UK and Europe · Public discussion

Words fail me - almost

Started by Danny Colyer · · Last activity · 5 posts · 384 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
21 August 2006
Last activity
24 August 2006
Original author
Danny Colyer
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
384
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. A few weeks ago, I mentioned some posts that had appeared on the
    Bath-Bristol cyclepath. These posts partially obscured the view to
    right when joining the path from Avon Lane in Saltford, making it harder
    to check for traffic already on the path.

    I complained to the council, and was told that the posts were for signs
    relating to the forthcoming 12 month trial period when horses would be
    allowed on the path. The work was put on hold while the engineer in
    charge of the work decided whether there really was a problem with
    visibility. He decided that there wasn't, and signs went up at the end
    of July.

    Anyway, a couple more signs went up when I was on holiday last week. I
    joined the path this evening, looked to the right to check for traffic
    already on the path, and saw this:
    <url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-signs01.jpg>

    The view of traffic coming from the right is completely obscured by the
    signs. How eliminating the view of traffic at a junction can possibly
    be considered not to be detrimental to safety is beyond me, but
    apparently B&NES know better.

    --
    Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  2. On 21/08/2006 19:41, Danny Colyer said,

    Quoted message said:

    The view of traffic coming from the right is completely obscured by the
    signs. How eliminating the view of traffic at a junction can possibly
    be considered not to be detrimental to safety is beyond me, but
    apparently B&NES know better.

    I'm having a half-hearted thing locally at the moment, where a hotel has
    put a sign up at the end of a cyclepath that totally and utterly blocks
    any vision of the road from the right, that curves away behind the sign.
    This sign is actually more of an advertising hoarding.

    It's only half-hearted because it isn't a route I use often. I suppose
    I ought to gee things along a bit again though.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  3. Danny Colyer said:

    A few weeks ago, I mentioned some posts that had appeared on the
    Bath-Bristol cyclepath. These posts partially obscured the view to
    right when joining the path from Avon Lane in Saltford, making it harder
    to check for traffic already on the path.

    I complained to the council, and was told that the posts were for signs
    relating to the forthcoming 12 month trial period when horses would be
    allowed on the path. The work was put on hold while the engineer in
    charge of the work decided whether there really was a problem with
    visibility. He decided that there wasn't, and signs went up at the end
    of July.

    Anyway, a couple more signs went up when I was on holiday last week. I
    joined the path this evening, looked to the right to check for traffic
    already on the path, and saw this:
    <url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-signs01.jpg>

    The view of traffic coming from the right is completely obscured by the
    signs. How eliminating the view of traffic at a junction can possibly
    be considered not to be detrimental to safety is beyond me, but
    apparently B&NES know better.

    Try explaining you hope to spot vehicles-smaller-than-cars 😉

    --
    ---
    Marten Gerritsen

    INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
    www.m-gineering.nl

  4. Danny Colyer said:


    The view of traffic coming from the right is completely obscured by the
    signs. How eliminating the view of traffic at a junction can possibly
    be considered not to be detrimental to safety is beyond me, but
    apparently B&NES know better.

    Why isn't there a mad chainsaw wielding maniac about when you need one?

    --
    Don Whybrow

    Sequi Bonum Non Time

    "The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service,
    which failed to start because of the following error: The
    operation completed successfully." (Windows NT Server v3.51)

  5. Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Danny
    Colyer <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

    Quoted message said:

    Anyway, a couple more signs went up when I was on holiday last week. I
    joined the path this evening, looked to the right to check for traffic
    already on the path, and saw this:
    <url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-signs01.jpg>

    The view of traffic coming from the right is completely obscured by the
    signs. How eliminating the view of traffic at a junction can possibly
    be considered not to be detrimental to safety is beyond me, but
    apparently B&NES know better.

    They're probably basing it on the need for visibility when everyone is
    doing 5pmh or less. The idea of cycles going any faster than a brisk
    walk appears to completely elude the people who design these things.

    --
    - DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

    Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
    <http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.