything describing his *cycling*
    experiences (I added him to my Twat Filter aeons ago)?

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    Like Kant, it is my wish to create my own individual epistemology. But I
    also wish to find out what is for pudding.
     
  17. Marz

    Marz Guest

  18. Marz wrote:
    > Tony Raven wrote:


    >>http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm


    > Gobsmacked, I can't believe that sort of work gets approved. There are
    > so many things wrong with that picture and just it goes to show that
    > cyclists are, in the public eye, the arse-end of the traffic food
    > chain. Looking at that photo I'm guessing that junction isn't the A36
    > turn off, but is either a drive way or something and the ribbled
    > concrete in the foreground is part of a ped crossing.


    From what I remember of Salisbury from when I lived there in the 1980s,
    I *believe* this is right next to the college, which presumably has a
    high proportion of cyclists...

    This is truly shocking. The planner should be forced to ride it daily
    for the rest of their lives, which would be about a week if lucky...

    --
    Mark.
    http://tranchant.plus.com/
     
  19. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

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

    > My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of the
    > month in Warrington :)
    >

    http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm
    >


    <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>

    Table 4 and 5 apply. I quote:

    "Second, wrong-way bicycling is dangerous for all subgroups of
    bicyclists-including those travelling on the sidewalk, who may at first
    seem to be protected against collisions with motor vehicles. In fact,
    sidewalk bicyclists enter into conflict with motorists at every
    intersection (including driveways), and these are exactly the points
    where most bicycle-motor vehicle collisions occur. Wrong-way sidewalk
    bicyclists are at particular risk because they enter the point of
    conflict from an unexpected direction, just as they would on the
    roadway."

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; I put the 'sexy' in 'dyslexia'
     
  20. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    John Hearns wrote:
    > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:37:24 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
    >
    >> My photo of the end for cyclists in Salisbury has made farcility of
    >> the month in Warrington :)
    >>
    >> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2006.htm
    >>

    >
    > Are you seriously meant to give way at this side road, then continue
    > on against the traffic in that six inch wide strip at the very edge
    > of the pavement? These 'traffic engineers' should be shot with
    > blunderbusses filled with their own you-know-what.


    Nope, the side road is the back entrance to a college but using the
    cycle path you will have already passed the front entrance some while
    previous so it would be perverse going to the college this way. The
    pavement going forward is not designated shared use. I think the white
    line is intended to be similar to the yellow line on station platforms
    i.e. do not walk closer to the road because of fast moving traffic.


    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
Loading...
Loading...