Street furniture, footpath furniture

[[email protected]]

Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or other
public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use." But
shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?

 

[Nick Finnigan]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or other
> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use." But
> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?

Like those bollards to keep vans out of cycle paths, you mean?

 

[Doug]

[email protected] wrote:
> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
other
> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
But
> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?

Street furniture should be called a 'bloody nuisance'. Motorists here
expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
traffic signs and other vehicle **** cluttering peds pavements.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

 

[Madmucks]

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> other
>> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> But
>> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
>
> Street furniture should be called a 'bloody nuisance'. Motorists here
> expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
> traffic signs and other vehicle **** cluttering peds pavements.

Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and cyclists,
otherwise, wouldn't you?

 

[[email protected]]

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
other
> > public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
But
> > shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
>
> Like those bollards to keep vans out of cycle paths, you mean?

How about we swap then? Move all the car-related piping, tinplate and
pretty lights off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively"
to the cars?

 

[[email protected]]

Madmucks wrote:
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> > other
> >> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> > But
> >> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
> >
> > Street furniture should be called a 'bloody nuisance'. Motorists
here
> > expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
> > traffic signs and other vehicle **** cluttering peds pavements.
>
> Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only
apply
> to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and
cyclists,
> otherwise, wouldn't you?

Cyclists usually find sharing the road with pedestrians less annoying
than motorists do. Perhaps steet furniture is the motorist's selfless
way of impeding pavement cyclists. How thoughtful. Good show!

 

[Ian]

<[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
> Cyclists usually find sharing the road with pedestrians less annoying
> than motorists do. Perhaps steet furniture is the motorist's selfless
> way of impeding pavement cyclists. How thoughtful. Good show!
>

Pedestrians do mind sharing the pavement with cyclists and being buzzed by
them when crossing the road at pedestrian crossings. I wonder when was the
last time a cyclist was prosecuted for riding through a red light or cycling
on the pavement? I suppose it isn't politically correct to punish cyclists
for any offence as the government wants to encourage that mode of transport,
which is why anarchy has broken out on the streets and pavements.

Ian

 

[Tony Raven]

Madmucks wrote:
>
> Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
> to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and cyclists,
> otherwise, wouldn't you?
>

Well to a point. After all cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders
managed quite well without all those signs and still could I would bet.
The main reason they and all their associated laws had to be installed
was to stop motorists crashing into each other and killing themselves
and others. We cyclists just got caught as a consequence.

Tony

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian wrote:
> Pedestrians do mind sharing the pavement with cyclists and being buzzed by
> them when crossing the road at pedestrian crossings. I wonder when was the
> last time a cyclist was prosecuted for riding through a red light or cycling
> on the pavement? I suppose it isn't politically correct to punish cyclists
> for any offence as the government wants to encourage that mode of transport,
> which is why anarchy has broken out on the streets and pavements.

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/5q6ly

Can't we have a couple of weeks off before the next crossposted thread?

Jon

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:09:48 -0000, "Madmucks"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
>to motorists, and not to cycles

Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
order signs explicitly don't apply to us.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[ian henden]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:09:48 -0000, "Madmucks"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
>>to motorists, and not to cycles
>
> Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
> signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
> to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
> order signs explicitly don't apply to us.

Wouldn't make any difference to the average cyclist if they DID apply!!!
>
--
A Duhg is for life, not just for Christmas.



Unfortunately.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> other
>> > public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> But
>> > shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
>>
>> Like those bollards to keep vans out of cycle paths, you mean?
>
> How about we swap then? Move all the car-related piping, tinplate and
> pretty lights off the footpath into the area that belongs
> "exclusively" to the cars?

There is no area which belongs to cars - either exclusively or
otherwise. It all belongs to cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders.
Car drivers are allowed to use it only if they have a license and
insurance.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.

 

[JohnB]

ian henden wrote:
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:09:48 -0000, "Madmucks"
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
> >>to motorists, and not to cycles
> >
> > Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
> > signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
> > to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
> > order signs explicitly don't apply to us.
>
> Wouldn't make any difference to the average cyclist if they DID apply!!!

But it is interesting how many cyclists comply with rules compared to
bus drivers [1].

I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.

John B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:48:11 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>>>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
>>>to motorists, and not to cycles

>> Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
>> signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
>> to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
>> order signs explicitly don't apply to us.

>Wouldn't make any difference to the average cyclist if they DID apply!!!

I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier reply:
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists>

I have just realised that this is not an orphan of the earlier
crosspost to urcm, but is instead x-posted to uk.tosspot. To the
bitbucket with it.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Ian]

"Jon Senior" wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>> Pedestrians do mind sharing the pavement with cyclists and being buzzed
>> by them when crossing the road at pedestrian crossings. I wonder when was
>> the last time a cyclist was prosecuted for riding through a red light or
>> cycling on the pavement? I suppose it isn't politically correct to punish
>> cyclists for any offence as the government wants to encourage that mode
>> of transport, which is why anarchy has broken out on the streets and
>> pavements.
>
> Ref: http://tinyurl.com/5q6ly
>
> Can't we have a couple of weeks off before the next crossposted thread?
>

As the whole of this thread is cross posted and you have clipped the start
of my reply I guess I have touched a nerve somewhere. Another cyclist who
ignores all traffic regulations?

Ian

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, JohnB <[email protected]> writes
>But it is interesting how many cyclists comply with rules compared to
>bus drivers [1].
>
>I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
>yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
Do I understand from your post, that the bus drivers didn't care about
cyclists who were stopping them from keeping to schedule.
--
Clive.

 

[JohnB]

Clive Coleman wrote:
>
> In message <[email protected]>, JohnB <[email protected]> writes
> >But it is interesting how many cyclists comply with rules compared to
> >bus drivers [1].
> >
> >I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
> >yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
> Do I understand from your post, that the bus drivers didn't care about
> cyclists who were stopping them from keeping to schedule.

They didn't care about keeping to the rules of the road - or to the
comfort and safety of their passengers.

And what schedule?
The SBL was 20 minutes late and that was just five miles from its start point.

John B

 

[Not Responding]

JohnB wrote:
..
>
> I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
> yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
>
> John B

Having spent over 6 months with Solent Blue Line, First and Stagecoach
as my main mode of transport last year, I can only agree.

In truth, they weren't too bad in dealing with cyclists - something I've
noticed with First[1] in particular when cycling. It was more traffic
lights and so on. Total disregard for lights and a plentiful application
of the rule of gross tonnage for general manoevres.

[1] I think First have woken up to cyclists since one of their drivers
killed one last year. Usual minimal fine and ban for the driver but
First handled it very well in that they sacked him despite a lot of
union pressure.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> other
> > > public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> But
> > > shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
> >
> > Like those bollards to keep vans out of cycle paths, you mean?
>
> How about we swap then?

Swap what? I don't like cycling around bollards, but whoever put
them up would see no point in putting them other than on a cycle path.

>Move all the car-related piping, tinplate and pretty lights

There is no such stuff.

>off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively" to the cars?

There is no such area.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>
>>off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively" to the cars?
>
>
> There is no such area.
>

There is; the outside lane of a motorway. As good a place as any to
dump it all ;-)

Tony