Main letter in local rag.



On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:15:27 -0700, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2 Oct, 22:22, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, asrl07
>> @yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> > Just because you have a right to do something doesn't absolve you of
>> > common courtesy.

>>
>> > Pedestrians also have a right to use the road, but they don't tend to
>> > walk haphazardly all over it and force all the cars down to walking
>> > pace, do they?

>>
>> Motorists often make the same complaint about cyclists on the road when
>> a cyclepath is available.

>
>Cyclepaths don't provide the same standard of facility for cyclists as
>pavements do for pedestrians.


True. Pedestrian facilities are worse!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/147195.stm

"Pavement fall victims are Britain's hidden road accident victims.

"One estimate suggests you are 10 times more likely to end up in
hospital from a pavement fall than from being hit by a vehicle. And in
many cases the injuries are as severe as those suffered in road
crashes."


Yet another reason to crack down on motorists driving along pavements
instead of harassing cyclists.
 
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:11:30 -0700, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 22:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > EXACTLY like I expect cyclists to proceed at walking pace in those
> > areas intended for cyclists and pedestrians to share. If cyclists
> > don't want to proceed at that pace, they should go elsewhere.

>
> Which means that shared paths are utterly useless for anything other
> than very short journeys as if you are going to cycle at walking pace,
> you may as well be on foot (why bother with a bike?).


Yes, and?

Most regular or serious or utility cyclists reached that conclusion
long ago. You didn't really think cycle facilities were for the
benefit of cyclists did you?

> > I'm therefore not sure what point you were trying to make. It
> > certainly seems you are not in disagreement with what I said - in an
> > area intended for vehicles and pedestrians to intermingle, the
> > vehicles absolutely would be expected to proceed at walking pace,
> > because pedestrians are expected to walk haphazardly wherever they
> > will.

>
> I am merely saying that it is not an unreasonable request for a
> pedestrian to let you past if you are approaching them.


We have no evidence that anything other than this occurred.

As I said (and you ignored) I was objecting to the attitude of the
cyclist that the pedestrian should not be on the
cyclist-and-pedestrian side. That is both unreasonable and has no
backing in law.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>> EXACTLY like I expect cyclists to proceed at walking pace in those
>> areas intended for cyclists and pedestrians to share. If cyclists
>> don't want to proceed at that pace, they should go elsewhere.

>
>Which means that shared paths are utterly useless for anything other
>than very short journeys as if you are going to cycle at walking pace,
>you may as well be on foot (why bother with a bike?).


Because you can use a shared use path for _part_ of a journey, and
use the bike at full speed on the road for other parts. Not all
shared use paths are beside roads, some provide useful short cuts.
(And some are beside roads that some cyclists are scared to use.
Generally those cyclists are wrong to think they are safer on the
path, but while they think that the path might still let them get
to a quieter road.)
 
On 2 Oct, 20:57, David Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-10-02, The Luggage <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "The High Street shopping area is a pedestrianised area 24 hours a
> > day.

>
> > "Only after 4pm and before 10am are cars and vans allowed on here -
> > but cyclists are never allowed."

>
> > How can TPTB justify having the centre closed to motor traffic between
> > 10 and 4, but closed to bikes 24 hours???

>
> They don't - that's the Lincolnshire Echo being characteristically
> rubbish. The "No cycling" signs round the High Street area between the
> bottom of Steep Hill and the railway crossing actually state that
> cycling for loading is allowed 4pm-10am.
>
> Thankfully I don't live in horrible, horrible Lincoln anymore, so I
> can't take a picture of the signs.


Thanks for the local info, David. Yes, either the reporting or the
PCSO talking rubbish. It would have been helpful if they had bothered
to report that access is limited to delivery vehicles only.

TL
 
On 02 Oct 2007 18:30:42 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>As gets posted over and over and over again, ad nauseum (nauseums me,
>anyway) pedestrians are 100% completely entitled to wander wherever
>they like on a shared segregated path.
>
>The white line imposes no restrictions on any pedestrian using the
>path. They retain as much right to every part of the path surface as
>they had before the white line was painted. The white line has
>meaning only to the cyclist - the line marks where the cyclist must
>remain.
>
>The two parts are 'pedestrians only' and 'pedestrians and cyclists'.


Are they all like this? There are several around here that I can
think of that have a picture of a cycle on one side of the line and a
stick man on the other, suggesting to me that one side is cyclists
only.

>If you don't like it, don't ride on the path. I don't. Many cyclists
>here do not.


I generally avoid them too. Particularly the one that more than one
set of staggered barriers right across the whole path (the ones
normally used to stop cyclists completely)!

M
 
Mark wrote:
> On 02 Oct 2007 18:30:42 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As gets posted over and over and over again, ad nauseum (nauseums me,
>> anyway) pedestrians are 100% completely entitled to wander wherever
>> they like on a shared segregated path.
>>
>> The white line imposes no restrictions on any pedestrian using the
>> path. They retain as much right to every part of the path surface as
>> they had before the white line was painted. The white line has
>> meaning only to the cyclist - the line marks where the cyclist must
>> remain.
>>
>> The two parts are 'pedestrians only' and 'pedestrians and cyclists'.

>
> Are they all like this? There are several around here that I can
> think of that have a picture of a cycle on one side of the line and a
> stick man on the other, suggesting to me that one side is cyclists
> only.


Cyclists are legally banned from the pedestrian side, pedestrians are
free to use either side as they wish.

--
Matt B
 
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02 Oct 2007 18:30:42 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The white line imposes no restrictions on any pedestrian using the
> >path. They retain as much right to every part of the path surface as
> >they had before the white line was painted. The white line has
> >meaning only to the cyclist - the line marks where the cyclist must
> >remain.
> >
> >The two parts are 'pedestrians only' and 'pedestrians and cyclists'.

>
> Are they all like this?


Yes.

> There are several around here that I can
> think of that have a picture of a cycle on one side of the line and a
> stick man on the other, suggesting to me that one side is cyclists
> only.


It doesn't much matter what the signs and markings suggest, that is
what it means.

The markings and signs do not take away any rights from pedestrians -
the whole width of the path remains a pedestrian path - they simply
add the right to ride along half the path to cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On 03 Oct 2007 11:10:57 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 02 Oct 2007 18:30:42 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The white line imposes no restrictions on any pedestrian using the
>> >path. They retain as much right to every part of the path surface as
>> >they had before the white line was painted. The white line has
>> >meaning only to the cyclist - the line marks where the cyclist must
>> >remain.
>> >
>> >The two parts are 'pedestrians only' and 'pedestrians and cyclists'.

>>
>> Are they all like this?

>
>Yes.
>
>> There are several around here that I can
>> think of that have a picture of a cycle on one side of the line and a
>> stick man on the other, suggesting to me that one side is cyclists
>> only.

>
>It doesn't much matter what the signs and markings suggest, that is
>what it means.


I would say, in a sense, that it does matter what the marking suggests
if a large number of people are mislead.

M
 
"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

>
> Well, it *was* supposed to be an antidote to the dozens of "get off
> the pavements onto the road" letters. To be fair to the paper
> though, they are pro cyclist as can be seen by this recent
> editorial.
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zedit.jpg


Don't believe that they are pro cycling until they say that the main
reason for commuting by bike is that it's fun (and if it isn't fun,
then you are doing it wrong.)

Jeremy Parker
 
On 3 Oct, 08:07, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:11:30 -0700, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2 Oct, 22:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > EXACTLY like I expect cyclists to proceed at walking pace in those
> > > areas intended for cyclists and pedestrians to share. If cyclists
> > > don't want to proceed at that pace, they should go elsewhere.

>
> > Which means that shared paths are utterly useless for anything other
> > than very short journeys as if you are going to cycle at walking pace,
> > you may as well be on foot (why bother with a bike?).

>
> Yes, and?
>
> Most regular or serious or utility cyclists reached that conclusion
> long ago. You didn't really think cycle facilities were for the
> benefit of cyclists did you?
>
> > > I'm therefore not sure what point you were trying to make. It
> > > certainly seems you are not in disagreement with what I said - in an
> > > area intended for vehicles and pedestrians to intermingle, the
> > > vehicles absolutely would be expected to proceed at walking pace,
> > > because pedestrians are expected to walk haphazardly wherever they
> > > will.

>
> > I am merely saying that it is not an unreasonable request for a
> > pedestrian to let you past if you are approaching them.

>
> We have no evidence that anything other than this occurred.
>
> As I said (and you ignored) I was objecting to the attitude of the
> cyclist that the pedestrian should not be on the
> cyclist-and-pedestrian side. That is both unreasonable and has no
> backing in law.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|


If that is what you were saying then yes I agree with this. I guess I
shouldn't try reading long threads late at night :)
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
0
Views
271
S