T
Tony Raven
Guest
AndyP wrote:
>
> Really Clueless Gits, Bicyclists
Think that nicely sums up the two groups arguing here ;-)
Tony
>
> Really Clueless Gits, Bicyclists
Think that nicely sums up the two groups arguing here ;-)
Tony
- Status
A
Andyp
Guest
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does
that)
> may make for a slower average speed, but not necessarily for a slower
speed
> whilst on the move.
>
> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
My route to work makes use of shared use paths because they are the quickest way to go. First off
they take a more direct route by cutting through a park, avoiding the one way system and following a
disused railway line and secondly average speed is faster due to lack of traffic jams, traffic
lights and junctions pulling out on to busy main roads.
> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does
that)
> may make for a slower average speed, but not necessarily for a slower
speed
> whilst on the move.
>
> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
My route to work makes use of shared use paths because they are the quickest way to go. First off
they take a more direct route by cutting through a park, avoiding the one way system and following a
disused railway line and secondly average speed is faster due to lack of traffic jams, traffic
lights and junctions pulling out on to busy main roads.
A
Andyp
Guest
"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote
> This sounds like the perfect scenario - And having eliminated the junctions pulling out on to main
> roads, it seems on the face of it to be quite safe.
Dunno about safe. Part of the cycle path is narrow with poor forward visibility, very busy and I'm
going the opposite way to most people. I've had to take avoiding action to prevent collisions with
cyclists approaching too fast or the odd one who doesn't stick to the pass on the left rule on more
than one occasion. But at least you only need to concentrate on one thing. Mixing in with stop start
traffic through major roundabouts and city centre junctions you need to have eyes everywhere. Don't
know which is safer so I just choose the quickest option which is to take the road for the first bit
and cyclepath for most of the rest.
> This sounds like the perfect scenario - And having eliminated the junctions pulling out on to main
> roads, it seems on the face of it to be quite safe.
Dunno about safe. Part of the cycle path is narrow with poor forward visibility, very busy and I'm
going the opposite way to most people. I've had to take avoiding action to prevent collisions with
cyclists approaching too fast or the odd one who doesn't stick to the pass on the left rule on more
than one occasion. But at least you only need to concentrate on one thing. Mixing in with stop start
traffic through major roundabouts and city centre junctions you need to have eyes everywhere. Don't
know which is safer so I just choose the quickest option which is to take the road for the first bit
and cyclepath for most of the rest.
J
Jnugent
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This sounds like the perfect scenario - And having eliminated the junctions pulling out on to
>> main roads, it seems on the face of it to be quite safe.
> Dunno about safe. Part of the cycle path is narrow with poor forward visibility, very busy and I'm
> going the opposite way to most people. I've had to take avoiding action to prevent collisions with
> cyclists approaching too fast or the odd one who doesn't stick to the pass on the left rule on
> more than one occasion. But at least you only need to concentrate on one thing. Mixing in with
> stop start traffic through major roundabouts and city centre junctions you need to have eyes
> everywhere. Don't know which is safer so I just choose the quickest option which is to take the
> road for the first bit and cyclepath for most of the rest.
That does sound perfect.
I don't believe I have ever read a post asking for any more than that.
But there are some cyclists who insist (sometimes in a non-straightforward way) that it is OK to
cycle on an ordinary footway.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04
> "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This sounds like the perfect scenario - And having eliminated the junctions pulling out on to
>> main roads, it seems on the face of it to be quite safe.
> Dunno about safe. Part of the cycle path is narrow with poor forward visibility, very busy and I'm
> going the opposite way to most people. I've had to take avoiding action to prevent collisions with
> cyclists approaching too fast or the odd one who doesn't stick to the pass on the left rule on
> more than one occasion. But at least you only need to concentrate on one thing. Mixing in with
> stop start traffic through major roundabouts and city centre junctions you need to have eyes
> everywhere. Don't know which is safer so I just choose the quickest option which is to take the
> road for the first bit and cyclepath for most of the rest.
That does sound perfect.
I don't believe I have ever read a post asking for any more than that.
But there are some cyclists who insist (sometimes in a non-straightforward way) that it is OK to
cycle on an ordinary footway.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04
N
Nick Finnigan
Guest
"AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't been following this thread but just out of interest there are in the centre of Bristol a
> couple of open pedestrian areas..uh..squares I suppose you'd best call them although one isn't
> very square, where if you look very carefully there are a series of six inch square tiles set into
> the paving with a picture of a bike on them about 15 feet apart. Hardly noticeable as a way of
> signifying the route that bikes are presumably permitted to take and I'm sure most shoppers are
> unaware of them let alone the fact that for cyclists they aren't very easy to follow and are
> easily lost on a first visit. I also think I'm right in saying one line of tiles crosses the
> square, goes onto a pavement for a few metres and then disappears as they meet the old tarmac with
> no further indication of permitted cycling.
It sounds like cycling is permitted anywhere in the area; a prohibition should need a 'no cycling'
or a 'footpath along side a road set apart for foot passengers'.
news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't been following this thread but just out of interest there are in the centre of Bristol a
> couple of open pedestrian areas..uh..squares I suppose you'd best call them although one isn't
> very square, where if you look very carefully there are a series of six inch square tiles set into
> the paving with a picture of a bike on them about 15 feet apart. Hardly noticeable as a way of
> signifying the route that bikes are presumably permitted to take and I'm sure most shoppers are
> unaware of them let alone the fact that for cyclists they aren't very easy to follow and are
> easily lost on a first visit. I also think I'm right in saying one line of tiles crosses the
> square, goes onto a pavement for a few metres and then disappears as they meet the old tarmac with
> no further indication of permitted cycling.
It sounds like cycling is permitted anywhere in the area; a prohibition should need a 'no cycling'
or a 'footpath along side a road set apart for foot passengers'.
J
Jnugent
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does that) may make for a slower
>> average speed, but not necessarily for a slower speed whilst on the move.
>> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
>> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
> My route to work makes use of shared use paths because they are the quickest way to go. First off
> they take a more direct route by cutting through a park, avoiding the one way system and following
> a disused railway line and secondly average speed is faster due to lack of traffic jams, traffic
> lights and junctions pulling out on to busy main roads.
Disused railway lines (hardly traditional pedestrian territory) are a dfferent kettle of fish from
the footway outside my house or outside my place of work. You are most welcome to disused railway
lines AFAIC.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does that) may make for a slower
>> average speed, but not necessarily for a slower speed whilst on the move.
>> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
>> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
> My route to work makes use of shared use paths because they are the quickest way to go. First off
> they take a more direct route by cutting through a park, avoiding the one way system and following
> a disused railway line and secondly average speed is faster due to lack of traffic jams, traffic
> lights and junctions pulling out on to busy main roads.
Disused railway lines (hardly traditional pedestrian territory) are a dfferent kettle of fish from
the footway outside my house or outside my place of work. You are most welcome to disused railway
lines AFAIC.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04
I ride bikes and walk but i dont drive.
I think that bikes belong either in the road, on cycle paths, bridleways, off road trails etc, but not on pedestrian pavements, unless specified as shared territory so to speak.
I think that cyclists are divided into 2 communities. The hardcore cyclists like the people on here. Generally own several bikes and take the utmost care to be respectable. Then there are the non-hardcore bikers who use their bikes primarily as a form of transport. Often kids etc. I think the non-hardcore bikes don't understand the rules and the situation so to speak and generally cause more problems. It is up to everybody to educate these people who ride without lights, run traffic lights etc to take more care and behave themselves.
Motorists also need to be more respectful and consider the cyclists situation. A few seconds off a journey time to slow down for a bike aint a lot imho. I think that a "minority" of cyclists are giving the "majority" a bad name.
Unfortunately I think the "minority" are in the majority, and vice versa.
I think that bikes belong either in the road, on cycle paths, bridleways, off road trails etc, but not on pedestrian pavements, unless specified as shared territory so to speak.
I think that cyclists are divided into 2 communities. The hardcore cyclists like the people on here. Generally own several bikes and take the utmost care to be respectable. Then there are the non-hardcore bikers who use their bikes primarily as a form of transport. Often kids etc. I think the non-hardcore bikes don't understand the rules and the situation so to speak and generally cause more problems. It is up to everybody to educate these people who ride without lights, run traffic lights etc to take more care and behave themselves.
Motorists also need to be more respectful and consider the cyclists situation. A few seconds off a journey time to slow down for a bike aint a lot imho. I think that a "minority" of cyclists are giving the "majority" a bad name.
Unfortunately I think the "minority" are in the majority, and vice versa.
D
Dave Kahn
Guest
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 02:36:10 -0000, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>
>Remember that?
>
>It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
It's good news for all road users.
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>
>Remember that?
>
>It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
It's good news for all road users.
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain
L
-Lsqnot Respond
Guest
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:07:34 -0000, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to
>>> cycling. Remember that? It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
>
>> It's good news for all road users.
>
><sigh>
>
>So it is.
>
>But particularly good news for Portsmouth pedestrians (for whose the crackdown is supposed to be).
>
Good for cyclists too. Get 'em on the road where they should be. Just hope the drivers slow down
accordingly.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to
>>> cycling. Remember that? It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
>
>> It's good news for all road users.
>
><sigh>
>
>So it is.
>
>But particularly good news for Portsmouth pedestrians (for whose the crackdown is supposed to be).
>
Good for cyclists too. Get 'em on the road where they should be. Just hope the drivers slow down
accordingly.
J
Jnugent
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>> Remember that? It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
> It's good news for all road users.
<sigh>
So it is.
But particularly good news for Portsmouth pedestrians (for whose the crackdown is supposed to be).
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>> Remember that? It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
> It's good news for all road users.
<sigh>
So it is.
But particularly good news for Portsmouth pedestrians (for whose the crackdown is supposed to be).
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/04
A
Andyp
Guest
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> But there are some cyclists who insist (sometimes in a non-straightforward way) that it is OK to
> cycle on an ordinary footway.
Well my view on cycling on ordinary footways as far as pedestrians are concerned depends on whether
or not there are any pedestrians on it funnily enough. If there are then ofcourse you shouldn't
annoy or inconvenience them by riding on it. If there aren't then you shouldn't annoy or
inconvenience the motorists behind you by not riding on it if it's in such a place that they
couldn't otherwise easily overtake. Consideration for others whatever their means of getting from A
to B takes precedence over traffic laws in my book.
> But there are some cyclists who insist (sometimes in a non-straightforward way) that it is OK to
> cycle on an ordinary footway.
Well my view on cycling on ordinary footways as far as pedestrians are concerned depends on whether
or not there are any pedestrians on it funnily enough. If there are then ofcourse you shouldn't
annoy or inconvenience them by riding on it. If there aren't then you shouldn't annoy or
inconvenience the motorists behind you by not riding on it if it's in such a place that they
couldn't otherwise easily overtake. Consideration for others whatever their means of getting from A
to B takes precedence over traffic laws in my book.
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:07:48 +0000, Dave Kahn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>It's good news for all road users.
Indeed. I hope it heralds a new zero-tolerance approach to all infractions by all road users.
Oink, flap, oink, flap.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>>The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>It's good news for all road users.
Indeed. I hope it heralds a new zero-tolerance approach to all infractions by all road users.
Oink, flap, oink, flap.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
T
Tony Raven
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Oink, flap, oink, flap.
>
> Guy
>
I think that flag on your bent needs oiling Guy ;-)
Tony
>
> Oink, flap, oink, flap.
>
> Guy
>
I think that flag on your bent needs oiling Guy ;-)
Tony
S
Simian
Guest
JNugent wrote:
> Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> ... on the assumption it is just a typo, I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a
>>> cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng
>>> of pedestrians, of course).
>
>> Lamp posts, side roads, poor surfaces, parked cars. Plus most have peds on anyway, and even one
>> means you have to slow down, make sure you pass them safely, make sure they have some idea you
>> are there, etc,.
>
> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does that) may make for a slower
> average speed, but not necessarily for a slower speed whilst on the move.
So you'd drive at the same speed through a throng of pedestrians, round copious road furniture, on a
narrow, badly rutted surface, as you would on a nice wide, smooth, ped-free A-road?
Of course you wouldn't, it's the same thing with shared use paths.
> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
Well I didn't design the bloody things. I only use one small stretch around here because the
alternative is an extra 2 miles travel in slow moving traffic.
> Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> ... on the assumption it is just a typo, I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a
>>> cyclist on a shared-use footway would be forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng
>>> of pedestrians, of course).
>
>> Lamp posts, side roads, poor surfaces, parked cars. Plus most have peds on anyway, and even one
>> means you have to slow down, make sure you pass them safely, make sure they have some idea you
>> are there, etc,.
>
> Having to stop every now and then (assuming the cyclist actually does that) may make for a slower
> average speed, but not necessarily for a slower speed whilst on the move.
So you'd drive at the same speed through a throng of pedestrians, round copious road furniture, on a
narrow, badly rutted surface, as you would on a nice wide, smooth, ped-free A-road?
Of course you wouldn't, it's the same thing with shared use paths.
> And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
> he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
Well I didn't design the bloody things. I only use one small stretch around here because the
alternative is an extra 2 miles travel in slow moving traffic.
L
-Lsqnot Respond
Guest
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 02:31:25 -0000, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
>he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
>
In the case of legitimised pavement cycling (ie where the council have suddenly and miraculously
made it safe by adding a blue sign) it is probably becaise of the number of death threats (no
exaqgeration) you get from motorists if you stick to the road.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And anyway, if it were so much slower than the cyclist could manage on the carriageway (where
>he/she belongs), why cycle on the footway?
>
In the case of legitimised pavement cycling (ie where the council have suddenly and miraculously
made it safe by adding a blue sign) it is probably becaise of the number of death threats (no
exaqgeration) you get from motorists if you stick to the road.
S
Steve Firth
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> Indeed. I hope it heralds a new zero-tolerance approach to all infractions by all road users.
It represents the first attempt to subject cyclists to the same zero-tolerance approach already
applied ot motorists.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers?
Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
> Indeed. I hope it heralds a new zero-tolerance approach to all infractions by all road users.
It represents the first attempt to subject cyclists to the same zero-tolerance approach already
applied ot motorists.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers?
Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:13:34 +0000, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote:
>> Indeed. I hope it heralds a new zero-tolerance approach to all infractions by all road users.
>It represents the first attempt to subject cyclists to the same zero-tolerance approach already
>applied ot motorists.
ROTFLMAO! What part of "10% plus 3mph" do you have trouble understanding?
Zero tolerance for motorists? Probably the most complete bollocks ever posted here by anyone other
than Smith or Nugent!
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
Firth) wrote:
>> Indeed. I hope it heralds a new zero-tolerance approach to all infractions by all road users.
>It represents the first attempt to subject cyclists to the same zero-tolerance approach already
>applied ot motorists.
ROTFLMAO! What part of "10% plus 3mph" do you have trouble understanding?
Zero tolerance for motorists? Probably the most complete bollocks ever posted here by anyone other
than Smith or Nugent!
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
D
Davidr
Guest
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> [email protected] wrote:
> > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be
> >> forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).
>
> > If you got your bike out you might find out.
>
> No, certainly not at this time of year. And not for a real journey - cycling is/was just a method
> of recreation, of no application (for me) to the real world.
>
> > At the same time you can test another claim you made earlier - // Cyclists use the roads. If the
> > location is OK and convenient for // car-drivers, it will be equally OK and convenient for
> > cyclists.
>
> You have lost me.
>
> Is there a point to what you have written?
That you have a habit of making grandiose statements with little personal credibility. When asked,
you don't amplify.
> >> What is central to the thread (and the reason why cycling on footways is illegal almost
> >> everywhere) is the fact that footway- cycling is dangerous to the lawful users of footways,
> >> including me wen I am on foot. The possibility that it might not be ideal for cyclists for
> >> reasons of their own...
>
> > The only way to read that last sentence is to replace the subject "it" with "footway-cycling".
>
> Thats right.
>
> > Yes, footway-cycling is not ideal so your point is?
Should I have one? I am trying to winkle some sense out of your rambling.
> The people for whom the problems of illegal footway-cycling are most manifested are pedestrians
> (eg, me).
Err yes, but then I don't understand "cyclists for reasons of their own" if you speak from the POV
of pedestrians.
> And....
>
> Good News!
>
> The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>
> Remember that?
>
> It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
Ah, that one. As annoyance reduction, yes. Since you specifically mention danger on footpaths, then
apparently no overall change.
> [email protected] wrote:
> > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> I'd have to say I can't think of any reason why a cyclist on a shared-use footway would be
> >> forced to cycle more slowly (in the absence of a throng of pedestrians, of course).
>
> > If you got your bike out you might find out.
>
> No, certainly not at this time of year. And not for a real journey - cycling is/was just a method
> of recreation, of no application (for me) to the real world.
>
> > At the same time you can test another claim you made earlier - // Cyclists use the roads. If the
> > location is OK and convenient for // car-drivers, it will be equally OK and convenient for
> > cyclists.
>
> You have lost me.
>
> Is there a point to what you have written?
That you have a habit of making grandiose statements with little personal credibility. When asked,
you don't amplify.
> >> What is central to the thread (and the reason why cycling on footways is illegal almost
> >> everywhere) is the fact that footway- cycling is dangerous to the lawful users of footways,
> >> including me wen I am on foot. The possibility that it might not be ideal for cyclists for
> >> reasons of their own...
>
> > The only way to read that last sentence is to replace the subject "it" with "footway-cycling".
>
> Thats right.
>
> > Yes, footway-cycling is not ideal so your point is?
Should I have one? I am trying to winkle some sense out of your rambling.
> The people for whom the problems of illegal footway-cycling are most manifested are pedestrians
> (eg, me).
Err yes, but then I don't understand "cyclists for reasons of their own" if you speak from the POV
of pedestrians.
> And....
>
> Good News!
>
> The police (in Portsmouth at any rate) are apparently enforcing the laws which relate to cycling.
>
> Remember that?
>
> It's good news for pedestrians, isn't it?
Ah, that one. As annoyance reduction, yes. Since you specifically mention danger on footpaths, then
apparently no overall change.
A
Andyp
Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote
> I've cycled there and there is a code as well of ribbed tiles. On the
bicycle
> side the ribs run parallel to the travel and on the pedestrian side they
run
> perpendicular. As you say, a strange place and it took some working out
of
> what was supposed to be what.
Took a look today, one of the lines of well spaced small bike tiles has been replaced with a kind of
"follow the yellow brick road" scenario (except that it's kind of light brown) which is a lot easier
to follow but there are no longer any of the bike tiles or anything else to suggest whether bikes
can or can't use it. There is only one set of ribbed tiles on the edge of this as far as I could
see. I think it was better with just the little bike tiles...at least you could have pointed them
out to pedestrians in case of dispute as some kind of entitlement to be there. But still, bikes and
pedestrians seem to intermingle quite happily all over the square which is good to see.
> I've cycled there and there is a code as well of ribbed tiles. On the
bicycle
> side the ribs run parallel to the travel and on the pedestrian side they
run
> perpendicular. As you say, a strange place and it took some working out
of
> what was supposed to be what.
Took a look today, one of the lines of well spaced small bike tiles has been replaced with a kind of
"follow the yellow brick road" scenario (except that it's kind of light brown) which is a lot easier
to follow but there are no longer any of the bike tiles or anything else to suggest whether bikes
can or can't use it. There is only one set of ribbed tiles on the edge of this as far as I could
see. I think it was better with just the little bike tiles...at least you could have pointed them
out to pedestrians in case of dispute as some kind of entitlement to be there. But still, bikes and
pedestrians seem to intermingle quite happily all over the square which is good to see.
A
Alan Braggins
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I said they do not pass red traffic lights *routinely* (though many cyclists do, of course).
>
>> And you were talking complete bollocks, of course.
>
>If you really think that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights, take a look at
>any main road junction for an hour or two.
Since I can (and do) see motor-vehicle drivers passing red lights in a few minutes in the course of
my normal travel, what would be the point of spending hours doing it?
Anyway, I'm giving up trying to get this basic point through your thick skull, I have better things
to do than try to cure your delusions.
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I said they do not pass red traffic lights *routinely* (though many cyclists do, of course).
>
>> And you were talking complete bollocks, of course.
>
>If you really think that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights, take a look at
>any main road junction for an hour or two.
Since I can (and do) see motor-vehicle drivers passing red lights in a few minutes in the course of
my normal travel, what would be the point of spending hours doing it?
Anyway, I'm giving up trying to get this basic point through your thick skull, I have better things
to do than try to cure your delusions.
- Status
Similar threads
