Farcility of the Month

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

  1. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Marz wrote:
    >
    > 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.
    >


    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)


    --
    Tony

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


  2. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Mark Tranchant wrote:

    >
    > 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...
    >


    It is but to get to this point on the cycle path you will already have
    cycled past the obvious and quicker front entrance to the college. You
    would only enter the college by the road on the right if you had been
    approaching down the dual carriageway going the right way.

    --
    Tony

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

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > John B wrote:
    > >

    >
    > > 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.


    Naming a location will not compromise anyone.


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


    Yet here you are in a thread concerning a *specific* location. Wierd.

    So please go ahead and describe the schemes you have made official representations
    on then.

    John B
     
  4. dkahn400

    dkahn400 Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:

    > 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)


    I've commented on these things before, and I consider them to be highly
    dangerous. They're there apparently to help the visually impaired
    pedestrian tell the pedestrian side from the cycle side [1]. The
    geniuses who came up with this national standard apparently thought the
    tiles on the pedestrian side, with the ridges running across the
    direction of travel, would discourage cyclists. Presumably the lethal
    tramlines were thought to encourage them. Whatever the reason, the
    tiles are laid the wrong way round all over the country. The ones on
    the pedestrian side are no problem at all to ride over, err...
    theoretically.

    [1] This is a Good Thing (TM). It enables cyclists to easily identify
    visually impaired pedestrians. They're the ones sticking
    conscientiously to the pedestrian side, and therefore in constant
    danger of being mown down by teenagers on bikes.

    --
    Dave...
     
  5. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

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

    >
    > So please go ahead and describe the schemes you have made official representations
    > on then.


    Of two specifically:

    One involved narrowing a pavement and the main road lanes to accommodate
    a cycle lane between the relocated residents' parking bays and the
    narrowed road.

    The second involved short sections of cycle lane interspersed between
    bus stops, loading bays and pavement projections at crossing points.

    Both schemes have resulted in no apparent increased cycling activity
    (zero before, zero after) and increased road congestion.

    The feedback from complaints has been that the plans were endorsed by
    public consultations and that the government wish to encourage more use
    of bicycles, and less use of cars in towns.

    --
    Matt B
     
  6. John B

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

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

    > >
    > > So please go ahead and describe the schemes you have made official representations
    > > on then.

    >
    > Of two specifically:
    >
    > One involved narrowing a pavement and the main road lanes to accommodate
    > a cycle lane between the relocated residents' parking bays and the
    > narrowed road.
    >
    > The second involved short sections of cycle lane interspersed between
    > bus stops, loading bays and pavement projections at crossing points.
    >
    > Both schemes have resulted in no apparent increased cycling activity
    > (zero before, zero after) and increased road congestion.


    > The feedback from complaints has been that the plans were endorsed by
    > public consultations and that the government wish to encourage more use
    > of bicycles, and less use of cars in towns.


    Please can you now supply a reference for these 'public consultations' for the plans?

    John B
     
  7. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    John B wrote:
    >
    > Please can you now supply a reference for these 'public consultations' for the plans?


    Sorry, I can't, for reasons already described.

    --
    Matt B
     
  8. dkahn400

    dkahn400 Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > One involved narrowing a pavement and the main road lanes to accommodate
    > a cycle lane between the relocated residents' parking bays and the
    > narrowed road.
    >
    > The second involved short sections of cycle lane interspersed between
    > bus stops, loading bays and pavement projections at crossing points.


    Pavement projections == "buildouts" in the jargon, I believe.

    > Both schemes have resulted in no apparent increased cycling activity
    > (zero before, zero after) and increased road congestion.


    Really? You amaze me.

    > The feedback from complaints has been that the plans were endorsed by
    > public consultations and that the government wish to encourage more use
    > of bicycles, and less use of cars in towns.


    Standard stuff. ISTM most facilities actively discourage cycling. You
    know it, I know it, everyone in this group knows it, I suspect even the
    traffic engineers know it, but politically they have to be seen to
    encourage cycling, while they also have the opportunity to do a bit of
    back-door traffic calming using the cycling budget.

    Narrowing the roadway is not an accidental by-product of the cycle
    lanes. It's the real intention.

    --
    Dave...
     
  9. On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:11:04 +0000, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
    > John B wrote:
    >>
    >> Please can you now supply a reference for these 'public consultations'
    >> for the plans?

    >
    > Sorry, I can't, for reasons already described.


    But if they were proper "public consultations" surely they are now a matter
    of record and anyone if they knew the town and approximate date could get
    access to them.

    --
    Andy Leighton => [email protected]
    "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
    - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
     
  10. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    dkahn400 wrote:
    > Tony Raven wrote:
    >
    >> 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)

    >
    > I've commented on these things before, and I consider them to be highly
    > dangerous. They're there apparently to help the visually impaired
    > pedestrian tell the pedestrian side from the cycle side [1]. The
    > geniuses who came up with this national standard apparently thought the
    > tiles on the pedestrian side, with the ridges running across the
    > direction of travel, would discourage cyclists. Presumably the lethal
    > tramlines were thought to encourage them. Whatever the reason, the
    > tiles are laid the wrong way round all over the country. The ones on
    > the pedestrian side are no problem at all to ride over, err...
    > theoretically.
    >


    My concern is less with the ribbing but the smooth glazed surface
    becomes extremely slippery with a very thin glaze of frozen water
    whereas the surface texture of tarmac or paving slabs seems to be much
    more grippy in frozen damp conditioans.

    --
    Tony

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

    John B Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > John B wrote:
    > >
    > > Please can you now supply a reference for these 'public consultations' for the plans?

    >
    > Sorry, I can't, for reasons already described.


    Don't be so silly.
    Your objections just don't stand up where public consultations are involved.
    Unless of course you are just making things up for the sake of it.

    BTW do you ride a bike?

    John B
     
  12. POHB

    POHB Guest

    Maybe they are a help to the visually impaired cyclist

    "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Tony Raven wrote:
    >
    >> 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)

    >
    > I've commented on these things before, and I consider them to be highly
    > dangerous. They're there apparently to help the visually impaired
    > pedestrian tell the pedestrian side from the cycle side [1]. The
    > geniuses who came up with this national standard apparently thought the
    > tiles on the pedestrian side, with the ridges running across the
    > direction of travel, would discourage cyclists. Presumably the lethal
    > tramlines were thought to encourage them. Whatever the reason, the
    > tiles are laid the wrong way round all over the country. The ones on
    > the pedestrian side are no problem at all to ride over, err...
    > theoretically.
    >
    > [1] This is a Good Thing (TM). It enables cyclists to easily identify
    > visually impaired pedestrians. They're the ones sticking
    > conscientiously to the pedestrian side, and therefore in constant
    > danger of being mown down by teenagers on bikes.
    >
    > --
    > Dave...
    >
     
  13. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    John B wrote:
    >
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>John B wrote:
    >>
    >>>Please can you now supply a reference for these 'public consultations' for the plans?

    >>
    >>Sorry, I can't, for reasons already described.

    >
    > Don't be so silly.


    I'm not.

    > Your objections just don't stand up where public consultations are involved.


    You can, of course, if you know the city, access them. But as
    previously mentioned, I am not prepared to divulge any more WRT that.

    > Unless of course you are just making things up for the sake of it.


    You dragged it out of me. Does it sound made up? I bet you could visit
    virtually any town in the country with a cycling 'strategy' and find
    exactly the same scenarios, and many much more ridiculous too.

    > BTW do you ride a bike?


    Yes, but not as much as I would like to, and /much/ less than I used to.

    --
    Matt B
     
  14. Bryan

    Bryan New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    0
    John, How dare you accuse Matt B of making things up, you only have to read the hundreds of posts that he has made to know that he knows everything!

    Unless he was in legal dispute he should have nothing to fear in disclosing what he has complained about, but then again the chances of him saying anything specific (and actually related to cycling) in this newsgroup are about as much as me doing the TdF

    Suffice to say he has now hijacked yet another thread I'm begining to get a bit fed up with this.

    Bryan
     
  15. dkahn400

    dkahn400 Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:

    > My concern is less with the ribbing but the smooth glazed surface
    > becomes extremely slippery with a very thin glaze of frozen water
    > whereas the surface texture of tarmac or paving slabs seems to be much
    > more grippy in frozen damp conditioans.


    If you ride over the pedestrian side in similar conditions you will not
    find the same problem. Although the surface is just as slippery you
    will not slide, provided you ride in a straight line. It's the effect
    of the ridges snatching at the tyre that initiates, and then abruptly
    halts, the skid. And if the section is long, and the wheels get out of
    line, it can be extremely unpleasant.

    I've seen two styles of corduroy tile used in this way. The shallower
    ones are less trouble than the deeper ones in the dry, but possibly
    worse when slippery.

    --
    Dave...
     
  16. There are some prime examples of rubbishy construction in Redcar &
    Cleveland. I recently wrote to the local council re:

    # a diversion from a road which involves a 1in 3 climb up a gravel
    track.

    # a path passing under a bridge with 1.7m headroom

    # signposting which if followed lead luckless riders into;
    - a farmer's field with no other exit
    - a car park with no other exit

    # a suggested routes map which includes a bridleway which does not
    exist on the ground. Attempts to follow its general direction involve
    crossing a moor containing a dangerous bog.

    Jon
    -
     
  17. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    Bryan wrote:
    >
    > John, How dare you accuse Matt B of making things up, you only have to
    > read the hundreds of posts that he has made to know that he knows
    > everything!


    Bryan, there's your first mistake. You don't /have/ to read /any/ of my
    posts - they are all optional. Do you have access to a proper
    newsreader? You can filter out posters, or subjects, or whatever you
    want to miss out on.

    > Unless he was in legal dispute he should have nothing to fear in
    > disclosing what he has complained about,


    Your second mistake. There are many valid reasons for non-disclosure.
    Mine is to protect a certain individual from embarrassment.

    > but then again the chances of
    > him saying anything specific (and actually related to cycling) in this
    > newsgroup are about as much as me doing the TdF


    Good luck with that almost certain venture then. Can we expect to see
    you in the yellow shirt ;-)

    > Suffice to say he has now hijacked yet another thread I'm begining to
    > get a bit fed up with this.


    Your third mistake. It takes two to tango, and if a prolonged exchange
    develops you are free to ignore it - if you can resist of course ;-)

    --
    Matt B
     
  18. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
    >
    > Well done! Haven't I seen that photo somewhere else, within living
    > memory?
    >


    You have. I originally posted it here with the link to the picture at
    http://cycling.raven-family.com/Salisbury Cyclepath.JPG


    --
    Tony

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

    Peter B Guest

    "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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?


    You're barking ;-)
     
Loading...
Loading...