Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
Cycle Route (NCR4).
=====Quote=====
Whilst I am no longer involved at More London on a day to day basis ,
I thought I should nevertheless respond being responsible for setting
the original policy, revisiting it and being party to the discussions
back in Feb. 2010 to which you refer.
At that meeting I explained that More London was conceived, designed
and built as a vehicular free environment at grade with in excess of
50% of its footprint being retained for pedestrians.
At its conception, the designated east / west cycle routes were Tooley
Street and the River Walk.
The design, features and materials reflect the estate's traffic free
nature, specifically informing those with disabilities, particularly
the visually impaired, that it is a traffic free environment. The same
applies to those accompanying them or those with young children. As a
consequence such groups are encouraged to be unconcerned about traffic
within the estate. Any emergency or maintenance vehicles entering the
site by necessary exception are marshalled by trained personnel.
People's guards, especially vulnerable groups and those accompanying
them are, therefore, down.
Whilst some cyclists are responsible and would traverse the estate
having regard to the pedestrian nature of it and that other users
would not be expecting fast moving traffic, some undoubtedly would
not, thereby posing a significant risk to people on the estate,
especially the above mentioned groups, as well as themselves.
For this very reason, and following consultation with a number of
groups, we took the decision to request that cyclists dismount when
crossing the estate. A number of the original designers are themselves
committed cyclists. I myself, am a cyclist. All of us, however,
believed, and still believe, the policy of asking cyclists to dismount
the right one in all the circumstances.
You will appreciate that the managers of the estate have to weigh up
the interests of a number of differing groups, some of which are
sometimes in conflict in terms desires and objectives.
At the Feb. 2010 meeting we undertook to furnish further information
on cycle spaces and constraints and undertook to look at possible
additional provision. This information was subsequently provided and
we did install some additional cycle parking.
We explained at the meeting that a material amount of our cycle
parking provision is colonised by occupiers of London Bridge City but
which we are clearly unable to police.
We expressed the view that the whole matter was a wider local area
issue and suggested a wider discussion group led by the local council
to look at routes and cycle parking on an area wide basis.
Whilst a follow up meeting was arranged, it was deferred at least
twice by others and we heard no more.
Mark Chapman, who manages the estate, I am sure would be happy to
attend such a meeting.
I appreciate that you may find the above disappointing from your own
perspective but trust that you can understand our thought processes
and ultimate decision. we are far from anti-cycling. Quite the
opposite.
In a perfect world all would behave responsibly for the common good
but sadly the world is not perfect and the managers of the estate have
to manage it balancing the various, sometimes conflicting, interests.
=====/Quote=====
> Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
> Cycle Route (NCR4).
> =====Quote=====
> Whilst I am no longer involved at More London on a day to day basis ,
> I thought I should nevertheless respond being responsible for setting
> the original policy, revisiting it and being party to the discussions
> back in Feb. 2010 to which you refer.
> At that meeting I explained that More London was conceived, designed
> and built as a vehicular free environment at grade with in excess of
> 50% of its footprint being retained for pedestrians.
> At its conception, the designated east / west cycle routes were Tooley
> Street and the River Walk.
> The design, features and materials reflect the estate's traffic free
> nature, specifically informing those with disabilities, particularly
> the visually impaired, that it is a traffic free environment. The same
> applies to those accompanying them or those with young children. As a
> consequence such groups are encouraged to be unconcerned about traffic
> within the estate. Any emergency or maintenance vehicles entering the
> site by necessary exception are marshalled by trained personnel.
> People's guards, especially vulnerable groups and those accompanying
> them are, therefore, down.
> Whilst some cyclists are responsible and would traverse the estate
> having regard to the pedestrian nature of it and that other users
> would not be expecting fast moving traffic, some undoubtedly would
> not, thereby posing a significant risk to people on the estate,
> especially the above mentioned groups, as well as themselves.
> For this very reason, and following consultation with a number of
> groups, we took the decision to request that cyclists dismount when
> crossing the estate. A number of the original designers are themselves
> committed cyclists. I myself, am a cyclist. All of us, however,
> believed, and still believe, the policy of asking cyclists to dismount
> the right one in all the circumstances.
> You will appreciate that the managers of the estate have to weigh up
> the interests of a number of differing groups, some of which are
> sometimes in conflict in terms desires and objectives.
> At the Feb. 2010 meeting we undertook to furnish further information
> on cycle spaces and constraints and undertook to look at possible
> additional provision. This information was subsequently provided and
> we did install some additional cycle parking.
> We explained at the meeting that a material amount of our cycle
> parking provision is colonised by occupiers of London Bridge City but
> which we are clearly unable to police.
> We expressed the view that the whole matter was a wider local area
> issue and suggested a wider discussion group led by the local council
> to look at routes and cycle parking on an area wide basis.
> Whilst a follow up meeting was arranged, it was deferred at least
> twice by others and we heard no more.
> Mark Chapman, who manages the estate, I am sure would be happy to
> attend such a meeting.
> I appreciate that you may find the above disappointing from your own
> perspective but trust that you can understand our thought processes
> and ultimate decision. we are far from anti-cycling. Quite the
> opposite.
> In a perfect world all would behave responsibly for the common good
> but sadly the world is not perfect and the managers of the estate have
> to manage it balancing the various, sometimes conflicting, interests.
> =====/Quote=====
He's basically saying that you can't expect all cyclists to behave responsibly. Most might but that is not sufficient to protect pedestrians, hence the ban on cycling.
>Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
>Cycle Route (NCR4).
>=====Quote=====
>Whilst I am no longer involved at More London on a day to day basis ,
>I thought I should nevertheless respond being responsible for setting
>the original policy, revisiting it and being party to the discussions
>back in Feb. 2010 to which you refer.
>At that meeting I explained that More London was conceived, designed
>and built as a vehicular free environment at grade with in excess of
>50% of its footprint being retained for pedestrians.
>At its conception, the designated east / west cycle routes were Tooley
>Street and the River Walk.
>The design, features and materials reflect the estate's traffic free
>nature, specifically informing those with disabilities, particularly
>the visually impaired, that it is a traffic free environment. The same
>applies to those accompanying them or those with young children. As a
>consequence such groups are encouraged to be unconcerned about traffic
>within the estate. Any emergency or maintenance vehicles entering the
>site by necessary exception are marshalled by trained personnel.
>People's guards, especially vulnerable groups and those accompanying
>them are, therefore, down.
>Whilst some cyclists are responsible and would traverse the estate
>having regard to the pedestrian nature of it and that other users
>would not be expecting fast moving traffic, some undoubtedly would
>not, thereby posing a significant risk to people on the estate,
>especially the above mentioned groups, as well as themselves.
>For this very reason, and following consultation with a number of
>groups, we took the decision to request that cyclists dismount when
>crossing the estate. A number of the original designers are themselves
>committed cyclists. I myself, am a cyclist. All of us, however,
>believed, and still believe, the policy of asking cyclists to dismount
>the right one in all the circumstances.
>You will appreciate that the managers of the estate have to weigh up
>the interests of a number of differing groups, some of which are
>sometimes in conflict in terms desires and objectives.
>At the Feb. 2010 meeting we undertook to furnish further information
>on cycle spaces and constraints and undertook to look at possible
>additional provision. This information was subsequently provided and
>we did install some additional cycle parking.
>We explained at the meeting that a material amount of our cycle
>parking provision is colonised by occupiers of London Bridge City but
>which we are clearly unable to police.
>We expressed the view that the whole matter was a wider local area
>issue and suggested a wider discussion group led by the local council
>to look at routes and cycle parking on an area wide basis.
>Whilst a follow up meeting was arranged, it was deferred at least
>twice by others and we heard no more.
>Mark Chapman, who manages the estate, I am sure would be happy to
>attend such a meeting.
>I appreciate that you may find the above disappointing from your own
>perspective but trust that you can understand our thought processes
>and ultimate decision. we are far from anti-cycling. Quite the
>opposite.
>In a perfect world all would behave responsibly for the common good
>but sadly the world is not perfect and the managers of the estate have
>to manage it balancing the various, sometimes conflicting, interests.
>=====/Quote=====
>>Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
>>Cycle Route (NCR4).
>>=====Quote=====
>>Whilst I am no longer involved at More London on a day to day basis ,
>>I thought I should nevertheless respond being responsible for setting
>>the original policy, revisiting it and being party to the discussions
>>back in Feb. 2010 to which you refer.
>>At that meeting I explained that More London was conceived, designed
>>and built as a vehicular free environment at grade with in excess of
>>50% of its footprint being retained for pedestrians.
>>At its conception, the designated east / west cycle routes were Tooley
>>Street and the River Walk.
>>The design, features and materials reflect the estate's traffic free
>>nature, specifically informing those with disabilities, particularly
>>the visually impaired, that it is a traffic free environment. The same
>>applies to those accompanying them or those with young children. As a
>>consequence such groups are encouraged to be unconcerned about traffic
>>within the estate. Any emergency or maintenance vehicles entering the
>>site by necessary exception are marshalled by trained personnel.
>>People's guards, especially vulnerable groups and those accompanying
>>them are, therefore, down.
>>Whilst some cyclists are responsible and would traverse the estate
>>having regard to the pedestrian nature of it and that other users
>>would not be expecting fast moving traffic, some undoubtedly would
>>not, thereby posing a significant risk to people on the estate,
>>especially the above mentioned groups, as well as themselves.
>>For this very reason, and following consultation with a number of
>>groups, we took the decision to request that cyclists dismount when
>>crossing the estate. A number of the original designers are themselves
>>committed cyclists. I myself, am a cyclist. All of us, however,
>>believed, and still believe, the policy of asking cyclists to dismount
>>the right one in all the circumstances.
>>You will appreciate that the managers of the estate have to weigh up
>>the interests of a number of differing groups, some of which are
>>sometimes in conflict in terms desires and objectives.
>>At the Feb. 2010 meeting we undertook to furnish further information
>>on cycle spaces and constraints and undertook to look at possible
>>additional provision. This information was subsequently provided and
>>we did install some additional cycle parking.
>>We explained at the meeting that a material amount of our cycle
>>parking provision is colonised by occupiers of London Bridge City but
>>which we are clearly unable to police.
>>We expressed the view that the whole matter was a wider local area
>>issue and suggested a wider discussion group led by the local council
>>to look at routes and cycle parking on an area wide basis.
>>Whilst a follow up meeting was arranged, it was deferred at least
>>twice by others and we heard no more.
>>Mark Chapman, who manages the estate, I am sure would be happy to
>>attend such a meeting.
>>I appreciate that you may find the above disappointing from your own
>>perspective but trust that you can understand our thought processes
>>and ultimate decision. we are far from anti-cycling. Quite the
>>opposite.
>>In a perfect world all would behave responsibly for the common good
>>but sadly the world is not perfect and the managers of the estate have
>>to manage it balancing the various, sometimes conflicting, interests.
>>=====/Quote=====
>What?
Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
Cycle Route (NCR4).
=====Quote=====
Whilst I am no longer involved at More London on a day to day basis ,
I thought I should nevertheless respond being responsible for setting
the original policy, revisiting it and being party to the discussions
back in Feb. 2010 to which you refer.
At that meeting I explained that More London was conceived, designed
and built as a vehicular free environment at grade with in excess of
50% of its footprint being retained for pedestrians.
At its conception, the designated east / west cycle routes were Tooley
Street and the River Walk.
The design, features and materials reflect the estate's traffic free
nature, specifically informing those with disabilities, particularly
the visually impaired, that it is a traffic free environment. The same
applies to those accompanying them or those with young children. As a
consequence such groups are encouraged to be unconcerned about traffic
within the estate. Any emergency or maintenance vehicles entering the
site by necessary exception are marshalled by trained personnel.
People's guards, especially vulnerable groups and those accompanying
them are, therefore, down.
Whilst some cyclists are responsible and would traverse the estate
having regard to the pedestrian nature of it and that other users
would not be expecting fast moving traffic, some undoubtedly would
not, thereby posing a significant risk to people on the estate,
especially the above mentioned groups, as well as themselves.
For this very reason, and following consultation with a number of
groups, we took the decision to request that cyclists dismount when
crossing the estate. A number of the original designers are themselves
committed cyclists. I myself, am a cyclist. All of us, however,
believed, and still believe, the policy of asking cyclists to dismount
the right one in all the circumstances.
You will appreciate that the managers of the estate have to weigh up
the interests of a number of differing groups, some of which are
sometimes in conflict in terms desires and objectives.
At the Feb. 2010 meeting we undertook to furnish further information
on cycle spaces and constraints and undertook to look at possible
additional provision. This information was subsequently provided and
we did install some additional cycle parking.
We explained at the meeting that a material amount of our cycle
parking provision is colonised by occupiers of London Bridge City but
which we are clearly unable to police.
We expressed the view that the whole matter was a wider local area
issue and suggested a wider discussion group led by the local council
to look at routes and cycle parking on an area wide basis.
Whilst a follow up meeting was arranged, it was deferred at least
twice by others and we heard no more.
Mark Chapman, who manages the estate, I am sure would be happy to
attend such a meeting.
I appreciate that you may find the above disappointing from your own
perspective but trust that you can understand our thought processes
and ultimate decision. we are far from anti-cycling. Quite the
opposite.
In a perfect world all would behave responsibly for the common good
but sadly the world is not perfect and the managers of the estate have
to manage it balancing the various, sometimes conflicting, interests.
=====/Quote=====
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:18:34 +0000, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>>What?
And who is "I"? - and what is it actually a response to? - a particular
document or a question of some sort?
To post what you did in isolation makes no sense at all.
To repeat it was just childish.
--
Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.
>To post what you did in isolation makes no sense at all.
>To repeat it was just childish.
>--
>Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
>He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
>Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
>can't see what a tosser he is.
> Judith wrote:
>> What?
> Oh dear, Judith. Not having a good week, are you?
> Maybe you should take a little rest.
It is completely reasonable to expect the person who cut and pasted that long article to give a succinct summary of what he is trying to convey by doing so.
Any of us could quote reams of stuff from the minutes of the local council without comment or explanation. But most of us wouldn't dream of doing so.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:34:45 +0000, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>On 06/11/2012 14:31, PhilO wrote:
>> Judith wrote:
>>> What?
>> Oh dear, Judith. Not having a good week, are you?
>> Maybe you should take a little rest.
>It is completely reasonable to expect the person who cut and pasted that long >article to give a succinct summary of what he is trying to convey by doing so.
>Any of us could quote reams of stuff from the minutes of the local council >without comment or explanation. But most of us wouldn't dream of doing so.
You must have missed this:
Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
Cycle Route (NCR4).
I don't know how I could have been much more succinct.
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:34:45 +0000, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2012 14:31, PhilO wrote:
>>> Judith wrote:
>>>> What?
>>> Oh dear, Judith. Not having a good week, are you?
>>> Maybe you should take a little rest.
>> It is completely reasonable to expect the person who cut and pasted that long
>> article to give a succinct summary of what he is trying to convey by doing so.
>> Any of us could quote reams of stuff from the minutes of the local council
>> without comment or explanation. But most of us wouldn't dream of doing so.
> You must have missed this:
> Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
> Cycle Route (NCR4).
> I don't know how I could have been much more succinct.
So what's the problem?
You can't cycle there, drivers can't drive there. I can live with that. Can't you?
>>And who is "I"? - and what is it actually a response to? - a particular
>>document or a question of some sort?
>The person responsible for setting the More London no cycling policy.
And the second and third questions you overlooked: "and what is it actually a
response to? - a particular document or a question of some sort?", an email
from an individual, a FOI request.
On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
> Cycle Route (NCR4).
Please name one cycle ban in London which you don't consider "absurd",
excluding roads where only motor traffic is allowed (i.e. I'm asking
about places where pedestrians are allowed but cyclists aren't).
<mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
>> Cycle Route (NCR4).
>Please name one cycle ban in London which you don't consider "absurd",
>excluding roads where only motor traffic is allowed (i.e. I'm asking
>about places where pedestrians are allowed but cyclists aren't).
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 6:34:46 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 14:31, PhilO wrote:
> > Judith wrote:
> >> What?
> > Oh dear, Judith. Not having a good week, are you?
> > Maybe you should take a little rest.
> It is completely reasonable to expect the person who cut and pasted that long > article to give a succinct summary of what he is trying to convey by doing so.
And it is perfectly reasonable to expect a person seeking clarification to be clearer than just reposting the whole thing with "What?" at the end.
Mind you, at least she managed to avoid name-calling, insults and lies, so that was a particularly good post by Judith's standards. I take back my objection. She did well.
On Nov 7, 3:47 am, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:57:24 -0800 (PST), M Wicks
> <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> Response from More London to the absurd cycling ban on the Thames
> >> Cycle Route (NCR4).
> >Please name one cycle ban in London which you don't consider "absurd",
> >excluding roads where only motor traffic is allowed (i.e. I'm asking
> >about places where pedestrians are allowed but cyclists aren't).
> 15th Floor, Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital.
Fair enough. And if we restrict it to outdoor, public thoroughfares
where cyclists are explicitly banned by signage and yet they regularly
try to use it anyway?
(Do the doctors recommend the use of cycle helmets in Guy's Hospital?
Or perhaps they claim that helmets aren't necessary even though they
wear them themselves...?)
M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Do the doctors recommend the use of cycle helmets in Guy's Hospital?
> Or perhaps they claim that helmets aren't necessary even though they
> wear them themselves...?)
"They"? I think you'll find doctors wear/don't wear helmets pretty much
like the rest of the population.
