Sheffield's FOTM

[Membrane]

Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:

>The original closure was 20 years ago. Possibly the idea that people
>would drive over the pavement instead of obeying the no-entry wasn't as
>clear then as it is now?

If so then there would have been no need for the two outermost of the
original 7 bollards. The fact that they were used indicates that they
anticipated that the footpath would be used.

--
Membrane

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Membrane
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The original closure was 20 years ago. Possibly the idea that people
>>would drive over the pavement instead of obeying the no-entry wasn't as
>>clear then as it is now?

>If so then there would have been no need for the two outermost of the
>original 7 bollards. The fact that they were used indicates that they
>anticipated that the footpath would be used.

The outermost original ones were in the road. They had to add more as
people started driving on the pavement to get round them.

People do seem to be taking a bit of a "dog in the manger" approach with
this one. Granted it's not ideal but it's something that evolved for a
genuine reason, and is nothing like as bad as the cycle lane that went
through a bus shelter, or the one that ended in a brick wall, or some of
the other farcicalities that have appeared on FOTM over the years.

The risk is that by branding even things that aren't really so terrible,
or which have a genuine reason for being there, as farcilities, the
campaign appears to have become fanatical and the actual impact of the
message on ordinary people is diluted.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Membrane]

Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>The original closure was 20 years ago. Possibly the idea that people
>>>would drive over the pavement instead of obeying the no-entry wasn't as
>>>clear then as it is now?
>
>>If so then there would have been no need for the two outermost of the
>>original 7 bollards. The fact that they were used indicates that they
>>anticipated that the footpath would be used.
>
>The outermost original ones were in the road.

They were on the raised pavement:
http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/img/pomona.jpg

>They had to add more as
>people started driving on the pavement to get round them.

What they should have done is correct the mistake by moving the original
ones: http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/img/pomona_alt.jpg
This would have solved cars getting around them whilst not using any
more bollards and causing no hindrance to cyclists. What they did also
solved cars getting around them, but at the expense of using four more
(apparently expensive) bollards and creating inconvenience for cyclists.

>The risk is that by branding even things that aren't really so terrible,
>or which have a genuine reason for being there, as farcilities, the
>campaign appears to have become fanatical and the actual impact of the
>message on ordinary people is diluted.

The fact that there are worse examples doesn't make this one less of a
basic planning incompetence.

--
Membrane

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 16 Aug, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Granted it's not ideal but it's something that evolved for a
> genuine reason, and is nothing like as bad as the cycle lane that went
> through a bus shelter,

I disagree completely. A black, non-illuminated bollard in the very
centre of a cycle lane is bad bad bad bad bad (and dangerous too).
This is much worse than the cycle lane that went near the seats of a
bus shelter.

My own local authority has a love of dark or black bollards in the
middle of lanes, and they are an unjustified hazard.

Would the pillocks at the council decide to add black non-illuminated
bollards to the middle of a road lane because some cars were breaking
the law? Can we look forward to bollards in the middle of every road
lane where someone has broken the speed limit? If they won't do it
there, why think it's acceptable here?

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

 

[Pete Whelan]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Granted it's not ideal but it's something that evolved for a
>> genuine reason, and is nothing like as bad as the cycle lane that went
>> through a bus shelter,
>
>
> I disagree completely. A black, non-illuminated bollard in the very
> centre of a cycle lane is bad bad bad bad bad (and dangerous too).
> This is much worse than the cycle lane that went near the seats of a
> bus shelter.

I know, I found a solitary one a few weeks ago and suffered numerous
injuries (fractured clavicle, dislocated finger and what was thought to
be a cracked patella is now just compressed bone). CTC taking up te
case as you can't see it in the dark, even decent lights won't
necessarily catch it.

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Granted it's not ideal but it's something that evolved for a
>> genuine reason, and is nothing like as bad as the cycle lane that went
>> through a bus shelter,
>
> I disagree completely. A black, non-illuminated bollard in the very
> centre of a cycle lane is bad bad bad bad bad (and dangerous too).
> This is much worse than the cycle lane that went near the seats of a
> bus shelter.

Should cyclists assume that everything in their path will be
illuminated, or should they cycle at a safe speed so that they can stop
within the distance that they can see. What if the dark obstacle was a
child, or a cat?

> My own local authority has a love of dark or black bollards in the
> middle of lanes, and they are an unjustified hazard.

At least you can see them if you are looking where you are going, and
going slowly enough.

> Would the pillocks at the council decide to add black non-illuminated
> bollards to the middle of a road lane because some cars were breaking
> the law?

No, they do even better than that against errant motorists. They hide
the bollards below the surface of the road, then shoot them up under any
passing vehicle, just too late for them to be seen, or to allow
stopping. They have caused vehicle damage, and personal injury.

> Can we look forward to bollards in the middle of every road
> lane where someone has broken the speed limit? If they won't do it
> there, why think it's acceptable here?

The car ones caused much guffawing here recently, when CCTV footage from
Manchester showed cars being destroyed and innocent passengers being
injured because of them - remember???

Why can't you accept that cyclists need to be sure of where they are
going, and what is in the way, before they go there.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Pete Whelan wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Granted it's not ideal but it's something that evolved for a genuine
>>> reason, and is nothing like as bad as the cycle lane that went
>>> through a bus shelter,
>>
>> I disagree completely. A black, non-illuminated bollard in the very
>> centre of a cycle lane is bad bad bad bad bad (and dangerous too).
>> This is much worse than the cycle lane that went near the seats of a
>> bus shelter.
>
> I know, I found a solitary one a few weeks ago and suffered numerous
> injuries (fractured clavicle, dislocated finger and what was thought to
> be a cracked patella is now just compressed bone).

Lucky it was a bollard that "jumped out in front of you", and not a
child, or an animal that you hit then.

> CTC taking up te
> case as you can't see it in the dark, even decent lights won't
> necessarily catch it.

Should child pedestrians, and loose animals, be compelled to wear hi-vis
clothing to protect themselves from you when you are out and about on
your bike???

P.S. I hope you make a full and speedy recovery ;-)
--
Matt B

 

[Pete Whelan]

******** back into your box

 

[Simon Geller]

Thanks to all for your comments on this - I haven taken great pleasure
in relaying them to the council officers concerned. It's a pity that at
some point the thread turned into personal abuse - that just diminishes
us all. I would suggest that we close the topic at this point and look
forward to Warrington CC's next FOTM (not to mention the book that will
apparently be out in time for Xmas)

Simon


--
"Just because the world's getting hotter, you can't pin that on Global
Warming!

(Bush fiddles whilst Athens burns)

 

[Geraint Jones]

Simon Geller <[email protected]> wrote:
| Colin McKenzie said the following on 02/08/2007 16:58:
| > Simon Geller wrote:
| >> .... We have tried to get them to accept that bollards should be at
| >> least 1.5 metres apart, to allow vehicles such as this one through:-
| >> http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/content/1/c6/06/19/37/IMG_1911.JPG - and
| >> indeed this has started to happen to some newer schemes.
| >
| > How wide is that? The widest pedal-powered vehicle I've come across (and
| > I have looked) was 1.24m wide. So I tend to allow the engineers to get
| > away with 1.3m. Some cars will get through 1.5, and motorcycles won't
| > even slow down.
|
| Actually that trike is 1.2 metres wide - but it's nice to be able to
| pass through a barrier with a bit of clearance.

Having just wheeled some 5' x 3'6" bits of timber home on a wheelbarrow,
I had occasion this morning (on my way to fetch them) to measure some of
the gaps between posts on the cycle track from Oxford to Marston. I
noticed and measured the obvious ones, P-posts set in echelon with 3'
between the posts. These are obvious enough that many cyclists find they
either have to get off or bruise thighs, and having measured them I was
planning to have to unload the wheelbarrow and reload the other side.

It was the numerous places where posts were just 4'6" apart that caught
me out (it is just possible to get a 5' wide wheelbarrow through them
but you have to go back and forth a few times...).

We do get motorcycles on the stretch between the 3' wide posts, but I think
they usually go through the pedestrian gate.

 

[David Lloyd]

"Simon Geller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks to all for your comments on this - I haven taken great pleasure in
> relaying them to the council officers concerned. It's a pity that at some
> point the thread turned into personal abuse - that just diminishes us
> all. I would suggest that we close the topic at this point and look
> forward to Warrington CC's next FOTM (not to mention the book that will
> apparently be out in time for Xmas)
>

I'd like to see them in the form of a calender.

David Lloyd