Farcility of the Month



P

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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 ****-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
 
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 ******** - he's never commented on them to
any MP. All talk and no action, is out **** B.

--
Nobby
 
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
 
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 **** 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.
 
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 ****-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/
 
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'
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
farcility of the month
Replies
9
Views
611
UK and Europe
Jon
J
W
farcility of the month.
Replies
25
Views
864
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
W
Farcility of the month April 2007
Replies
16
Views
392
UK and Europe
Patrick Lamb
P
W
Farcility of the Month: feb 07
Replies
78
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
A
Cycle Parking Farcility of the Month
Replies
21
Views
621
UK and Europe
DavidR
D
W
Cycle farcility of the month
Replies
23
Views
594
UK and Europe
Geraint Jones
G
W
Psychle Farcility of the month
Replies
9
Views
409
UK and Europe
Jeremy Parker
J
M
Coronation road Bristol psycle farcility (video).
Replies
16
Views
506
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
M
BBC's cycle farcility of the moment
Replies
6
Views
239
UK and Europe
Martin Dann
M
D
Farcility Alert
Replies
5
Views
294
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
Top Bottom Back