A
Adam Lea
Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:22:56 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> If one wishes to increase the distance travelled by about 50% and
>>> increase the number of hills to be traversed. No great problem for
>>> someone on holiday and travelling that way once or twice a year, but
>>> useless for those making transport trips.
>>>
>>
>>I am guessing that the bit of the A90 cyclists are prohibited from is the
>>bit going through the outer suburbs, between the dual carriageway section
>>and the city center.
>
> No, it is the bit from the Forth Road Bridge to Burnshot
> <http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=317165&y=676170&z=3&sv=317165,676170&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf>
>
> One of the "alternatives" is to use the narrow, tree infested,
> unmaintained (especially in winter) Sustrans route 1, sort of
> parallel with the A90 though a few more gradients. The other
> "alternative" is to use lanes, which are at least 50% longer and
> involve more hills. Neither are good for getting to and from work.
>
> A few years before the ban the "cycle friendly" council had spent
> money providing a bus/taxi/cycle lane, for about half the length of
> the ban, in one direction.
>
> They were never able to give a convincing explanation of why they
> introduced the ban. According to them it was either because the road
> was dangerous or was about to become dangerous for cyclists to use.
> They oscillated from one to the other depending on which argument
> one had knocked down. The figures didn't support the former, if the
> latter was correct then what was a "cycle friendly" council doing
> making a road more dangerous for cyclists to use.
>
> There are only rude words to describe this "cycle friendly" council.
> They are doing just as badly with trams. Both cases are a prime
> example of how not to do things.
>
I'll take a wild guess here and guess that the council thought that traffic
would be going down that road having spent some time on a motorway with the
dual carriageway itself having grade separated junctions and thus being like
a motorway from the drivers point of view. Hence the drivers would not
expect to have to deal with cyclists on this stretch road and would thus not
be looking out for them so the council thought that this would lead to
fatalities.
The B924 is almost a feasible alternative but it unfortunatly rejoins the
dual carriageway too early. A minor road linking the junction to New
Burnshot is what is needed.
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:22:56 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> If one wishes to increase the distance travelled by about 50% and
>>> increase the number of hills to be traversed. No great problem for
>>> someone on holiday and travelling that way once or twice a year, but
>>> useless for those making transport trips.
>>>
>>
>>I am guessing that the bit of the A90 cyclists are prohibited from is the
>>bit going through the outer suburbs, between the dual carriageway section
>>and the city center.
>
> No, it is the bit from the Forth Road Bridge to Burnshot
> <http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=317165&y=676170&z=3&sv=317165,676170&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf>
>
> One of the "alternatives" is to use the narrow, tree infested,
> unmaintained (especially in winter) Sustrans route 1, sort of
> parallel with the A90 though a few more gradients. The other
> "alternative" is to use lanes, which are at least 50% longer and
> involve more hills. Neither are good for getting to and from work.
>
> A few years before the ban the "cycle friendly" council had spent
> money providing a bus/taxi/cycle lane, for about half the length of
> the ban, in one direction.
>
> They were never able to give a convincing explanation of why they
> introduced the ban. According to them it was either because the road
> was dangerous or was about to become dangerous for cyclists to use.
> They oscillated from one to the other depending on which argument
> one had knocked down. The figures didn't support the former, if the
> latter was correct then what was a "cycle friendly" council doing
> making a road more dangerous for cyclists to use.
>
> There are only rude words to describe this "cycle friendly" council.
> They are doing just as badly with trams. Both cases are a prime
> example of how not to do things.
>
I'll take a wild guess here and guess that the council thought that traffic
would be going down that road having spent some time on a motorway with the
dual carriageway itself having grade separated junctions and thus being like
a motorway from the drivers point of view. Hence the drivers would not
expect to have to deal with cyclists on this stretch road and would thus not
be looking out for them so the council thought that this would lead to
fatalities.
The B924 is almost a feasible alternative but it unfortunatly rejoins the
dual carriageway too early. A minor road linking the junction to New
Burnshot is what is needed.
