Main letter in local rag.

[The Luggage]

On 29 Sep, 15:13, "Colin Nelson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Must be something in the air? Lincolnshire Echo to-day :-http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&com...
> (though this is a fairly regular topic).

I was surprised at the bit at the bottom of one of the related pages:
<http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156130&contentPK=18538698>

"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???

TL

 

[JNugent]

The Luggage wrote:
> On 29 Sep, 15:13, "Colin Nelson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Must be something in the air? Lincolnshire Echo to-day :-http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&com...
>>(though this is a fairly regular topic).
>
>
> I was surprised at the bit at the bottom of one of the related pages:
> <http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
> nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156130&contentPK=18538698>
>
> "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???

I bet it's something to do with:

(a) the delivery/collection of goods, and

(b) the delivery and collection of cash.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
The Luggage <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> I was surprised at the bit at the bottom of one of the related pages:
> <http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
> nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156130&contentPK=18538698>
>
> "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."

Surprises me too. Their dictionary clearly has a somewhat loose definition
of the word "pedestrian".

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
a yo-yo" - Enoch Root.

 

[The Luggage]

On 2 Oct, 14:41, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The Luggage 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???
>
> I bet it's something to do with:
>
> (a) the delivery/collection of goods, and
>
> (b) the delivery and collection of cash

Neither of which are usually done by cars (see the original
quotation.)

It is possible to word a TRO to allow deliveries but keep other
traffic out. Alternatively, if there is no readon to ban cars outside
10-4, why should bikes be banned?

TL

 

[Barb]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Barb wrote:
>> "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:50:38 +0100, JNugent
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cycling on the footway is illegal and anti-social, whether or not a
>>>> penalty notice is issued and irrespective of what the ticket-issuing
>>>> officers' guidance says.
>>> I find it very ironic that it is illegal and dangerous to ride on the
>>> pavement. However, with the simple addition of a white line, it
>>> suddenly becomes a "cycle path" and now it is legal and safe to cycle
>>> there!
>>>
>>> Those white lines really are magic ;-)
>>
>> Yes, but the really annoying thing is the way "pedestrians" wander all
>> over the "cycle" area and often have to have a warning bell when you
>> approach them from behind.
>
> If you are cycling, do you /always/ use cycle lanes/tracks if there is one
> available, or do you sometimes prefer to use the "normal" road?
>
> --
> Matt B



Yes.
Barb

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry; that should have read: "the official rationale is that
> pedestrians are at least warned by the signage to watch out for
> cyclists on the footway".

In the middle of Wandsworth Common the cycle lane changes side with
the footway near a bend and a bridge - so sight lines are obstructed
and the lighting is adverse.

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[Mark]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:27:41 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Cycling on the footway is illegal and anti-social, whether or not a
>>>penalty notice is issued and irrespective of what the ticket-issuing
>>>officers' guidance says.
>
>> I find it very ironic that it is illegal and dangerous to ride on the
>> pavement.
>
>There's nothing ironic about that.
>
>> However, with the simple addition of a white line, it
>> suddenly becomes a "cycle path" and now it is legal and safe to cycle
>> there!
>>
>> Those white lines really are magic ;-)
>
>I suppose the official rationale is that pedestrians are at least
>warned by the signage to watch out for pedestrians on the footway.
>
>But I agree with you - the whole idea of shared paths is nonsensical.

The irony is described by the whole paragraph not just the first
sentence taken in isolation.

M

 

[JNugent]

The Luggage wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The Luggage 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???

>>I bet it's something to do with:
>>(a) the delivery/collection of goods, and
>>(b) the delivery and collection of cash

> Neither of which are usually done by cars (see the original
> quotation.)

The exception appears to be for cars AND vans. Despite what you claim,
cars are frequently used to collect goods from shops (and in any case,
see below). As long as the exception is aimed at the movement of goods
and cash, it's easy to justify the differing rules.

> It is possible to word a TRO to allow deliveries but keep other
> traffic out. Alternatively, if there is no readon to ban cars outside
> 10-4, why should bikes be banned?

At a guess, overall, it's a measure to prevent vehicular
through-traffic so as to advantage pedestrian traffic. You can easily
do that for four-and-more wheeled vehicles via traffic management
(with or without temporal prohibitions) which mean that vehicles
cannot make a through journey (having to come out the way they went
in). Not so for bikes and motor bikes. They can only be kept from
using such an area as a through route by a complete ban (assuming
riders to be law-abiding).

You probably won't like that as an answer, but you have to admit that
it's logical.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Barb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I find it very ironic that it is illegal and dangerous to ride on
> > the pavement. However, with the simple addition of a white line,
> > it suddenly becomes a "cycle path" and now it is legal and safe to
> > cycle there!
>
> Yes, but the really annoying thing is the way "pedestrians" wander
> all over the "cycle" area and often have to have a warning bell
> when you approach them from behind.

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'.

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

> Lo and behold, the very next day, she was blithely
> walking (and "exercising"...yuck!) her dog on the cycle path!

No, she was walking on a bit of path intended for pedestrians to walk
on. She was in the right. Please check that your high horse is in
the right before pronouncing from it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Not so for bikes and motor bikes. They can only be kept from
> using such an area as a through route by a complete ban (assuming
> riders to be law-abiding).

> You probably won't like that as an answer, but you have to admit that
> it's logical.

What about bikes and motor bikes with side-cars and trailers?

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus and CarryFreedom Y-Large in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[JNugent]

[email protected]m wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Not so for bikes and motor bikes. They can only be kept from
>>using such an area as a through route by a complete ban (assuming
>>riders to be law-abiding).

>>You probably won't like that as an answer, but you have to admit that
>>it's logical.

> What about bikes and motor bikes with side-cars and trailers?

Push-bikes with side-cars? Outside of the circus?

Either way, a ban on bikes and motor-bikes covers it. I suppose that
at a pinch, one of those increasingly-rare motor-bikes with side-car
could be used to collect goods and get in via the same legal route as
a Reliant Robin. It all depends on the spacing of bollards, railings, etc.

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> What about bikes and motor bikes with side-cars and trailers?

> Push-bikes with side-cars? Outside of the circus?

Used to be standard for the window-cleaner to have his bucket and
ladders on a bicycle side-car.

But big tops didn't have windows, so he would have been very outside
the circus.

(You remind me that the lamplighter - oh, all right, the clockwork
winder- used to pedal along with his arm threaded through his ladder.
I don't think that would be considered safe practice today.)

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[David Nutter]

On 2007-10-02, The Luggage <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 Sep, 15:13, "Colin Nelson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Must be something in the air? Lincolnshire Echo to-day :-http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&com...
>> (though this is a fairly regular topic).
>
> I was surprised at the bit at the bottom of one of the related pages:
><http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
> nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156130&contentPK=18538698>
>
> "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.

Regards,

-david

 

[Adam Lea]

On 2 Oct, 19:30, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Barb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > I find it very ironic that it is illegal and dangerous to ride on
> > > the pavement. However, with the simple addition of a white line,
> > > it suddenly becomes a "cycle path" and now it is legal and safe to
> > > cycle there!
>
> > Yes, but the really annoying thing is the way "pedestrians" wander
> > all over the "cycle" area and often have to have a warning bell
> > when you approach them from behind.
>
> 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'.
>
> If you don't like it, don't ride on the path. I don't. Many cyclists
> here do not.
>
> > Lo and behold, the very next day, she was blithely
> > walking (and "exercising"...yuck!) her dog on the cycle path!
>
> No, she was walking on a bit of path intended for pedestrians to walk
> on. She was in the right. Please check that your high horse is in
> the right before pronouncing from it.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

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?

 

[JNugent]

[email protected]m wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>What about bikes and motor bikes with side-cars and trailers?
>
>
>>Push-bikes with side-cars? Outside of the circus?
>
>
> Used to be standard for the window-cleaner to have his bucket and
> ladders on a bicycle side-car.
>
> But big tops didn't have windows, so he would have been very outside
> the circus.
>
> (You remind me that the lamplighter - oh, all right, the clockwork
> winder- used to pedal along with his arm threaded through his ladder.
> I don't think that would be considered safe practice today.)

I remember a local window cleaner doing that!

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 19:30, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Barb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but the really annoying thing is the way "pedestrians"
> > > wander all over the "cycle" area and often have to have a
> > > warning bell when you approach them from behind.
> >
> > 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 two parts are 'pedestrians only' and 'pedestrians and
> > cyclists'.
> >
> > If you don't like it, don't ride on the path. I don't. Many
> > cyclists here do not.
> >
> > > Lo and behold, the very next day, she was blithely walking (and
> > > "exercising"...yuck!) her dog on the cycle path!
> >
> > No, she was walking on a bit of path intended for pedestrians to
> > walk on. She was in the right. Please check that your high horse
> > is in the right before pronouncing from it.
>
> Just because you have a right to do something doesn't absolve you
> of common courtesy.

The poster was objecting to being told off for cycling on a pedestrian
bit of path and contrasted that with the cheek of the objector
'blithely' walking on "the cycle path". There's no such thing - its a
'cycle-and-pedestrian' side of a path. The pedestrian was there
first, it's perfectly reasonable that she walks on a path made for the
purpose, and on which she has a legal right to be.

We have no information about whether the walker was courteous or not
when the cyclist stopped and politely asked to be allowed past (which
I'm sure the cyclist did - I'm sure all cyclists are always the
epitome of politeness).

You will also observe that I objected not to the cyclist riding on the
path, nor to the cyclist requesting passage, but ONLY to the clear
attitude of the cyclist that pedestrians should get off the 'cyclist
side'. There is no cyclist side - it's a cyclist and pedestrian side.

> 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?

The roadway between the kerbs was not put in place for the purpose of
pedestrians walking down it.

In such places as the roadway is provided for that purpose (pedestrian
precincts and areas, for example), yes they do walk haphazardly and
yes motor vehicles crossing that space should proceed at walking pace
(or slower). In any space intended for pedestrians and motor vehicles
to share, yes I would expect the motor vehicles to proceed at walking
pace.

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.

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.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Tony Raven]

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.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Adam Lea]

On 2 Oct, 22:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2 Oct, 19:30, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Barb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, but the really annoying thing is the way "pedestrians"
> > > > wander all over the "cycle" area and often have to have a
> > > > warning bell when you approach them from behind.
>
> > > 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 two parts are 'pedestrians only' and 'pedestrians and
> > > cyclists'.
>
> > > If you don't like it, don't ride on the path. I don't. Many
> > > cyclists here do not.
>
> > > > Lo and behold, the very next day, she was blithely walking (and
> > > > "exercising"...yuck!) her dog on the cycle path!
>
> > > No, she was walking on a bit of path intended for pedestrians to
> > > walk on. She was in the right. Please check that your high horse
> > > is in the right before pronouncing from it.
>
> > Just because you have a right to do something doesn't absolve you
> > of common courtesy.
>
> The poster was objecting to being told off for cycling on a pedestrian
> bit of path and contrasted that with the cheek of the objector
> 'blithely' walking on "the cycle path". There's no such thing - its a
> 'cycle-and-pedestrian' side of a path. The pedestrian was there
> first, it's perfectly reasonable that she walks on a path made for the
> purpose, and on which she has a legal right to be.
>
> We have no information about whether the walker was courteous or not
> when the cyclist stopped and politely asked to be allowed past (which
> I'm sure the cyclist did - I'm sure all cyclists are always the
> epitome of politeness).
>
> You will also observe that I objected not to the cyclist riding on the
> path, nor to the cyclist requesting passage, but ONLY to the clear
> attitude of the cyclist that pedestrians should get off the 'cyclist
> side'. There is no cyclist side - it's a cyclist and pedestrian side.
>
> > 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?
>
> The roadway between the kerbs was not put in place for the purpose of
> pedestrians walking down it.
>
> In such places as the roadway is provided for that purpose (pedestrian
> precincts and areas, for example), yes they do walk haphazardly and
> yes motor vehicles crossing that space should proceed at walking pace
> (or slower). In any space intended for pedestrians and motor vehicles
> to share, yes I would expect the motor vehicles to proceed at walking
> pace.

Pedestrians and motor vehicles are expected to share the road in rural
areas with no pavement. Motor vehicles aren't expected to proceed at
walking pace here, and pedestrians do walk in such a way as to cause
least obstruction to other traffic (in my observation) without
inconveniencing their own journeys.

>
> 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?).

>
> 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. For a
pedestrian to move to one side requires no extra effort or delay on
their behalf. Not true for the cyclist who only has half the area to
manoevre and a bicycle is much less manoevrable than a pair of legs.

>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Adam Lea]

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.

It is more difficult for a cyclist to pull over to let motorists past
and often causes delay and extra effort for the cyclist. Not so for
pedestrians, where moving a few inches over requires minimal effort
and delay.

Motorists have much more room to overtake cyclists on roads than
cyclists have to overtake pedestrians on shared use paths.

When cycling I do pull over if feasible and safe to do so and let
motorists past. Again it is just basic consideration for other people.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Adam Lea 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?).

By Jove! I do believe he has it!


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except
when they're writing on a subject I know something about."
(Keith F. Lynch)