Farcility of the Month: feb 07
wafflycat
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
"This photo shows the merit of model car racing in encouraging young people
to enter the profession of highway engineering. This nifty facility on St
Mary's Bridge in Doncaster was clearly inspired by a crossover section from
a Scalextric set.
Cyclists who prefer a little less excitement have the option of staying on
the road, which is closed to cars."
Most Excellent :-)
Paul Boyd
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
What????? Uh???? Why?????
OK then, what happens behind the camera? There has to be some good
reason for that bizarre layout.
Doesn't there???
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
PhilD
> Most Excellent :-)
... and with those AWFUL ridged tiles just where you're supposed to
turn.
:-(
PhilD
--
<><
Dave Larrington
wafflycat <w*a*ffŁyŁcat*@Łbtco*nnŁect.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
There's something not dissimilar in Tottenham, except that the crossover
between ped and bike lanes comes where they cross the entrance road into
some industrial units, so you have to look out for motor vehicles
approaching from behind as well as errant peds.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
All your call centre are belong to us.
Alan Braggins
>wafflycat said the following on 01/02/2007 14:32:
>
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
>
>What????? Uh???? Why?????
>
>OK then, what happens behind the camera? There has to be some good
>reason for that bizarre layout.
>
>Doesn't there???
"There has to be some good reason". You're new here, aren't you?
jta...@nospam.hfx.andara.com
I _do_ hope that the councils under which whose jurisdiction these
examples fall get an offical notice of their being awarded such
status.
smith_...@hotmail.com
cycle paths. They become lethal after a frost as they seem to form ice
much more easily than tarmac and they're not much better than that in
the wet. Is the idea to provide more grip? or to slow you down at
junctions for fear of falling off due to slippery surface? (in this
case they are very effective) I don't understand!
Rupert
Clive George
news:1170352064....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
In these cases, they're not for cyclists, they're for blind people - the
tiles provide clues where to walk. "Tactile paving" is the technical term I
believe.
cheers,
clive
Pinky
"Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message
news:45c1fce1$0$8728$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
No ---the cycle path then stops behind the camera and you have to fight
with peds on a crossing of a busy exit from the local council depot.
I never have know it as St Mary's Bridge -- for my last 65 of 70 years ( I
don't remember younger than 5 years old!) I have known it as "North Bridge"
it used to be part of the main road -- Great North Road/A1 right through
the middle of Doncaster.
The roadway has now been marginalised and the road over the bridge is only
open to buses and taxis ( and bike's). I stay on the road since in Doncaster
you ride at your peril on shared paths -- even with different level paths
for peds/bikes side by side beware typically unfriendly - mums with double
pushchairs -- yoofs -- traffic wardens walking to duty -- and anyone who
just ignores bikes -- the level of verbal and occasional physical offered
abuse is high here.
At least on the road I am far safer.
--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Niall Wallace
"Pinky" <ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jbrwh.4504$9S5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message
> news:45c1fce1$0$8728$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> wafflycat said the following on 01/02/2007 14:32:
>>
>>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
>>
>> What????? Uh???? Why?????
>>
>> OK then, what happens behind the camera? There has to be some good
>> reason for that bizarre layout.
>>
>> Doesn't there???
>>
>> --
>> Paul Boyd
>> http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
>
>
> No ---the cycle path then stops behind the camera and you have to fight
> with peds on a crossing of a busy exit from the local council depot.
It could be part of some unfinished grand plan which screwed up when the
designer realised that the part approaching the bridge has cyclists on the
parapet side of the bridge and the bridge has the pedestrians on the parapit
side.
Or its been designed on the assumption that peopel pay attention to solid
white lines separating cycle and foot paths and acts as a chicane.
Niall
Paul Boyd
> for peds/bikes side by side beware typically unfriendly - mums with double
> pushchairs -- yoofs -- traffic wardens walking to duty -- and anyone who
> just ignores bikes
Hmmm - just like some parts of WSM. There's a particularly narrow
cycle-only lane just by me (Hutton Moor Road). Not long ago a chav
mother was pushing a double pushchair up it (which actually wouldn't
have physically fitted a few yards further on!). She gave me some abuse
for being on the cyclepath, so I said "come on, this is a cyclepath".
The reply? "Well, I've got wheels." What the rock'n'roll can you say
to that????
The particular problem with that road is that a lot of "cyclists" use
the pavement on the opposite side of the road, so I don't exactly have a
strong arguing position!
Paul Boyd
> In these cases, they're not for cyclists, they're for blind people - the
> tiles provide clues where to walk. "Tactile paving" is the technical
> term I believe.
I'm all for making life easier for the "differently abled" (as I heard
the other day - quite apt!), but I wonder what the cost per blind user
is for installing these potentially dangerous things, compared to the
potential cost of them causing an accident? I mean, there's a cost per
life figure for other safety work beyond which the work isn't done.
It's like those cash dispensers that are installed at knee height - I
have been known to actually squat down to be able to use the bloody
things, and I've seen old people having difficulty bending down far enough.
Simon Brooke
Yes, I know. Unfortunately the grooves on the 'cycling' side are aligned
with the direction of travel - which is quite helpful for people on
tricycles but lethal - I use that word in its literal sense - for people
on bicycles.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
John Hearns
>
>
> It's like those cash dispensers that are installed at knee height - I
> have been known to actually squat down to be able to use the bloody
> things, and I've seen old people having difficulty bending down far enough.
>
I agree about the ridged paving though - it must cost a fortune,
and just causes bikes to slip in the wet.
Daniel Barlow
> I agree about the ridged paving though - it must cost a fortune,
> and just causes bikes to slip in the wet.
And skates it causes to tramline (if parallel to direction of travel) or
shudder violently and potentially pitch the wearer forwards onto his
nose (perpendicular). Skateable yes (if you're confident) but you
wouldn't want to hit one if you didn't know it was there.
As it's never really been established in law which half of the
shared-use pavement skaters should be on, we get to pick our poison :-)
-dan
Helen Deborah Vecht
> I agree about the ridged paving though - it must cost a fortune,
> and just causes bikes to slip in the wet.
It's also horrible if you're in a small-wheeled chair...
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
Ian Smith
> On 01/02/2007 18:01, Clive George said,
>
> > In these cases, they're not for cyclists, they're for blind people
> > - the tiles provide clues where to walk. "Tactile paving" is the
> > technical term I believe.
>
> I'm all for making life easier for the "differently abled" (as I heard
> the other day - quite apt!), but I wonder what the cost per blind user
> is for installing these potentially dangerous things, compared to the
> potential cost of them causing an accident? I mean, there's a cost per
> life figure for other safety work beyond which the work isn't done.
Actually, it's not just for for blind people - the paving is to
encourage cyclists to ride on the cyclist side. Apparently, you see,
the cyclists will prefer to ride on the ones laid like tramlines.
That's because cyclists just love riding along tramlines. The
official guidance actually describes it as aligned like tram lines,
and states that cyclists will naturally favour riding on these things
like tram lines.
So, that'll be, the cyclist will naturally tend to ride on the side
that's most likely to throw him (or her) off their bike. Of course!
Here we go: direct quote from DfT document "guidance on the use of
tactile paving":
"On the cyclist side, the surface should be laid with the bars running
in the direction of travel (Figure 29 ). This arrangement was chosen
because it was felt the rumble effect created by the transverse
pattern would deter cyclists from entering on the pedestrian side."
Figure 28 actually shows the orientation better than figure 29.
Figure 28 describes the cyclist side as "tramline pattern on the cycle
track"
So there you go - you'll be deterred from entering the side which is
safe to ride on. Pillocks.
And who thought "it was felt" was a good enough basis for writing
policy? The author ambled down to the coffee machine and asked some
other equally ignorant workmates what they 'felt' might be a spiffing
wheeze?
They're worse than pillocks.
Imbeciles. Cretinous ones at that.
It's the most explicit proof that no-one that writes cycle facility
guidance actually rides on any cycle facility.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
squeaker
Amen to all that. They (the tactile concrete tramlines) regularly
scare the sh*t out of me when they are wet / icy (on a road bike,
probably less of an issue with a fat tyred MTB) - yet another reason
for riding on the road, or at least on the ped side of the white
line ;)
Pyromancer
<use...@abcd.com> gently breathed:
>On 01/02/2007 18:01, Clive George said,
>> In these cases, they're not for cyclists, they're for blind people -
>>the tiles provide clues where to walk. "Tactile paving" is the
>>technical term I believe.
>I'm all for making life easier for the "differently abled" (as I heard
>the other day - quite apt!), but I wonder what the cost per blind user
>is for installing these potentially dangerous things, compared to the
>potential cost of them causing an accident? I mean, there's a cost per
>life figure for other safety work beyond which the work isn't done.
The usual story - designed by someone who's only notion of a bike is the
one painted on the road ahead of most traffic lights.
>It's like those cash dispensers that are installed at knee height - I
>have been known to actually squat down to be able to use the bloody
>things, and I've seen old people having difficulty bending down far
>enough.
I thought those were specifically designed to make it easy for criminals
to watch other users and note down their PINs, ready for a card-grabbing
mugging shortly afterwards? They certainly seem effective at getting
people to not hide what they are pressing.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, 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>
Tim Hall
I explained them to a friend. "Ah," she said "Braille for the feet"
Tim
Colin McKenzie
> <smith_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170352064....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Yes - why do they use those ridged tiles at the beginning and end of
>
> In these cases, they're not for cyclists, they're for blind people - the
> tiles provide clues where to walk. "Tactile paving" is the technical
> term I believe.
Yebbut the real achievement of this facility is that the tactiles are
before the crossover, which has no tactiles on it at all. So a blind
person who selects the pedestrian side and walks straight is on the
cycle side after about 5 metres.
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
Paul Boyd
> Amen to all that. They (the tactile concrete tramlines) regularly
> scare the sh*t out of me when they are wet / icy (on a road bike,
> probably less of an issue with a fat tyred MTB) - yet another reason
> for riding on the road, or at least on the ped side of the white
> line ;)
It's odd, but the tramline direction I find *more* dodgy on an MTB, for
some reason - the tyre seems to squirm more over them than a road tyre.
On both bikes I much prefer the rumble-strip side - in fact when I
first came across these years ago I thought "Prats - they've got them
the wrong way round!" I've since discovered that in "their" eyes they
have them the right way round.
Ho hum...
Paul Boyd
> The rumble from the pedestrian-side transverse ones is of course the
> reason that any self-respecting parent with a child that's just dropped
> off to sleep has to push their pram over the cyclists side of one of
> these tactile grids.
So a cyclist on the cyclist side approaches a pushchair on the
pedestrian side, with one of these abominations in between. Both
parties swap sides, everyone's happy :-)
Don't you just love bureaucracy?
Tony Raven
>
> So a cyclist on the cyclist side approaches a pushchair on the
> pedestrian side, with one of these abominations in between. Both
> parties swap sides, everyone's happy :-)
>
> Don't you just love bureaucracy?
>
I can see it now, choreographed to Johann Strauss' The Blue Danube waltz
like the docking scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey
--
Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Paul Boyd
> Kinda useful to people in wheelchairs though.
Well yes, I know. But what I'm really getting at is that more people
seem to find them harder to use for other medical or age-related reasons
than being confined to a wheelchair. At least I have the flexibility to
be able to squat or bend down, but when I see people struggling to reach
down far enough I think there's something wrong.
I don't pretend to know what the answer is. Perhaps legislate to ensure
that within a given area there are at least a certain percentage of
cashpoints at a low level? At least people then have a choice of which
ones to use, whereas all new cashpoints seem to be installed at the low
level.
Drifting OT even further, there is a Nat-West bank in town that has
access to counter facilities through a side door and up a flight of
stairs. I'm amazed they can get away with that these days! I suppose
they must have facilities for the disabled, but I can't see them.
Colin McKenzie
> It's odd, but the tramline direction I find *more* dodgy on an MTB, for
> some reason - the tyre seems to squirm more over them than a road tyre.
> On both bikes I much prefer the rumble-strip side - in fact when I
> first came across these years ago I thought "Prats - they've got them
> the wrong way round!" I've since discovered that in "their" eyes they
> have them the right way round.
This is something that I think will have to be changed. Does anyone
know if the problem is national or international?
On a national basis, it could be practical to get them all changed
round over the space of (say) a month, but the longer it's left the
more there will be to do. I expect blind people could live with a
month of ambiguity - but not the decade or so that would result if
they just quietly changed the rule.
I think CTC should be campaigning on this, but there is a lot that's
more urgent. Maybe they could persuade Living Streets to take it on.
dkahn400
> So a cyclist on the cyclist side approaches a pushchair on the
> pedestrian side, with one of these abominations in between. Both
> parties swap sides, everyone's happy :-)
>
> Don't you just love bureaucracy?
Be careful swapping sides though. If it's wet the white line which may
or may not be there to divide the cyclist side from the pedestrian
side can be mighty slippery. I've come very close to crashing when
switching sides just before the end of a path to ride over the rumble
strips rather than risk the tramlines.
--
Dave...
Paul Boyd
> Be careful swapping sides though. If it's wet the white line which may
> or may not be there to divide the cyclist side from the pedestrian
> side can be mighty slippery.
Call me perverse, but just to enliven things a bit I sometimes like to
see how far I can ride along the top of that white line, wet or dry!
The mountain bike with knobblies slides off, but my road bike is fairly
happy. It's that carefully grooved tread, y'see ;-)
(Same knobblies on MTB are happy on wet rock!)
David Damerell
>Hmmm - just like some parts of WSM. There's a particularly narrow
>cycle-only lane just by me
I doubt it. Pedestrians are forbidden in very few places where bicycles
are permitted.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, February.
Pinky
"Colin McKenzie" <ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45c31379$0$8758$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> It's odd, but the tramline direction I find *more* dodgy on an MTB, for
>> some reason - the tyre seems to squirm more over them than a road tyre.
>> On both bikes I much prefer the rumble-strip side - in fact when I first
>> came across these years ago I thought "Prats - they've got them the wrong
>> way round!" I've since discovered that in "their" eyes they have them
>> the right way round.
>
> This is something that I think will have to be changed. Does anyone know
> if the problem is national or international?
>
> On a national basis, it could be practical to get them all changed round
> over the space of (say) a month, but the longer it's left the more there
> will be to do. I expect blind people could live with a month of
> ambiguity - but not the decade or so that would result if they just
> quietly changed the rule.
>
> I think CTC should be campaigning on this, but there is a lot that's more
> urgent. Maybe they could persuade Living Streets to take it on.
>
> Colin McKenzie
Now that is sensible. When I first met these strips on this very route,
which the OP has posted, I thought the very same-- "the silly b*ggers have
installed them the wrong way round".
Running nearly but not quite parallel, creates an uncomfortable experience
in the dry and a hazardous experience in the wet -- and that is without
people getting off at a bus stop where these "strips" are installed at the
other end of the same bridge!
Can anyone advise me ( and others) where I can take this up with the
appropriate ( but heavily hidden) local or other authority.
I battle with DMBC's ( Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council) web site on
several matters where it is extremely difficult to find a responsible
official. I mean who is the local "bike officer" -------------- not
available by any easy search.
I must admit that I, even as a retired guy who is galloping towards
senility, can't waste time sending unanswered emails into DMBC's black hole
of a web site
ian henden
"wafflycat" <w*a*ffŁyŁcat*@Łbtco*nnŁect.com> wrote in message
news:TrWdnbAJ2-edZ1zY...@bt.com...
> Another excellent one on the website
>
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
>
> "This photo shows the merit of model car racing in encouraging young
> people to enter the profession of highway engineering. This nifty facility
> on St Mary's Bridge in Doncaster was clearly inspired by a crossover
> section from a Scalextric set.
> Cyclists who prefer a little less excitement have the option of staying on
> the road, which is closed to cars."
>
> Most Excellent :-)
The bus lane in Queen Street Portsmouth does summat similar (outside the RN
Barracks). Hard to see what else they can do with it, though, and *it
works* - provided car drivers don't queue on the diamond hatching between
the left-hand and centre-of-road bus lanes......
>
Ian Smith
>
> "Colin McKenzie" <ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45c31379$0$8758$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> >> It's odd, but the tramline direction I find *more* dodgy on an MTB, for
> >> some reason - the tyre seems to squirm more over them than a road tyre.
> >> On both bikes I much prefer the rumble-strip side - in fact when I first
> >> came across these years ago I thought "Prats - they've got them the wrong
> >> way round!" I've since discovered that in "their" eyes they have them
> >> the right way round.
> >
> > This is something that I think will have to be changed. Does anyone know
> > if the problem is national or international?
>
> which the OP has posted, I thought the very same-- "the silly b*ggers have
> installed them the wrong way round".
>
> appropriate ( but heavily hidden) local or other authority.
You can't. I've tried (somewhat).
The problem is that the document is neither one thing nor the other.
The local authority won't go against the DfT guidance 'cos they're all
too scared about covering their own backsides - if they put down
paving that was the wrong way round cf what the DfT advise (ie,
orientated in a safe and sensible manner), there'd be hell to pay if
anyone has an accident anywhere near the path.
Meanwhile, at the DfT, it's just a friendly chatty guidance document,
has no weight, no formal consultation, no process for fixing
monumental blunders within the text. Nothing to be done there. Even
if they wrote a new guidance that wasn't such a crock, there's no
process for revising the existing ones - it's not a dated controlled
document in the same way that (say) BDs, BAs, TAs or whatever are.
I think what you'd need to do is actually get the orientation covered
by a formal requirement standard, say a BD. However, the chances of
getting a BD to mandate something opposite to the millions of
existing installations is infinitesimal.
Further, though it would then be effectively mandatory on trunk roads,
there's no requirement that non-trunk roads follow the same standards.
Most authorities do, but they don't have to. Even if you got a BD
that said it, the local authority could point out that since it has
all this paving orientated the wrong way it will continue to do that.
Then, even if the authority does change its mind, you need to get the
honest labourer chappie to put it down right, rather than the way they
put it down for the last ten years. These people still measure road
marking setting-out in boot-lengths, being yet to catch up with the
'imperial' system, let alone your new-fangled metrication. Round
here, they can't even get dropped kerbs on cycle ways flush, despite
the guidance on dropped kerbs having always said they must be flush.
Put tactile paving the other way round? impossible.
The people that foist this stuff on us are imbeciles. As I said
before - the people that write this stuff are basically just cretinous
imbeciles, and the cyclist has to like it or lump it. Count yourself
lucky - at least some moron didn't write in a guidance document that
"it was felt that cyclists would prefer not to use a road" - then we'd
be abolished.
Paul Boyd
> Quoting Paul Boyd <use...@abcd.com>:
>> Hmmm - just like some parts of WSM. There's a particularly narrow
>> cycle-only lane just by me
>
> I doubt it. Pedestrians are forbidden in very few places where bicycles
> are permitted.
This has been done to death before.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm is a positive instruction
saying "Route to be used by pedal cycles only". There isn't a ream of
small print on the back of the sign.
In this particular instance, this cycle lane is marked out in the same
way as a bus lane, except that there is a raised ridge dividing the road
surface from the cycle-lane surface. It is very narrow. To me, just
plain old common sense would dictate that you don't walk up a narrow
lane that you know cyclists will be using any more than you would walk
down a bus lane (especially if the double push-chair won't physically
fit between the kerbs as the lane goes over the bridge!) There is a
perfectly adequate pavement on the other side of the road (unfortunately
also used by cyclists)
Chris Malcolm
Of course they don't! Just as nobody designing bus routes or bus
interiors ever rides on a bus, and just as no architect would dream of
living in the kinds of house he designs for a living. You don't want
to consult local user groups either, because they always end up
whining on with their unverifiable anecdotes which contradict all the
scientific reports you've paid good money for.
The first rule of bureaucracy is that they don't know what's good for
them. If they did there wouldn't be a problem in the first place,
would there?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Ian Smith
> David Damerell said the following on 02/02/2007 16:21:
> > Quoting Paul Boyd <use...@abcd.com>:
> >>
> >> Hmmm - just like some parts of WSM. There's a particularly
> >> narrow cycle-only lane just by me
> >
> > I doubt it. Pedestrians are forbidden in very few places where
> > bicycles are permitted.
>
> This has been done to death before.
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm is a positive instruction
> saying "Route to be used by pedal cycles only". There isn't a ream of
> small print on the back of the sign.
Yes we've done this before, and as has been pointed out to you before
the title of the sign is merely an incomplete summary of the main
points of the meaning, and it DOES NOT mean that pedestrians are not
permitted.
Much like, for example, the '30' sign does not have a ream of text on
the back explaining, among other things, that it does not apply to
pedal cycles. The fact that it does not say it does not apply to
cycles does not affect the FACT that speed limits don't apply to
cycles.
Likewise, the fact that the sign does not say that pedestrians are not
excluded does not alter the FACT that pedestrians are not excluded.
We know you're too stubborn to accept it. I'm surprised you want to
parade your stubborn-ness again.
Paul Boyd
> Yes we've done this before, and as has been pointed out to you before
> the title of the sign is merely an incomplete summary of the main
> points of the meaning, and it DOES NOT mean that pedestrians are not
> permitted.
Firstly, if you actually bothered to read my post you will see that I
didn't say that I thought the woman shouldn't have been on there, just
that it was a bit silly to be there when the path is so narrow that
there isn't room. I also pointed out what the Highway Code meaning of
the sign is. No more, no less.
> We know you're too stubborn to accept it. I'm surprised you want to
> parade your stubborn-ness again.
Are you really that thick, or a civil servant? I have long accepted
that the sign has a different legal meaning to that indicated in the
Highway Code. That doesn't mean that I think the legal position is
correct. As a democracy, we are allowed to question the law, so long as
we don't break it. Have I broken any law?
Perhaps if people like you who work in this area could accept that
people see what they see, and don't go around digging out small print
then things would be much clearer. As you well know, there are three
distinct signs - cyclists only, cyclists sharing with pedestrians and
cyclists segregated from pedestrians. Perhaps you could explain clearly
why the hell councils bother with the three separate signs if they all
effectively have the same meaning? No-one has yet explained this. I
wonder if you can?
FWIW, years ago I was involved in a court case (that I won). The
Highway Code was referred to to resolve the issue, and no other legal
small-print was wheeled out.
Ian Smith
> On 03/02/2007 13:09, Ian Smith said,
>
> > Yes we've done this before, and as has been pointed out to you before
> > the title of the sign is merely an incomplete summary of the main
> > points of the meaning, and it DOES NOT mean that pedestrians are not
> > permitted.
>
> Firstly, if you actually bothered to read my post you will see that I
> didn't say that I thought the woman shouldn't have been on there, just
> that it was a bit silly to be there when the path is so narrow that
> there isn't room. I also pointed out what the Highway Code meaning of
> the sign is. No more, no less.
There is no such thing as "the highway code meaning". The sign has a
single, specific, legal meaning. It also has a caption in the highway
code, which is not the single specific legal meaning, and does not
claim to be the legal meaning. The highway code has a footnote
telling you the signs section is not exhaustive nor authoritative.
> > We know you're too stubborn to accept it. I'm surprised you want to
> > parade your stubborn-ness again.
>
> Are you really that thick, or a civil servant? I have long accepted
> that the sign has a different legal meaning to that indicated in the
> Highway Code.
It doesn't have a meaning in the highway code. It has a single
specific legal meaning which is not described in detail in the
highway code, and no matter how many times you proclaim that in your
opinion the highway code should contain every nuance of highway law
(making it about 4 feet thick if you use big paper and small print),
the fact is the highway code is not an exhaustive description of
highway law, does not claim to be, and no-one I have ever met thinks
it should be.
> Perhaps if people like you who work in this area could accept that
> people see what they see, and don't go around digging out small print
> then things would be much clearer.
Right. Good defence - "well, your honour, I was in the bank,
and there were no signs saying I must not point the shotgun at the
staff, nor that I may not help myself to those bundles of notes.
Obviously, if I was supposed to know that was the law, there should
have been an exhaustive legal explanation printed on the counter."
> As you well know, there are three distinct signs - cyclists only,
> cyclists sharing with pedestrians and cyclists segregated from
> pedestrians. Perhaps you could explain clearly why the hell
> councils bother with the three separate signs if they all
> effectively have the same meaning? No-one has yet explained this.
> I wonder if you can?
I have already explained it. You apparently ignored the explanation,
or are too stubborn to read, understand, or believe it.
The three signs you describe above all mean different things, so I
have trouble believing anyone capable of using a computer is actually
too stupid to tell them apart:
One means cycles are the only permitted vehicles.
One mean it's a path where cycles and pedestrians may each occupy
any part.
One means it's a path where cycles must stay on one side of a
delimiting line.
What is complicated? Three different situations, three different sets
of legal restriction, three different signs.
MJ Ray
> Yes - why do they use those ridged tiles at the beginning and end of
At the A10/A47/A149 Hardwick Roundabout, it's to catch the glass and
debris from the frequent car crashes and puncture cycle tyres. There
are sodding kerbs stopping pedestrians straying onto cycle track for
most of it, so there's little good reason for the tiles.
MJ Ray
> [...] She gave me some abuse
> for being on the cyclepath, so I said "come on, this is a cyclepath".
> The reply? "Well, I've got wheels." What the rock'n'roll can you say
> to that????
'Then please mount your child and pedal them, Madam'?
As long as you're not one of the cretins riding on the footpath, then I
think your position is fine to ask pedestrians to give way. Can people
be prosecuted for inconsiderate walking yet?
MJ Ray
> Drifting OT even further, there is a Nat-West bank in town that has
> access to counter facilities through a side door and up a flight of
> stairs. I'm amazed they can get away with that these days! I suppose
> they must have facilities for the disabled, but I can't see them.
I think there used to be a silver panel on the Italian Gardens side of
the bank giving instructions for level access. Seeing as I don't bank
with NatWest, I don't remember what they say or whether it is still
there. I suspect one of the doors near the blue shop is for the bank.
I don't think you are meant to cycle into it.
What do you mean, this isn't uk.local.weston-super-mare?
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Paul Boyd
see it, can you?
Ian Smith
> Christ, you must be a civil servant to be so obtuse. You really
> can't see it, can you?
I really can't see what the problem is with having three different
signs to mean three different things, no.
I remain flabbergasted that anyone can think that the three signs in
question mean the same thing, when they quite patently and clearly do
not.
I'm astonished that someone can think it would be a good idea to
use the same sign to mean several different things.
I'm perplexed why anyone would think that they should receive explicit
written guidance on the legality of every conceivable action at every
conceivable location and all conceivable situations.
I'm surprised that someone might think the pictures in the highway
code provide a definitive explanations of the meanings of all
traffic signs when there's a footnote that explicitly says that it
does not.
Paul Boyd
have done is explained the legal difference between each sign, not the
reasoning behind it. You still haven't explained why there is a
difference. I apologise for my abrupt post of last night, and I
genuinely want to know *why* there is a difference - not what the
differences are.
One more time, as I see it.
1 - all three signs exclude other vehicles, so *solely* for the purpose
of excluding other vehicles any one of the three signs serves the same
function. Yes? There is already an overriding law that stops all
vehicles using pavements for example, so any one of the three signs on a
pavement means that cyclists can use it in that instance, although I
accept that you wouldn't have the cyclist-only sign on a pavement.
2 - the white dividing line does not segregate pedestrians and cyclists
because pedestrians are allowed to occupy any part. Why then, do we
need to have the white line at all? What purpose does it serve except
to arbitrarily keep cyclists to one half of the path? In practise,
cyclists often need to use both halves either for visibility at bends as
in two cases on my commute or for passing pedestrians who are using the
"cyclists" half. The white line just seems to be arbitrary. The very
fact that there are shared paths that work well enough further makes the
apparent need to segregate peds and cyclists pointless.
3 - if, just for arguments sake, we accept point 2, that leaves the
so-called "cyclists only" sign and the "peds and cyclists sharing" sign.
In both cases pedestrians are allowed to use the path. I think we
have already agreed that these signs prohibits other vehicles. So how
does the use of the two different signs differ? Both exclude other
vehicles, both allow both pedestrians and cyclists to use the same path.
This is the case both in law and on the ground.
In real, on the ground practical terms, the only sign that seems
necessary is the "peds and cyclists sharing" sign. This excludes other
vehicles, makes it clear to all parties that both peds and cyclists are
allowed to use the path and does away with the need to spend ages in
meetings and millions of pounds painting some of these ludicrous
facilities, as in the example in the OP.
> The three signs you describe above all mean different things
>
> What is complicated? Three different situations, three different sets
> of legal restriction, three different signs.
I hope I've explained why I don't see that there need to be three
different different situations. I accept that there are, but I'm afraid
you still haven't explained *why* we have these distinctions. A simple
"this path can be used by pedestrians and cyclists, but no other
vehicle" sign serves all three situations, doesn't it?
In the specific case I started with, there is an additional sign
underneath the "cyclists only" sign stating "And mopeds". That has
quite an obvious meaning. Would you think that the councils intention
was really to have mopeds, pedestrians and cyclists all sharing the same
path?
PeterC
> I think there used to be a silver panel on the Italian Gardens side of
> the bank giving instructions for level access. Seeing as I don't bank
> with NatWest, I don't remember what they say or whether it is still
> there. I suspect one of the doors near the blue shop is for the bank.
> I don't think you are meant to cycle into it.
In 2004 John Caudwell and friends did a sponsored ride from Athens to
London and the group rode into a city bank - but I suppose if you're worth
£60M it's a bit different.
One rider on my Midlands Mesh Perms had a card for Midlands Bank and he'd
let himself in to the ATM facility at night and sleep there - not quite
what I'd intended!
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.
Tony Raven
>
> In 2004 John Caudwell and friends did a sponsored ride from Athens to
> London and the group rode into a city bank - but I suppose if you're worth
> £60M it's a bit different.
>
ITYM £1.6Bn.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13869-2495933.html
David Hansen
Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote this:-
>just as no architect would dream of
>living in the kinds of house he designs for a living.
Didn't the chap who designed Harlow live there for decades? I also
have a vague recollection that Le Corbusier lived in one of his
buildings for some time.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Ian Smith
> I'm going to try and get an explanation one more time, because all you
> have done is explained the legal difference between each sign, not the
> reasoning behind it. You still haven't explained why there is a
> difference.
>
> One more time, as I see it.
>
> 1 - all three signs exclude other vehicles,
No. Two of them are used in a place where vehicles may not proceed.
They do not ban other vehicles, because other vehicles are already
banned. The signs permit cycles, not prohibit other vehicles.
> so *solely* for the purpose of excluding other vehicles any one of
> the three signs serves the same function. Yes?
No. Two of the signs are not prohibitive.
> There is already an overriding law that stops all
> vehicles using pavements for example, so any one of the three signs on a
> pavement means that cyclists can use it in that instance,
No, because one of the signs is not used on a path, and the other
two are not used on the road. The signs are for use in different
circumstances, and mean different things.
> 2 - the white dividing line does not segregate pedestrians and cyclists
> because pedestrians are allowed to occupy any part. Why then, do we
> need to have the white line at all? What purpose does it serve except
> to arbitrarily keep cyclists to one half of the path?
That is its purpose. You may as well ask "what purpose does a kettle
serve except to boil water". The white line is to delimit a part of
the path on which cyclists may ride. Cyclists may only ride on one
side, so there's a white line to mark the limit.
Just because a sign or marking does not apply to every road user, it
is not redundant. For example, "No Entry" does not apply to
pedestrians. That doesn't mean you could scrap every no entry sign.
The white line does not apply to pedestrians. It does apply to
cyclists. It serves a purpose of informing cyclists.
> 3 - if, just for arguments sake, we accept point 2, that leaves the
> so-called "cyclists only" sign and the "peds and cyclists sharing"
> sign. In both cases pedestrians are allowed to use the path.
One of them is not used on a path. One sign says "bicycles may
be ridden here". The other means "cars (etc) may not be driven
here". Different meanings. Different signs.
> I think we have already agreed that these signs prohibits other
> vehicles.
You wrongly declared that to be the case. 'We' did not agree.
> So how does the use of the two different signs differ? Both
> exclude other vehicles, both allow both pedestrians and cyclists to
> use the same path.
> This is the case both in law and on the ground.
One sign means "this region of surfacing, which looks like part of the
road and which therefore by default would be permitted to all
vehicles is actually set aside such that the only vehicle permitted to
use it is a cycle". It excludes all vehicles except cycles. It has
no restrictive effect on pedestrians.
One sign means "thus region of surfacing, which looks like part of a
path has been designated to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles."
It warns pedestrians that cyclists may be anywhere on the path. It
informs cyclists that they may ride on the path, and moreover may ride
anywhere on the path. It has no effect on any other vehicles, which
cannot be present anyway.
One sign means "thus region of surfacing, which looks like part of a
path has been designated to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles,
but bicycles may only ride on part of the path." It warns pedestrians
that cyclists may be on the path, but they will remain to one side.
It informs cyclists that they may ride on the path, but must remain on
one side of the path, leaving the other part exclusively for
pedestrians. It has no effect on any other vehicle, which cannot be
resent anyway.
Three distinctly different meanings. Three signs. Simple.
> > The three signs you describe above all mean different things
> >
> > What is complicated? Three different situations, three different sets
> > of legal restriction, three different signs.
>
> I hope I've explained why I don't see that there need to be three
> different different situations. I accept that there are, but I'm afraid
> you still haven't explained *why* we have these distinctions. A simple
> "this path can be used by pedestrians and cyclists, but no other
> vehicle" sign serves all three situations, doesn't it?
It wouldn't distinguish between paths where cycles are limited to
one side and paths where cyclists may be anywhere. You
> In the specific case I started with, there is an additional sign
> underneath the "cyclists only" sign stating "And mopeds". That has
> quite an obvious meaning. Would you think that the councils intention
> was really to have mopeds, pedestrians and cyclists all sharing the same
> path?
I don't think "and mopeds" is an authorised additional plate.
I have no idea what the council had in mind.
Paul Boyd
> No. Two of them are used in a place where vehicles may not proceed.
> They do not ban other vehicles, because other vehicles are already
> banned. The signs permit cycles, not prohibit other vehicles.
OK - I assume you're referring to the shared and segregated signs.
Anyway, I now understand the difference, legally, between the "Cyclists
only" sign (used on a road surface, usually) and the shared or
segregated sign (used on pavements or paths through parks, for instance)
> That is its purpose. You may as well ask "what purpose does a kettle
> serve except to boil water". The white line is to delimit a part of
> the path on which cyclists may ride. Cyclists may only ride on one
> side, so there's a white line to mark the limit.
> One sign means "thus region of surfacing, which looks like part of a
> path has been designated to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles."
> One sign means "thus region of surfacing, which looks like part of a
> path has been designated to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles,
> but bicycles may only ride on part of the path."
I was asking why do cyclists need to be kept to one side - I know the
line is to keep cyclists to one side - but why? What purpose is served
by pedestrians knowing that cyclists will only be on one half if they're
still allowed to use that half to walk on? If the white line served to
legally segregate peds and cyclists, then fair enough. If the division
was so that the blind or partially sighted know which side is safe to
walk on, then that's also fair enough. It doesn't though, as peds can
use any part, and blind users can still use shared paths where bikes
could be anywhere. This is what I meant by the white line being
arbitrary - or rather the decision to have them.
An example - on my commute I use a segregated cyclepath that is on the
pavement. This is divided by a white line, and signposted accordingly.
Fine. At a particular point, the pavement ends on one side of the
road and continues on the other. This continuation is shared
cyclepath/pavement, has no white line and has the shared sign. What
criteria are used to decide that one part of the pavement is shared and
the other segregated? It doesn't cross any council boundary, so it's
not a case of different councils doing different things. The shared
path works well, as does the segregated path, so why not make the whole
length shared rather than half shared and half segregated? Why have the
differentiation at all? If all paths that cyclists were allowed to use
were shared and had the appropriate sign, I can't think of any
circumstances where that would be a problem, and it would save a hell of
a lot of white paint (aka money) Look at the example in the OP - if
that was simply a shared path, would it make any difference? I suspect
it would work a lot better, but then we wouldn't have a "Facility of the
Month" to mock.
> I don't think "and mopeds" is an authorised additional plate.
> I have no idea what the council had in mind.
Well, that makes two of us, especially as this path is 4ft wide at most,
narrowing to 2ft as it goes over a hump-backed railway bridge.
Authorised or not, it's there and has a clear meaning. What is more
bizarre is that this sign is only at one end of the path, implying
mopeds can only use it in one direction, which happens to be the same
direction as the one-way traffic flow. If it was at the other end and
allowed mopeds to go in the opposite direction to the traffic flow it
would at least make more sense, except that mopeds would then have to go
against a no-entry sign to gain access because the path ends short of
the no-entry signs!
David Hansen
<use...@abcd.com> wrote this:-
>I was asking why do cyclists need to be kept to one side
Parts of the pedestrian lobby like that arrangement.
>An example - on my commute I use a segregated cyclepath that is on the
>pavement. This is divided by a white line, and signposted accordingly.
> Fine. At a particular point, the pavement ends on one side of the
>road and continues on the other. This continuation is shared
>cyclepath/pavement, has no white line and has the shared sign. What
>criteria are used to decide that one part of the pavement is shared and
>the other segregated? It doesn't cross any council boundary, so it's
>not a case of different councils doing different things.
Pass. It seems to be whim.
Ian Smith
> On 04/02/2007 15:14, Ian Smith said,
> > serve except to boil water". The white line is to delimit a part of
> > the path on which cyclists may ride. Cyclists may only ride on one
> > side, so there's a white line to mark the limit.
>
> > One sign means "thus region of surfacing, which looks like part of a
> > path has been designated to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles."
>
> > One sign means "thus region of surfacing, which looks like part of a
> > path has been designated to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles,
> > but bicycles may only ride on part of the path."
>
> I was asking why do cyclists need to be kept to one side - I know the
> line is to keep cyclists to one side - but why?
Some pedestrians apparently like it.
Some councils apparently believe pedestrians prefer it, or that it is
safer. The workings of the mind of a council transport planner are
not something I ever really attempt to understand - that way lies
madness.
There are, I think, some width restrictions (ie, you are not supposed
to use segregated if the path is less than a certain width), but that
seems to be one of the bits of guidance that councils ignore (hence
such farcilities as lanes narrower than a bike).
> What criteria are used to decide that one part of the pavement is
> shared and the other segregated?
Possibly width. Possibly policy (if one part was made at one time and
the other at another, policy may have changed in the meantime).
Possibly whim - one may have been designed by one officer and the
other by another who just does it a different way. Possibly
personality - a particular councillor may live on one side and
threatened to throw a spanner in the works unless it was segregated (or
shared) past their house. Who knows? It's the wonder of local
transport planning.
> > I don't think "and mopeds" is an authorised additional plate.
> > I have no idea what the council had in mind.
>
> Well, that makes two of us, especially as this path is 4ft wide at most,
> narrowing to 2ft as it goes over a hump-backed railway bridge.
> Authorised or not, it's there and has a clear meaning.
Again, it may apparently have a clear meaning, but if it's not an
authorised plate, it has no meaning legally. I'll try and remember to
check.
John Hearns
> Didn't the chap who designed Harlow live there for decades? I also
> have a vague recollection that Le Corbusier lived in one of his
> buildings for some time.
>
>
Didn't Erno Goldfinger live in Trellick Tower for a bit?
Ian Smith
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:23:03 +0000, Paul Boyd <use...@abcd.com> wrote:
> > On 04/02/2007 15:14, Ian Smith said,
>
> > > I have no idea what the council had in mind.
> >
> > Well, that makes two of us, especially as this path is 4ft wide at most,
> > narrowing to 2ft as it goes over a hump-backed railway bridge.
> > Authorised or not, it's there and has a clear meaning.
>
> Again, it may apparently have a clear meaning, but if it's not an
> authorised plate, it has no meaning legally. I'll try and remember to
> check.
OK, I've checked, and I don't think it is a valid plate. Actually,
from a quick skim, I don't think it's a valid plate on any sign - I
don't think highways signs or marking recognise 'moped' as a distinct
class at all.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal - the Secretary of State may
have made a specific order permitting it, in which case it would be
legal to erect the sign. The local authority may then have arranged a
traffic order that enforces whatever it might mean.
It seems at least equally likely, however, that the sign is illegal
and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
it? Do you have a photo?
Paul Boyd
> OK, I've checked, and I don't think it is a valid plate. Actually,
> from a quick skim, I don't think it's a valid plate on any sign - I
> don't think highways signs or marking recognise 'moped' as a distinct
> class at all.
Interesting!
> That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal - the Secretary of State may
> have made a specific order permitting it
I don't imagine the local council would have gone to that extent for a
very minor route, but you never know.
> It seems at least equally likely, however, that the sign is illegal
> and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
> it? Do you have a photo?
I'll get a photo as soon as I pass it in daylight, along with some
photos of the "context". This is likely to be Friday afternoon, as I
don't see daylight during the week :-( The path is rarely used by
mopeds, but those that do tend to be kids that nip through the gaps in
the kerbs to avoid the traffic queue. They do this without bothering to
check whether there's a bike coming down, usually faster than the
stationary traffic... I suspect most of them don't even know about that
sign, and would use the path anyway, but having the sign there might
give them some sort of defence if there was an accident.
David Damerell
>David Damerell said the following on 02/02/2007 16:21:
>>are permitted.
>This has been done to death before.
>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm is a positive instruction
>saying "Route to be used by pedal cycles only".
It is a positive instruction to certain classes of road user which do not
include pedestrians.
>surface from the cycle-lane surface. It is very narrow. To me, just
>plain old common sense would dictate that you don't walk up a narrow
>lane that you know cyclists will be using
It might; that doesn't make it "cycles only".
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Olethros, February - a weekend.
Ian Jelf
Hearns <nos...@nospam.com> writes
>David Hansen wrote:
>
>> Didn't the chap who designed Harlow live there for decades?
of the New Town right up until his death in the 1980s.
>> I also
>> have a vague recollection that Le Corbusier lived in one of his
>> buildings for some time.
>>
>Didn't Erno Goldfinger live in Trellick Tower for a bit?
He did but it was for a very short time. Then he was back of to his
personally-designed town house in Hampstead! :-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK
Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk
Dave Larrington
Ian Jelf <i...@bluebadge.demon.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> In message <45c6dc9f$0$8753$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, John
> Hearns <nos...@nospam.com> writes
>> David Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't the chap who designed Harlow live there for decades?
> Sir Frederick Gibberd. Yes, indeed, he lived there from the early
> days of the New Town right up until his death in the 1980s.
>
>>> I also
>>> have a vague recollection that Le Corbusier lived in one of his
>>> buildings for some time.
>>>
>> Didn't Erno Goldfinger live in Trellick Tower for a bit?
>
> He did but it was for a very short time. Then he was back of to his
> personally-designed town house in Hampstead! :-)
Next door to Ian fleming. Hence the name of a well-known Bond baddie.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
They came for Dani Behr; I said: "she's over there, behind the
wardrobe".
MJ Ray
> Ian Smith said the following on 05/02/2007 13:32:
> > and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
> > it? Do you have a photo?
>
> I'll get a photo as soon as I pass it in daylight, along with some
I tried to photo it yesterday on my way past, but the combination of
low winter sun, reflective material and my inexperience with the new
camera means it hasn't come out at all. Hope you have better luck!
Strangely, there is only 'and mopeds' in the with-flow direction.
There is no matching plate in the contra-flow direction.
I remember seeing an 'and mopeds' plate somewhere in the Old Stratford/
Stony Stratford area in the early 1990s. I remember it because I'd not
seen the plate before. Could it be an obsolete sign? Does Hutton Moor
Road date from the same era? I think it had changed before I arrived
in 1994.
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Paul Boyd
> Strangely, there is only 'and mopeds' in the with-flow direction.
> There is no matching plate in the contra-flow direction.
Even if there was an "and mopeds" sign at the other end, at the start of
the actual path, it would be a tad tricky for them to get to it coming
from the Weston direction...
> I remember seeing an 'and mopeds' plate somewhere in the Old Stratford/
> Stony Stratford area in the early 1990s. I remember it because I'd not
> seen the plate before. Could it be an obsolete sign? Does Hutton Moor
> Road date from the same era? I think it had changed before I arrived
> in 1994.
I think that road layout and cycle-lane is more recent than that,
because I remember locals (I didn't live here at the time) complaining
about the fact that it had all been changed and how ridiculous the new
one-way system was. That would have been between 4 and 9 years ago.
MJ Ray
> MJ Ray said the following on 08/02/2007 10:43:
> > Strangely, there is only 'and mopeds' in the with-flow direction.
> > There is no matching plate in the contra-flow direction.
>
> Even if there was an "and mopeds" sign at the other end, at the start of
> the actual path, it would be a tad tricky for them to get to it coming
> from the Weston direction...
Oh yes, the contraflow track on Hutton Moor Road WsM only just extends
north of the railway bridge, connecting to a foot+bike path. Entry at
the northern end of the road is barred by no-entry signs. Not that that
stopped the red car I saw yesterday... they soon met a white van and no
amount of handwaving was going to help the car driver reach their
destination a short way along that road. Passenger gets out, car turns
in road.
When will car drivers here learn that no entry applies to them? ;-)
--
MJR/slef
Naqerj
<snip>
> Could it be an obsolete sign?
Quite possibly. The rules on mopeds have changed over the years. For
instance, I have a 1975 edition of The Highway Code here (as you do)
that says that the rectangular blue and white sign with a bicycle on it
means "Cyclists and moped-riders only".
--
Andrew
Paul Boyd
> It seems at least equally likely, however, that the sign is illegal
> and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
> it? Do you have a photo?
Well, I now have some photos which are on my PC at home. The PC that
died on Saturday afternoon... New motherboard & processor due tomorrow,
a few evenings to set it all back up then I can get at the photos again!
POHB
> When will car drivers here learn that no entry applies to them? ;-)
When their satnav stops directing them the wrong way :-) Most amused
yesterday while walking down one-way street blocked with rising
bollards to see shiny 4x4 half turn into wrong end of street. Driver
looks most perplexed, then starts tapping away on the little screen on
the dashboard.
Paul Boyd
> When their satnav stops directing them the wrong way :-) Most amused
> yesterday while walking down one-way street blocked with rising
> bollards to see shiny 4x4 half turn into wrong end of street. Driver
> looks most perplexed, then starts tapping away on the little screen on
> the dashboard.
I'm sure that with a lot of these satnav people if they were told to
drive off the edge of a cliff they would!
Pyromancer
<usenet.dont.work@plusnet.?.invalid> gently breathed:
Satnav appears to require a fair degree of common sense to use it
correctly. I don't have one but one of my mates does, and brought it
down for a trip to North Wales in the van the other week. We set it up
on the passenger's side - I could still see it if I wanted to but it
wasn't close enough to be a distraction, something I've always thought a
problem with people who put them in direct line of sight.
Mostly what it said agreed with what we'd already decided from the map,
and it was certainly handy for identifying the correct turn from several
in a town centre to get to the next section we wanted to drive, but
there were a few occasions where if I'd responded unthinkingly to the
satnav voice prompts I'd have ended up in someone's driveway, private
farm track, closed factory gates, or a lake.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, 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>
Danny Colyer
> there were a few occasions where if I'd responded unthinkingly to the
> satnav voice prompts I'd have ended up in someone's driveway, private
> farm track, closed factory gates, or a lake.
Mind you, you can get the same by responding unthinkingly to the prompts
of a human navigator. When we drove up to York Rally a couple of years
ago I (navigating) told DW (driving) to take the next left. She
immediately turned into a golf club [1]. A barrier rose, she drove into
the car park and the barrier came down behind us. I had to go and find
someone in the club shop to let us out.
[1] Neat trick if you can do it.
--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Paul Boyd
> Mind you, you can get the same by responding unthinkingly to the prompts
> of a human navigator. When we drove up to York Rally a couple of years
> ago I (navigating) told DW (driving) to take the next left.
That's an improvement on my mother's navigating if I'm driving her
anywhere. I don't know the area where she lives very well, so rely on
things like "You should have turned left back there"... When I point
out that letting me know *before* the turning would have been useful,
she says that it isn't as quick to get there on her bike, so the turning
came a bit earlier than she was expecting!
dkahn400
> When we drove up to York Rally a couple of years
> ago I (navigating) told DW (driving) to take the next left. She
> immediately turned into a golf club [1].
A driver presumably.
--
Dave...
Paul Boyd
> It seems at least equally likely, however, that the sign is illegal
> and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
> it? Do you have a photo?
Right then - one new motherboard later, I have some photos on the web!
These are straight off my phone - I wasn't going to get my other camera
out in the rain! The location is Hutton Moor Road,
http://tinyurl.com/2ava9a (links to google maps).
The first photo http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr1.jpg is looking
north and gives an overview of this end of the path. Turning right out
of Puttingthorpe Drive onto the path can be dodgy because cars turning
in always cut the corner. The photo was taken on a section of pavement
that links to another section of cyclepath about 200 yards behind the
camera, but they're not joined! This bit of pavement is very rarely
used by pedestrians because it goes nowhere, but would be very useful as
a cycle-path!
http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr2.jpg is just a close-up of the sign.
http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr3.jpg shows how narrow the path gets
over the humped back bridge. Note the remnants of the red paint.
Bearing in mind this lane is for use by cyclists and mopeds, I hope you
can understand why I feel pedestrians ought to be excluded. I just wish
cyclists wouldn't use the equally narrow pavement on the other side of
the road.
http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr4.jpg is looking south at the other
end (rain getting heavier!) No "and mopeds" sign, so I'm not sure if
they're allowed to use the path in this direction (which would make
sense) or not. The only access is from the road on the left, which
doesn't really help them (refer to the map!)
Anyway, make of that lot what you will!
Ian Smith
> On 05/02/2007 13:32, Ian Smith said,
>
> > It seems at least equally likely, however, that the sign is illegal
> > and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
> > it? Do you have a photo?
>
> Right then - one new motherboard later, I have some photos on the web!
Wow, what a dog's breakfast.
It's hard to pick somewhere to begin.
The original point - I just don't think that sign ('and mopeds') is a
legally recognised sign. If it's not legally recognised, you need the
secretary of state to authorise its installation, and a traffic order
to say what it's supposed to mean. Given the state of the rest of the
scheme, I doubt any of that exists.
> http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr1.jpg is looking north
You're missing white lines for traffic turning into Puttingthorpe
Drive.
I think the bollard should have a keep left arrow.
I think the one-way sign to the right should be on the island, because
the cycle lane is not one-way. As installed, it says that both
vehicle and cycle lane is one-way away from the camera. In which case
the island is wrong and the white lines on the end of the lane are
wrong.
I have no idea what the designers 'thought' they were doing with that
signage.
> http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr3.jpg shows how narrow the path
> gets over the humped back bridge.
There is no way on earth that is a safe path for two-way cycle
traffic, let alone cycle and moped traffic.
> http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr4.jpg is looking south
How does anyone get to the path, except via. Fernlea Rd? Is the
pavement you're standing on shared use?
> Anyway, make of that lot what you will!
I can't even begin to rationalise the signage.
My guess is it's supposed to be a cycle access to Puttingthorpe
Drive. I'd say 'they' decided to make Hutton Moor Rd one-way, but
decided they didn't want cyclists on Herluin Way, so put in a
contra-flow lane. The signage is wrong in more ways than any set of
signage I've ever seen. I really think you should ask the council for
an explanation.
Simon Brooke
('use...@abcd.com') wrote:
> On 05/02/2007 13:32, Ian Smith said,
>
>> It seems at least equally likely, however, that the sign is illegal
>> and has no meaning. You could ask the highway authority. Where is
>> it? Do you have a photo?
>
> Right then - one new motherboard later, I have some photos on the web!
> These are straight off my phone - I wasn't going to get my other camera
> out in the rain! The location is Hutton Moor Road,
> http://tinyurl.com/2ava9a (links to google maps).
>
> The first photo http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr1.jpg is looking
> north and gives an overview of this end of the path. Turning right out
> of Puttingthorpe Drive onto the path can be dodgy because cars turning
> in always cut the corner. The photo was taken on a section of pavement
> that links to another section of cyclepath about 200 yards behind the
> camera, but they're not joined! This bit of pavement is very rarely
> used by pedestrians because it goes nowhere, but would be very useful as
> a cycle-path!
>
> http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr2.jpg is just a close-up of the sign.
>
> http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr3.jpg shows how narrow the path gets
> over the humped back bridge.
Jesus! Is this intended to be one way like the adjacent road, or is it
intended to be bi-directional? If so, how the ^&$%&*%^ are you supposed to
pass safely in that width?
> Note the remnants of the red paint.
> Bearing in mind this lane is for use by cyclists and mopeds, I hope you
> can understand why I feel pedestrians ought to be excluded. I just wish
> cyclists wouldn't use the equally narrow pavement on the other side of
> the road.
Boggles. The best solution here would be for cyclists going 'with' the one
way system to stay on the road, and for the cycle lane to be one way only
contra the direction of traffic in the road lane.
> http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr4.jpg is looking south at the other
> end (rain getting heavier!) No "and mopeds" sign, so I'm not sure if
> they're allowed to use the path in this direction (which would make
> sense) or not. The only access is from the road on the left, which
> doesn't really help them (refer to the map!)
Avoid, I'd say.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists
Paul Boyd
> Wow, what a dog's breakfast.
> It's hard to pick somewhere to begin.
Good, innit?
> The original point - I just don't think that sign ('and mopeds') is a
> legally recognised sign. If it's not legally recognised, you need the
> secretary of state to authorise its installation, and a traffic order
> to say what it's supposed to mean. Given the state of the rest of the
> scheme, I doubt any of that exists.
Likewise. In practise, I've rarely seen mopeds on there, I expect
because they don't gain anything! It could only be useful if they could
go against the traffic flow, but then they can't gain access.
> I think the one-way sign to the right should be on the island, because
> the cycle lane is not one-way. As installed, it says that both
> vehicle and cycle lane is one-way away from the camera. In which case
> the island is wrong and the white lines on the end of the lane are
> wrong.
I hadn't really thought of that, but you're right - it does imply that
the cycle lane is one way. That is neatly cancelled out by the sign at
the other end though.
> There is no way on earth that is a safe path for two-way cycle
> traffic, let alone cycle and moped traffic.
In fact, and what I forgot to show, is that in the direction shown there
is a sign set some distance off the right of the path and buried in
undergrowth to say that cyclists should give way to cyclists coming in
the other direction (no mention of mopeds). That probably makes it safe
in the "designer's" view! Two-way cycle flow and one-way moped flow,
all potentially passing that narrow bottleneck. The rest of the path
isn't all that much wider, and in fact has only recently had the
undergrowth cut back after my constant nagging - before that most of the
length had got very narrow with sections that I had to duck under if
rain weighted branches down.
> How does anyone get to the path, except via. Fernlea Rd? Is the
> pavement you're standing on shared use?
Legally, a cyclist can't get to it except by becoming a pedestrian, or
via Fernlea Rd. The latter gains nothing because there is a cycle lane
along Locking Road between Locking Moor Rd and Hutton Moor Rd which is
easier than fiddling about around narrrow residential streets. There is
no useful cycle lane in the other direction along Locking Road - this
one over Hutton Moor Rd is an isolated section with cycle paths within
spitting distance at either end but not actually joining it.
No, that nice wide pavement that has one cyclepath ending a few yards
behind me and another starting a few yards in front is just that - a
pavement. Cyclists are meant to teleport! In practice, most just
ignore the fact that it's a pavement and invoke "Boetang's law". I've
certainly cycled on it, with due regard for peds, in full view of the
police. I don't cycle on the narrow pavement on the other side of the road!
> My guess is it's supposed to be a cycle access to Puttingthorpe
> Drive. I'd say 'they' decided to make Hutton Moor Rd one-way, but
> decided they didn't want cyclists on Herluin Way, so put in a
> contra-flow lane.
There is actually a cycle-lane alongside Herluin Way on the north side,
which does work well. It does eventually met up on the opposite side of
the road to the Puttingthorpe Rd end via a very convoluted route, but
this is absolutely useless from the other direction!
> The signage is wrong in more ways than any set of
> signage I've ever seen. I really think you should ask the council for
> an explanation.
I might well do that one day. I think this all came about when they
made the Hutton Moor Rd/Locking Moor Rd loop into a one-way system and
decided that they ought to make provision for cyclists. To be fair,
what is there is better than nothing at all, but it could be a hell of a
lot better!
Cheers
Paul Boyd
> Jesus! Is this intended to be one way like the adjacent road, or is it
> intended to be bi-directional? If so, how the ^&$%&*%^ are you supposed to
> pass safely in that width?
No, it is bi-directional, and cyclists in one direction are supposed to
hunt about in the undergrowth to see the sign that tells them to give way!
> Boggles. The best solution here would be for cyclists going 'with' the one
> way system to stay on the road, and for the cycle lane to be one way only
> contra the direction of traffic in the road lane.
Yes, that would make sense, and many cyclists do that. The problem (as
ever) is that the road isn't really wide enough for a car to pass
safely, especially over the bridge, but they do anyway along with "use
the f*%^ing cyclepath" comments.
> Avoid, I'd say.
I'd like to, but as I live about 50yds to the right of where I was
standing for the last photo it's easier to use than to avoid!
MJ Ray
> > http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr3.jpg shows how narrow the path gets
> > over the humped back bridge.
>
> Jesus! Is this intended to be one way like the adjacent road, or is it
> intended to be bi-directional? If so, how the ^&$%&*%^ are you supposed to
> pass safely in that width?
It's a two-way track and one can't pass over the bridge, really. The
track elsewhere is slightly wider and passing with difficulty is possible.
> > Note the remnants of the red paint.
At least NSC hadn't reapplied it when resurfacing Locking Road near Baytree
Rec recently, as far as I saw.
[...]
> Boggles. The best solution here would be for cyclists going 'with' the one
> way system to stay on the road, and for the cycle lane to be one way only
> contra the direction of traffic in the road lane.
That would be awkward, what with the cars going for take-off over the
bridge. If there was a pair for hrm3 for the other side of the bridge,
scrape marks should be visible, unless they've been repaired again.
> > http://pbhome.myzen.co.uk/hutton/hmr4.jpg is looking south at the other
> > end [...]
>
> Avoid, I'd say.
Sadly, the other road bridges over that railway nearby have problems.
At the town end:
- Hildesheim Bridge is pretty busy, but dual carriageway. The local
council wants to avoid signing cycle routes over it IIRC, because some
people will ride on the paths(!) and the bridge sides aren't high enough
for that (come on, Darwin at work);
- Drove Road is maybe the best (no cycle facilities IIRC), but fairly
short/steep and pretty busy;
- Hutton Moor Road has been covered above!
- Locking Moor Road has a similar system to the above IIRC;
then a big gap to:
- Moor Lane has a similar kerb divider, but I'm not sure whether cycling
is allowed in it or whether it's just a footway. The road has speed
humps and tidal flow traffic lights which don't detect bikes AFAICT;
- Summer Lane is two-way but very busy - there are recent works along
one side which I think may be a cycle track linking two other tracks,
but I could be wrong.
Last plan I heard for a signed cycle route from Worle to town was to
send them over Summer Lane and Drove Road, instead of along the pretty
good cycle lanes along New Bristol Road and Locking Road. Madness,
just to use a poorly-drained cycle track by the A370!
Next cycle forum: 7pm Wednesday 28 February, The Campus, Locking Castle
(between Summer Lane and Moor Lane bridges - not signed from anywhere
AFAIK.)
--
MJR/slef
Paul Boyd
> That would be awkward, what with the cars going for take-off over the
> bridge. If there was a pair for hrm3 for the other side of the bridge,
> scrape marks should be visible, unless they've been repaired again.
No, there are still a hell of a lot of scrape marks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L402U3ovpvU shows the cause of some of
them. If more detail was visible that clip would be going to the police
- as it is I doubt they would even be interested.
> - Locking Moor Road has a similar system to the above IIRC;
I think the one over Locking Moor Road is wider throughout, but I've
never actually cycled across it - I use the HMR/Puttingthorpe/green
space routes.
> Last plan I heard for a signed cycle route from Worle to town was to
> send them over Summer Lane and Drove Road, instead of along the pretty
> good cycle lanes along New Bristol Road and Locking Road. Madness,
> just to use a poorly-drained cycle track by the A370!
From the Worle direction, the cycle facilities approaching the Borough
Arms could be improved, as cyclists have to leave the cycle lane (to the
angst of motorists!) and move into the right hand lane approaching the
lights. This is no problem for experienced cyclists, but I would
imagine a bit daunting for the less experienced. Also, the cycle lane
ends at Hutton Moor Rd. This still has to be a much better route than
that proposed though! How are they planning for cyclists to get to
Drove Road?
uk.rec.cycling.wsm :-)
MJ Ray
> MJ Ray said the following on 19/02/2007 09:18:
> > send them over Summer Lane and Drove Road, instead of along the pretty
> > good cycle lanes along New Bristol Road and Locking Road. Madness,
> > just to use a poorly-drained cycle track by the A370!
>
> From the Worle direction, the cycle facilities approaching the Borough
> Arms could be improved, as cyclists have to leave the cycle lane (to the
> angst of motorists!) and move into the right hand lane approaching the
> lights. This is no problem for experienced cyclists, but I would
> imagine a bit daunting for the less experienced.
There are a couple of other gnarly problems:
- Worle-bound cyclists are directed off the road and into a bus shelter
near the Borough Arms, thanks to stupid build-outs and islands;
- both directions are directed off the road and through pedestrians
waiting to cross at the lights by Worle School.
Even so, those seem simpler to fix than the problems with the bridges.
> Also, the cycle lane ends at Hutton Moor Rd.
Not a major problem IMO, as Earlham Grove / Clarendon Road is not far
and a good last section into town. IIRC Locking Road is wide enough
there to add a useful turn lane one way and a cycle lane the other.
> This still has to be a much better route than
> that proposed though! How are they planning for cyclists to get to
> Drove Road?
Marchfields Way IIRC, aka The Long Way Round the retail park.
Next cycle forum: 7pm Wed 28 Feb 2007 at The Campus.
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Roger Merriman
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Paul Boyd
> <usenet.dont.work@plusnet.?.invalid> gently breathed:
> >POHB said the following on 12/02/2007 15:41:
>
> >> When their satnav stops directing them the wrong way :-) Most amused
> >> yesterday while walking down one-way street blocked with rising
> >> bollards to see shiny 4x4 half turn into wrong end of street. Driver
> >> looks most perplexed, then starts tapping away on the little screen on
> >> the dashboard.
>
> >I'm sure that with a lot of these satnav people if they were told to
> >drive off the edge of a cliff they would!
>
> Satnav appears to require a fair degree of common sense to use it
> correctly. I don't have one but one of my mates does, and brought it
> down for a trip to North Wales in the van the other week. We set it up
> on the passenger's side - I could still see it if I wanted to but it
> wasn't close enough to be a distraction, something I've always thought a
> problem with people who put them in direct line of sight.
>
no best in direct sight. then, you can see the line of the road +
juntions etc.
> Mostly what it said agreed with what we'd already decided from the map,
> and it was certainly handy for identifying the correct turn from several
> in a town centre to get to the next section we wanted to drive, but
> there were a few occasions where if I'd responded unthinkingly to the
> satnav voice prompts I'd have ended up in someone's driveway, private
> farm track, closed factory gates, or a lake.
i have a co pilot on the phone, its gets lost down the lanes to my folks
but seems to cope at all other routes i've thrown at it.
roger