M
Mark
Guest
On 12 Apr 2008 08:23:53 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>> Ian Smith said the following on 11/04/2008 13:36:
>>
>> > Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
>> > a facility.
>>
>> I do use cycle facilities almost exclusively on my short commute (about
>> 2.5 miles). None are what I would call good,
>
>So none meet the criterion being proposed. So you're actually
>agreeing with me - you don't use facilities that meet the criterion,
>because they don't exist.
>
>You might use other facilities that don't meet the criterion, but
>that's a different point. As it happens, I too use a few - on my
>former commute there was an off-road cycle track that was narrow, had
>blind corners and anti-bicycle gates at each end (yes really - a cycle
>path, clearly signed and marked as such with staggered barriers at
>each end designed to block bicycles) but which cut off quite a lot of
>length and a badly snarled junction, so I used it.
I know of several cycle tracks that have anti-cycle barriers at both
ends and also one cycle track with anti-cycle barriers in the middle
too! I rarely use it since it is badly maintained and full of people
walking their dogs with the lead stretching right way across the path.
>Would the idiots design and build a bypass and put solid bollards at
>each end to stop cars driving onto it? I just don't understand where
>these 'people' get their ideas.
M.
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>> Ian Smith said the following on 11/04/2008 13:36:
>>
>> > Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
>> > a facility.
>>
>> I do use cycle facilities almost exclusively on my short commute (about
>> 2.5 miles). None are what I would call good,
>
>So none meet the criterion being proposed. So you're actually
>agreeing with me - you don't use facilities that meet the criterion,
>because they don't exist.
>
>You might use other facilities that don't meet the criterion, but
>that's a different point. As it happens, I too use a few - on my
>former commute there was an off-road cycle track that was narrow, had
>blind corners and anti-bicycle gates at each end (yes really - a cycle
>path, clearly signed and marked as such with staggered barriers at
>each end designed to block bicycles) but which cut off quite a lot of
>length and a badly snarled junction, so I used it.
I know of several cycle tracks that have anti-cycle barriers at both
ends and also one cycle track with anti-cycle barriers in the middle
too! I rarely use it since it is badly maintained and full of people
walking their dogs with the lead stretching right way across the path.
>Would the idiots design and build a bypass and put solid bollards at
>each end to stop cars driving onto it? I just don't understand where
>these 'people' get their ideas.
M.
