I can't beliiiiiieve it...
Frank Sobott
chopped. Vandalism or (c'est impossible!) an act planned by some local
authority?
Either way, WELL DONE :-)
And there's even word of rebuilding the Cutter Ferry Bridge in such a
way that it would be cycleable.
If we could also have a spring-clean now on Cambridge's cyclepaths, or
those which want to become such when they are big enough, that would be
even better. Let's clean all these obstacles which have been dumped on
them (pillars 1.5m apart will do to prevent motorists from entering) and
the 'yield' signs at intersections and we might start to think about a
cycle network for Cambridge!
Frank
jamie g
I thought the barriers were due to be replaced around now with new
L-shaped ones to facilitate cycle and push-chair access?
Frank Sobott
> I thought the barriers were due to be replaced around now with new
> L-shaped ones to facilitate cycle and push-chair access?
That's what they had announced to do - but I just couldn't believe that
it would actually happen, and in our lifetime as well.
Frank
Tim Ward
news:c696o3$5ad$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> If we could also have a spring-clean now on Cambridge's cyclepaths, or
> those which want to become such when they are big enough, that would be
> even better. Let's clean all these obstacles which have been dumped on
> them (pillars 1.5m apart will do to prevent motorists from entering)
However some council officers (seems to be particularly in the housing
department) don't believe that 1.5m apart will stop boy racers on mopeds.
Personally I've never seen any of these supposed boy racers on mopeds ... to
which the officers say "see, it works then, doesn't it".
> we might start to think about a cycle network for Cambridge!
See Tuesday's environment committee agenda.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Frank Sobott
>>If we could also have a spring-clean now on Cambridge's cyclepaths, or
>>those which want to become such when they are big enough, that would be
>>even better. Let's clean all these obstacles which have been dumped on
>>them (pillars 1.5m apart will do to prevent motorists from entering)
>
> However some council officers (seems to be particularly in the housing
> department) don't believe that 1.5m apart will stop boy racers on mopeds.
> Personally I've never seen any of these supposed boy racers on mopeds ... to
> which the officers say "see, it works then, doesn't it".
There isn't much you can really do about stopping mopeds from slipping
through anyway, given that they are about as wide as some bicycles.
Apart from catching them, maybe?
Yesyes, the officers. Do they ever cycle themselves? Can someone please
explain to them that a cycle path works better if it's actually useable?
And a tad more convenient than the road - otherwise don't bother wasting
the money.
>>we might start to think about a cycle network for Cambridge!
>
> See Tuesday's environment committee agenda.
I can't wait. ;-)
Frank
Tim Ward
>
> Yesyes, the officers. Do they ever cycle themselves?
Some do. Some were included in the photo of cycling members of the AJC
sometime last year.
> And a tad more convenient than the road - otherwise don't bother wasting
> the money.
Some cyclists prefer on-road provision, some prefer off-road provision;
however it is sometimes impossible, whether due to the laws of physics or
for other reasons, to provide both to an excellent standard on a particular
route.
Providing the type of route that you aren't going to use might seem to you
to be a waste of money (eg in my case I won't cycle along a shared footpath
if the alternative is a road) but others will see it differently. The
councils recognise the different types of cyclist as identified by the
cycling campaign.
> >>we might start to think about a cycle network for Cambridge!
> >
> > See Tuesday's environment committee agenda.
>
> I can't wait. ;-)
You don't have to wait. There's something here
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/councillors/agenda/2004/0427env_files/07.pdf
which you can read right now.
Chris Lamb
wrote:
>However some council officers (seems to be particularly in the housing
>department) don't believe that 1.5m apart will stop boy racers on mopeds.
>Personally I've never seen any of these supposed boy racers on mopeds ... to
>which the officers say "see, it works then, doesn't it".
Well, on the snakey path between CH and Mill Road, I was hit by a
moped last week. Called the police too. They obviously couldn't do
much without a lic. plate.
So, your absence of seeing is not indicative of mopeders not using
footpaths. When I brought this up last time and said 'why not put in
pq gates' I was told by D Auger that pq gates were a bit of an extreme
solution. Well, I'm all for a better solution than laissez faire.
Well, I'm doing what I should have done some time ago, since I got no
joy in asking for a better/safer ped. environment, I'm getting a car.
My own tin box to negotiate streets that seem to favour, um. Can
someone actually tell me what mode of transport the road system
here favours? It seems actively lethal to cyclists and pedestrians,
infuriating to motorists and useless for PT. It only seems that
lawbreakers get anywhere here. Perhaps I should buy a tank (cf
ER tonight).
Chris
Frank Sobott
> Well, on the snakey path between CH and Mill Road, I was hit by a
> moped last week. Called the police too. They obviously couldn't do
> much without a lic. plate.
> So, your absence of seeing is not indicative of mopeders not using
> footpaths. When I brought this up last time and said 'why not put in
> pq gates' I was told by D Auger that pq gates were a bit of an extreme
> solution. Well, I'm all for a better solution than laissez faire.
>
> Well, I'm doing what I should have done some time ago, since I got no
> joy in asking for a better/safer ped. environment, I'm getting a car.
> My own tin box to negotiate streets that seem to favour, um. Can
> someone actually tell me what mode of transport the road system
> here favours? It seems actively lethal to cyclists and pedestrians,
> infuriating to motorists and useless for PT.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that.
The fact that it won't ever be good for motorists, at least in the city
centre without laying down all that old masonry, is a good starting
point - so why not try to make it at least halfway decent for cyclists
and pedestrians?
Frank
Frank Sobott
> You don't have to wait. There's something here
>
> http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/councillors/agenda/2004/0427env_files/07.pdf
>
> which you can read right now.
Will keep me entertained. Sounds all great on paper however I won't
believe half of it. Examples:
"...Expansion of the City Cycle Network." of what? I haven't found one
yet. You're allowed to mix with double-decker buses which tend to speed
past with 10 inches safety margin, cycle on contra-flow lanes which are
hardly as wide as a bike into oncoming traffic on the wrong side of the
road, maneuver around abandoned vehicles, and generally annoy
pedestrians on the pavements (and vice versa). Nobody gives a s..t, and
all other roads are off limits. And that's just the centre.
Network? I don't think so.
"Policies in the draft Local Plan require developers to give priority to
cycling and walking,..." One word only: Tesco. Riverside!
"...provide a high quality and comprehensive network of cycle routes"
Why don't the councils make a start then and get the advanced stop boxes
right i.e. make them actually useable, if they think they are useful?
(Silver St etc.) Are cycle routes high quality which are less than half
the recommended width, stop in front of every intersection, make space
for extra traffic lanes, parked cars, traffic signs etc.? I don't think so.
Lots to do then.
Frank
Ben Blaukopf
> "Frank Sobott" <fs...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:c696o3$5ad$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>>If we could also have a spring-clean now on Cambridge's cyclepaths, or
>>those which want to become such when they are big enough, that would be
>>even better. Let's clean all these obstacles which have been dumped on
>>them (pillars 1.5m apart will do to prevent motorists from entering)
>
>
> However some council officers (seems to be particularly in the housing
> department) don't believe that 1.5m apart will stop boy racers on mopeds.
> Personally I've never seen any of these supposed boy racers on mopeds ... to
> which the officers say "see, it works then, doesn't it".
Seen them several times. And they are definitely boys (as in about 12).
Ben
Nick Maclaren
In article <c69ea8$9hupp$1...@ID-154437.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Some cyclists prefer on-road provision, some prefer off-road provision;
|> however it is sometimes impossible, whether due to the laws of physics or
|> for other reasons, to provide both to an excellent standard on a particular
|> route.
|>
|> Providing the type of route that you aren't going to use might seem to you
|> to be a waste of money (eg in my case I won't cycle along a shared footpath
|> if the alternative is a road) but others will see it differently. The
|> councils recognise the different types of cyclist as identified by the
|> cycling campaign.
Look, I haven't laid into you in the past, because your postings have
been at least semi-sane, but that is so economical with the truth
that you need it. I doubt that it will do any more good than the
failed attempts at cooperation have done :-(
The poxious County Council does NOT recognise the requirements of
any cyclist who rides at between 15 and 20 MPH, and only very
reluctantly admits that any ride between 10 and 15 MPH. The fact
that, of the cyclists who commuted moderate distances (3-10 miles),
15-20 MPH was the largest band, and about 90% fell into the 10-15
or 15-20 MPH band is ignored. This can also be checked from other
sources, but it it obviously in its interest not to confuse its
policy with facts.
They repeatedly stated that I was an "exceptionally fast and
confident cyclist" - at (then) 55, with 70% lung function, riding
a 50 pound TOTALLY upright bicycle, because I have balance problems?
Oh, crap.
They have repeatedly said that they are not removing the ability
of 'the faster and more confident' cyclists to ride on the road,
but deliberately introduce major conflict - which, together with
their persistent refusal even to consider the matter of enforcing
the law, does precisely the opposite. What do you think has
happened to the 70% of cyclists that rode on the road on Trumpington
Road? They don't do so now, and I can witness that few of them
use the cycle path.
Secondly, the provision of unacceptable (and even lethally
dangerous) facilities on the type of route 'preferred' by some
carefully-managed survey compared with acceptable ones on the
'other' type is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT. Why the HELL do you think that
the building of the (expensive) Stapleford to Sawston link was
accompanied by a near-cessation of cyclists using that route? And
why do you think that most of the cyclists who DO use that route
don't use it?
Thirdly, is it too radical to expect the council planners to think
like engineers rather than politicians on occasion? Using the views
of the clueless to decide technical issues is a stupid idea; inter
alia, it is well-known to be possible to elicite almost any response
by a suitable phrasing of the question. Any half-competent idiot
would be able to work out that a cycle route from Sawston to the
centre that is suitable for an average speed of of only 7 MPH will
not get used. Why do you think that cycle commuting from Shelford
has dropped by 40% since the damn Trumpington scheme was perpetrated?
Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is
strong evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
organisation. They repeatedly mutter about the need to recognise
all types of cyclist, but won't stand up and say the County Council
is not delivering what it claims to?
|> http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/councillors/agenda/2004/0427env_files/07.pdf
|>
|> which you can read right now.
It's content-free.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jon Anderson
> Look, I haven't laid into you in the past, because your postings have
> been at least semi-sane, but that is so economical with the truth
> that you need it.
This isn't a 24 hour invective contest. :-)
> The poxious County Council does NOT recognise the requirements of
> any cyclist who rides at between 15 and 20 MPH
That's an interesting thought.
As far as this cyclist can see, the most effective way around Cambridge
is to be a) fast off from the lights b) cruise at about 20mph or faster
if you're in fast flowing traffic and c) not mind getting sweaty and
horrible wherever you're going.
Then you're in a position to not get put under pressure from pedestrians
(who generally stick to paths) or motorists.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Steve Hunt
> mopeds. Personally I've never seen any of these supposed boy racers
> on mopeds ...
There are often yoofs on mopeds in the nature reserve between Fen Estate
and Nuffield Road. And I've many times seen yoofs on mopeds going
over Green Dragon bridge and riding on Stourbridge common, or just
using it as a shortcut to/from Newmarket Road. Often 2-up with no helmets,
so perhaps evolution will do its job at some stage.
-- Steve
Nick Maclaren
In article <c6apgv$h4j$1...@heisenberg.grid-zero.net>,
Jon Anderson <j...@durge.org> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> > Look, I haven't laid into you in the past, because your postings have
|> > been at least semi-sane, but that is so economical with the truth
|> > that you need it.
|>
|> This isn't a 24 hour invective contest. :-)
Quite. I was not referring to being abusive, but to accusations
of talking complete nonsense and/or attempting to manipulate the
facts. I have not seen Tim Ward do either before, and hope that
this was a simple mistake.
|> > The poxious County Council does NOT recognise the requirements of
|> > any cyclist who rides at between 15 and 20 MPH
|>
|> That's an interesting thought.
It is particularly interesting if you have serious difficulty in
riding OTHER than at speeds between 10 and 20 MPH :-(
|> As far as this cyclist can see, the most effective way around Cambridge
|> is to be a) fast off from the lights b) cruise at about 20mph or faster
|> if you're in fast flowing traffic and c) not mind getting sweaty and
|> horrible wherever you're going.
|> Then you're in a position to not get put under pressure from pedestrians
|> (who generally stick to paths) or motorists.
Quite. Nice if you can do it. I don't have the lungs for it.
I can touch 20 MPH for perhaps a few seconds, and it then takes
me 10 minutes to recover.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> ...two of the three sets of barriers on Fort St George Bridge have been
> chopped. Vandalism or (c'est impossible!) an act planned by some local
> authority?
Yep - planned: see www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/52/article21.html
This is a matter the Campaign has been lobbying on and meeting Council
Officers about.
One wonders whether it is this sort of thing to which Nick refers to when
he says..
> Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is strong
> evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
> organisation.
... oh well.
Martin
Colin Davidson
"Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> One wonders whether it is this sort of thing to which Nick refers to when
> he says..
>
> > Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is strong
> > evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
> > organisation.
As you could have easily included the comments to which he was responding
(which were clearly not to do with lobbying by the CCC on the issue of these
barriers) but haven't done so, may I point out that the CCC would have a
heck of a lot more credibility if it were to avoid taking such pathetic
cheap shots? If you don't agree with Nicks comments, then by all means try
to refute them, but to take one comment and use it as if it might be a reply
to something very different is just pathetic, really.
Do you really want members in the CCC, or are you trying to put us all off?
Simon Proven
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:12:31 +0100, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >However some council officers (seems to be particularly in the housing
> >department) don't believe that 1.5m apart will stop boy racers on mopeds.
> >Personally I've never seen any of these supposed boy racers on mopeds ... to
> >which the officers say "see, it works then, doesn't it".
>
> Well, on the snakey path between CH and Mill Road, I was hit by a
> moped last week. Called the police too. They obviously couldn't do
> much without a lic. plate.
I saw a moped mount the pavement at a ped crossing on Hills Road
(by St Pauls), as I was stood at said crossing about to cross,
drive behind me along the pavement - rather close - and then drive
along the pavement and into the grounds of the church, I think. They
then returned to Hills Rd and then drove down the cycle lane passing
queued traffic on the left. This was on wednesday afternoon, about
5.15pm. I unfortunately got distracted by the errand I was on
sufficiently to forget the reg. no before I got a chance to write
it down, so can't do anything about it.
I regularly see mopeds on cycle paths in general. I also once
saw police inspecting an abandoned one by the side of a cycle
path - presumably with a view to removing it.
Simon
Tim Ward
news:c6au84$i6b$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Quite. I was not referring to being abusive, but to accusations
> of talking complete nonsense and/or attempting to manipulate the
> facts. I have not seen Tim Ward do either before, and hope that
> this was a simple mistake.
I should perhaps have said more explicitly that they "claimed to try to"
rather than accidentally implying that they "succeeded in".
I can't comment on the cycle routes outside the city to the south, not my
manor.
Within the city, the various officers and politicians have different views,
which can also differ from the views of some politicians from outside the
city whose views matter (because they are the ruling group on the county
council).
Look, we all know what's going on here. Roads are used by pedestrians,
cyclists in various subclasses, cars, taxis, buses, white vans and bloody
great trucks. *Every* group of users currently thinks they're getting a raw
deal. There is no way to give every road user what they want, within the
laws of physics, unless you get into things like pulling down colleges. You
all know all that. All that councils can do is try to get some sort of
balance; at the Cambridge AJC the current pull seems to be between officers
who seem to want to give more road space to buses at the expense of cyclists
and politicians who are trying to resist this pressure.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> > > Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is
> > > strong evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
> > > organisation.
>
> As you could have easily included the comments to which he was
> responding (which were clearly not to do with lobbying by the CCC on the
> issue of these barriers) but haven't done so, may I point out that the
> CCC would have a
Indeed, he was commenting on another matter on which the Campaign has been
active. I'm sorry if my editing was construed as anything other than an
attempt to quote efficiently, given the nearness of the postings within
the thread.
> If you don't agree with Nicks comments, then by all means try to refute
> them, but to take one comment and use it as if it might be a reply to
> something very different is just pathetic, really.
The comment made - "my assertion that they are a counter-productive
organisation" - I read as not making reference to a particular campaigning
matter, but to the poster's view as to the effectiveness of that Campaign
as a whole. It seems fair to point out that, even though the Cycling
Campaign at times is unable to stop some (bad) proposals going through, it
does at other times achieve results, e.g. its role in this one.
Martin
Jonathan Larmour
>In article <c69ea8$9hupp$1...@ID-154437.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> writes:
>|>
>|> Providing the type of route that you aren't going to use might seem to you
>|> to be a waste of money (eg in my case I won't cycle along a shared footpath
>|> if the alternative is a road) but others will see it differently. The
>|> councils recognise the different types of cyclist as identified by the
>|> cycling campaign.
>
>Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is
>strong evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
>organisation. They repeatedly mutter about the need to recognise
>all types of cyclist, but won't stand up and say the County Council
>is not delivering what it claims to?
They do. Who is there to listen? If the County Council ignores the
campaign, there's nothing the campaign can do about it. I'm sure they
already try and interest e.g. the CEN for larger issues, but there's
only so much the CEN will find interesting. Should they be firebombing
Shire Hall or something?
To then say the campaign is "counter-productive" because the council
deliberately ignores them is a bit far-fetched.
Jifl
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
Jonathan Larmour
Did Nick's comment look like it was specific to what he had been complaining
about either? No, it was a sweeping statement.
Paul Rudin
>
> Look, we all know what's going on here. Roads are used by pedestrians,
> cyclists in various subclasses, cars, taxis, buses, white vans and bloody
> great trucks. *Every* group of users currently thinks they're getting a raw
> deal. There is no way to give every road user what they want, within the
> laws of physics, unless you get into things like pulling down colleges. You
> all know all that. All that councils can do is try to get some sort of
> balance; at the Cambridge AJC the current pull seems to be between officers
> who seem to want to give more road space to buses at the expense of cyclists
> and politicians who are trying to resist this pressure.
Most cyclists here don't want to be "given" anything - they want the
things that they've been "given" to be removed. Cambridge "cycling
facilities" usually make things worse for cyclists.
(I'm hopeful that the new Milton bridge will be an exception - but it
looks like the new cycle paths on the approaches won't be.)
Tim Ward
news:m3fzaut...@ntlworld.com...
>
> Most cyclists here ...
... have not been proven to be representative of "all cyclists in
Cambridge".
Nick Maclaren
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>"Nick Maclaren" <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:c6au84$i6b$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> Quite. I was not referring to being abusive, but to accusations
>> of talking complete nonsense and/or attempting to manipulate the
>> facts. I have not seen Tim Ward do either before, and hope that
>> this was a simple mistake.
>
>I should perhaps have said more explicitly that they "claimed to try to"
>rather than accidentally implying that they "succeeded in".
In which case, please feel excused from the worst of my wrath!
>I can't comment on the cycle routes outside the city to the south, not my
>manor.
It's not just outside the city - the whole route south is a disaster.
>Within the city, the various officers and politicians have different views,
>which can also differ from the views of some politicians from outside the
>city whose views matter (because they are the ruling group on the county
>council).
That is why I have tried to get some people to join together with me
and stand for election. I have failed.
>Look, we all know what's going on here. Roads are used by pedestrians,
>cyclists in various subclasses, cars, taxis, buses, white vans and bloody
>great trucks. *Every* group of users currently thinks they're getting a raw
>deal. There is no way to give every road user what they want, within the
>laws of physics, unless you get into things like pulling down colleges. You
>all know all that. All that councils can do is try to get some sort of
>balance; at the Cambridge AJC the current pull seems to be between officers
>who seem to want to give more road space to buses at the expense of cyclists
>and politicians who are trying to resist this pressure.
That is NOT what I am talking about.
I am referring to deliberately making the road unsafe for normal cyclists,
and providing "alternative facilities" that are impossible to use safely
OR legally (let alone both!)
I am referring to gratuitously anti-cycling measures - i.e. ones that
harm cyclists, but provide no extra facility for any other class of
law-abiding road user.
I am referring to getting proposals accepted on the basis of certain
standards, and making no attempt WHATSOEVER to ensure that the facilities
are made to those standards.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
Martin Lucas-Smith <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If you don't agree with Nicks comments, then by all means try to refute
>> them, but to take one comment and use it as if it might be a reply to
>> something very different is just pathetic, really.
>
>The comment made - "my assertion that they are a counter-productive
>organisation" - I read as not making reference to a particular campaigning
>matter, but to the poster's view as to the effectiveness of that Campaign
>as a whole. It seems fair to point out that, even though the Cycling
>Campaign at times is unable to stop some (bad) proposals going through, it
>does at other times achieve results, e.g. its role in this one.
I have never stated that it is totally ineffective. What I have said
is that the harm that it has done, by supporting the anti-cyclist
County Council, has outweight the good it has done, by alleviating
their incompetence.
I stand by that, and can provide evidence.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
Larmour) wrote:
> >Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is
> >strong evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
> >organisation. They repeatedly mutter about the need to recognise
> >all types of cyclist, but won't stand up and say the County Council
> >is not delivering what it claims to?
>
> They do. Who is there to listen? If the County Council ignores the
> campaign, there's nothing the campaign can do about it. I'm sure they
> already try and interest e.g. the CEN for larger issues, but there's
> only so much the CEN will find interesting. Should they be firebombing
> Shire Hall or something?
>
> To then say the campaign is "counter-productive" because the council
> deliberately ignores them is a bit far-fetched.
To say AJC members are not aware of Cycling Campaign views is a bit silly.
Apart from anything else, 4 of its members, including the Chair and
Vice-Chair, are Cycling Campaign members!
There was a problem in the past that AJC members were circulated by the
Cycling Campaign but they forgot to include the officers which made
getting advice on the points raised a bit tricky. I trust that omission
has been fixed now.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
Larmour) wrote:
> Did Nick's comment look like it was specific to what he had been
> complaining about either? No, it was a sweeping statement.
A masterly understatement there.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Martin Lucas-Smith
> >Within the city, the various officers and politicians have different
> >views, which can also differ from the views of some politicians from
> >outside the city whose views matter (because they are the ruling group
> >on the county council).
>
> That is why I have tried to get some people to join together with me and
> stand for election. I have failed.
Well, I know of at least one cycle-friendly person likely to be standing
for election in Market Ward [1] :) Colin is presumably another..
http://www.cambridgegreens.org.uk/
Martin
[1] OK, City not County..
Paul Rudin
> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:m3fzaut...@ntlworld.com...
> >
> > Most cyclists here ...
>
> ... have not been proven to be representative of "all cyclists in
> Cambridge".
True, but there's no speical reason to think that they're
unrepresentative either.
Nick Maclaren
Firstly, the County Council is the ONLY one with significant powers
in terms of traffic planning and, secondly, I am not interested in
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Radicalism is needed,
and NOT the ghastly and counter-productive bicycle/car/bus+taxi
wars that have done so much harm.
If (by some miracle), I got enough support, I would be regarded as
an avatar of Old Nick by most of the current CCC committee, but I
suspect that a majority of the membership would think of me more
as one of Saint Nick :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
mv...@cam.ac.uk (Martin Lucas-Smith) wrote:
All the Market Ward councillor use bikes regularly. One owns no car (but
occasionally hires one) and one has no driving licence.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Oter
<mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Well, I know of at least one cycle-friendly person likely to be standing
>for election in Market Ward [1] :) Colin is presumably another..
>
>http://www.cambridgegreens.org.uk/
>
>
>Martin
>
>[1] OK, City not County..
Thanks. I took a look and went straight to
http://www.cambridgegreens.org.uk/campaigns/transport/
where the first link is to an "Objection to Guided Bus TWA application
from the Chair of Cambridge Green Party, although this does not
necessarily represent Cambridge Green Party policy."
If this does not necessarily represent Cambridge Green Party policy
then why is this the top item in the section on transport issues on
the Cambridge Green Party website?
Will the Cambridge Green Party tells us their position on the
Cambridge Guided Bus before the local elections? Or is this an issue
on which candidates are allowed to have their own views?
PaulO
Colin Davidson
> > As you could have easily included the comments to which he was
> > responding (which were clearly not to do with lobbying by the CCC on the
> > issue of these barriers) but haven't done so, may I point out that the
> > CCC would have a
>
> Indeed, he was commenting on another matter on which the Campaign has been
> active. I'm sorry if my editing was construed as anything other than an
> attempt to quote efficiently, given the nearness of the postings within
> the thread.
Given the nearness of the postings in the thread you could have responded to
the original posting. You chose not to, you chose to remove the comments
from their original context and apply them into another.
> > If you don't agree with Nicks comments, then by all means try to refute
> > them, but to take one comment and use it as if it might be a reply to
> > something very different is just pathetic, really.
>
> The comment made - "my assertion that they are a counter-productive
> organisation" - I read as not making reference to a particular campaigning
> matter, but to the poster's view as to the effectiveness of that Campaign
> as a whole. It seems fair to point out that, even though the Cycling
> Campaign at times is unable to stop some (bad) proposals going through, it
> does at other times achieve results, e.g. its role in this one.
Then deal with the comments Nick made in response to where he made them,
within the context he used them. If you can indeed defend the position of
the CCC the do so in that way.
Colin Davidson
"Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org> wrote in message
news:f80ol1-...@worf.jifvik.org...
> >As you could have easily included the comments to which he was responding
> >(which were clearly not to do with lobbying by the CCC on the issue of
these
> >barriers) but haven't done so, may I point out that the CCC would have a
> >heck of a lot more credibility if it were to avoid taking such pathetic
> >cheap shots? If you don't agree with Nicks comments, then by all means
try
> >to refute them, but to take one comment and use it as if it might be a
reply
> >to something very different is just pathetic, really.
>
> Did Nick's comment look like it was specific to what he had been
complaining
> about either? No, it was a sweeping statement.
Then criticise it within that context, in response to what he's said, rather
than slipping it in where you want a quite to show that he's opposed to
something else. Good grief, it's almost like the CCC are trying to be
tabloid journalists.
Nick Maclaren
In article <c6iqb1$r55$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes:
|> "Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
|> news:Pine.SOL.4.58.0...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
|>
|> > > them, but to take one comment and use it as if it might be a reply to
|> > > something very different is just pathetic, really.
|> >
|> > The comment made - "my assertion that they are a counter-productive
|> > organisation" - I read as not making reference to a particular campaigning
|> > matter, but to the poster's view as to the effectiveness of that Campaign
|> > as a whole. It seems fair to point out that, even though the Cycling
|> > Campaign at times is unable to stop some (bad) proposals going through, it
|> > does at other times achieve results, e.g. its role in this one.
|>
|> Then deal with the comments Nick made in response to where he made them,
|> within the context he used them. If you can indeed defend the position of
|> the CCC the do so in that way.
Thank you, Colin.
I am perfectly happy to be challenged on what I have said, and
to be asked to justify or withdraw it. I am not prepared to be
manipulated into defending a statement that I have not made, nor
a statement that I made in one context in a very different context.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> Firstly, the County Council is the ONLY one with significant powers in
> terms of traffic planning and, secondly, I am not interested in
> rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Radicalism is needed, and
> NOT the ghastly and counter-productive bicycle/car/bus+taxi wars that
> have done so much harm.
Fine, but it's not a campaign which has the problem here, as they don't
make the decisions.
Martin
Martin Lucas-Smith
> you chose to remove the comments from their original context and apply
> them into another.
As another poster (who may or may not be a member?) has commented:
> Did Nick's comment look like it was specific to what he had been
> complaining about either? No, it was a sweeping statement.
This was also my interpretation. However..
> Then deal with the comments Nick made in response to where he made them,
> within the context he used them. If you can indeed defend the position
> of the CCC the do so in that way.
Fine - Nick has since clarified with his statement:
> I have never stated that it is totally ineffective. What I have said is
> that the harm that it has done, by supporting the anti-cyclist County
> Council, has outweight the good it has done, by alleviating their
> incompetence.
- which seems a perfectly valid view (albeit one I don't agree with
entirely) rather than the sweeping statement which was earlier made,
albeit in response to another posting in the thread.
Martin
Nick Maclaren
In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Eh? The County Council is PRECISELY the organisation that makes
the decisions to create the dot-and-carry-one bus lanes that make
Newmarket Road so unusable by those who don't drive on it every
day.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> Thanks. I took a look and went straight to
> http://www.cambridgegreens.org.uk/campaigns/transport/ where the first
> link is to an "Objection to Guided Bus TWA application from the Chair of
> Cambridge Green Party, although this does not necessarily represent
> Cambridge Green Party policy."
>
> If this does not necessarily represent Cambridge Green Party policy then
> why is this the top item in the section on transport issues on the
> Cambridge Green Party website?
Probably because the site's quite new and other things haven't been added
yet. I believe there's a meeting tonight, so it's possible any response
will be ratified at such a meeting if that's tabled.
> Will the Cambridge Green Party tells us their position on the Cambridge
> Guided Bus before the local elections? Or is this an issue on which
> candidates are allowed to have their own views?
Personally I hope that candidates will have their own views, much as
understand other parties locally have allowed them to!
(For the record, I myself wrote against, but on different grounds to the
one noted at the URL above.)
Incidentally, I hear that personal responses to the MGB inspector are not
being made public, under DPA rules. I thought this sort of thing would be
exempt? Perhaps this is answered somewhere within a vast thread over there
-->
Martin
Martin Lucas-Smith
> |> Fine, but it's not a campaign which has the problem here, as they
> don't |> make the decisions.
>
> Eh? The County Council is PRECISELY the organisation that makes the
> decisions to create the dot-and-carry-one bus lanes that make Newmarket
> Road so unusable by those who don't drive on it every day.
Absolutely. It's the *County Council* who makes the decisions, not
Cambridge Cycling Campaign! As another poster stated eloquently:
> They do. Who is there to listen? If the County Council ignores the
> campaign, there's nothing the campaign can do about it. I'm sure they
> already try and interest e.g. the CEN for larger issues, but there's
> only so much the CEN will find interesting. Should they be firebombing
> Shire Hall or something?
>
> To then say the campaign is "counter-productive" because the council
> deliberately ignores them is a bit far-fetched.
Martin
Nick Maclaren
In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin Lucas-Smith <mv...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
|>
|> > them into another.
|>
|> As another poster (who may or may not be a member?) has commented:
|>
|> > Did Nick's comment look like it was specific to what he had been
|> > complaining about either? No, it was a sweeping statement.
|>
|> This was also my interpretation. However..
Your interpretation was wrong, if you had read the section to which
I responded.
|> > I have never stated that it is totally ineffective. What I have said is
|> > that the harm that it has done, by supporting the anti-cyclist County
|> > Council, has outweight the good it has done, by alleviating their
|> > incompetence.
|>
|> - which seems a perfectly valid view (albeit one I don't agree with
|> entirely) rather than the sweeping statement which was earlier made,
|> albeit in response to another posting in the thread.
Here is the complete text that I was responding to and the paragraph
to which you objected:
A Councillor writes:
|>
|> Some cyclists prefer on-road provision, some prefer off-road provision;
|> however it is sometimes impossible, whether due to the laws of physics or
|> for other reasons, to provide both to an excellent standard on a particular
|> route.
|>
|> Providing the type of route that you aren't going to use might seem to you
|> to be a waste of money (eg in my case I won't cycle along a shared footpath
|> if the alternative is a road) but others will see it differently. The
|> councils recognise the different types of cyclist as identified by the
|> cycling campaign.
[ Diatribe and evidence that that is completely false omitted,
later corrected to insert "claimed to try to" in front of
"recognise", which makes the statement perfectly correct! ]
Lastly, your statement about the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is
strong evidence of my assertion that they are a counter-productive
organisation. They repeatedly mutter about the need to recognise
all types of cyclist, but won't stand up and say the County Council
is not delivering what it claims to?
As I have said repeatedly at the CCC and here, the fact that the CCC
supports the County Council and their "improvements" politically (it
does, so please don't both to deny it) makes it completely impossible
for me or anyone else to get anywhere demonstrating that their claims
are false.
As with Blair and Bush, the claim is that the CCC gets more out of
the County Council by arguing with them in private and backing them
in public than it would by facing up to them in public. Well, I can
see no evidence whatsoever of that, and believe that (as with the UK
and USA) the converse is true in the medium to long term.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin Lucas-Smith <mv...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
|>
|> being made public, under DPA rules. I thought this sort of thing would be
|> exempt? Perhaps this is answered somewhere within a vast thread over there
|> -->
I answered. It is because we are not OBLIGED to provide the
information by law. If we are, the government can sell it ad lib.,
which is why our driving licence and electoral roll information is
sold, and why the Treasury can see so much profit in a mandatory
identification card with our employment details and biometric
information on it.
Hadn't thought of that aspect, had you?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> Your interpretation was wrong, if you had read the section to which I
> responded.
I still read it as a sweeping statement. But as per your substantive
point:
> As I have said repeatedly at the CCC and here, the fact that the CCC
> supports the County Council and their "improvements" politically (it
> does, so please don't both to deny it) makes it completely impossible
> for me or anyone else to get anywhere demonstrating that their claims
> are false.
I'm sure it supports some, yes, probably as a result of overall member
feedback. Most organisations probably find that constant negative
campaigning just results in being ignored.
Can you point to any examples where it *hasn't* supported things, that
make things worse for cyclists? I can. Here's links to a few I just found:
www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/threads/hillsroad.html
www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/miltonroad/
I'd love to know how many hundreds of hours of volunteer time have been
spent fighting these dreadful proposals, condemning them at very many
opportunties.
Martin
Martin Lucas-Smith
> as per your
This should have read 'as to your'
Martin
Frank Sobott
> Look, we all know what's going on here. Roads are used by pedestrians,
> cyclists in various subclasses, cars, taxis, buses, white vans and bloody
> great trucks. *Every* group of users currently thinks they're getting a raw
> deal. There is no way to give every road user what they want, within the
> laws of physics, unless you get into things like pulling down colleges. You
> all know all that.
We do. It's what you do with that limited space though.
I've not seen another place where so much of it was given to motorists.
Can you imagine Radcliffe Square in Oxford, or Covent Garden, with cars
parked all over it and white delivery vans abandoned on the pavements?
A historic city centre such as Cambridge's is not for motorised traffic,
and that includes buses by the way.
The overriding design principle is still to maximise capacity for
motorists. Exactly the opposite of what it says in the LTP. We're not
talking about giving cyclists *priority* in any way, but they consitute
roughly a quarter of all traffic and it can only be in the interest of
everyone (particularly pedestrians and motorists) to provide adequate
facilities.
Where there's perfectly enough space for a cycle lane, inevitably a
dual-carriageway layout is chosen instead, particularly on busy roads
without any alternative routes for cyclists (as an example, see Colin's
recent posting here about the fact that the cycle lanes ends before
Hills Rd bridge to make space for a second lane, to maximise jct capacity).
Great care is also taken not to give pedestrians priority anywhere
(hence the removal, or lack of, zebra crossings). They are allowed to
cross at lights when no traffic is coming. Pavements are as narrow as
possible so that one pedestrian can just about walk on them - to
maximise roadspace for motorists. Look at the layouts in Regent and
Pembroke St or the upper part of Mill Rd - they are all perfectly wide
enough to make the pavements a bit wider as well!
The road layouts here reveal a disgraceful attitude towards the more
vulnerable road users, the ones they are supposed to protect.
Frank
Douglas de Lacey
> The overriding design principle is still to maximise capacity for
> motorists. Exactly the opposite of what it says in the LTP.
I only met the LTP
(<http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/sub/eandt/planning/trplan/2004/>) the
other day (while researching my response to Girton's plan). An amusing
work of fiction.
Douglas de Lacey.
Colin Rosenstiel
> Incidentally, I hear that personal responses to the MGB inspector are
> not being made public, under DPA rules. I thought this sort of thing
> would be exempt? Perhaps this is answered somewhere within a vast thread
> over there
As your Cycling Campaign colleagues would have told you, I'd have thought,
the problem is that the County Council has been told who all their
supporters and objectors are but objectors have not been allowed to gain
access to the same information. They cannot therefore plan their
appearances at the inquiry together. Bloody stupid if you ask me and will
just delay the inquiry.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tim Ward
news:c6jblj$ddg$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> We do. It's what you do with that limited space though.
> I've not seen another place where so much of it was given to motorists.
Anyone who wants a totally different view to the above has only to read the
CEN letters page most nights ...
Frank Sobott
>>We do. It's what you do with that limited space though.
>>I've not seen another place where so much of it was given to motorists.
>
> Anyone who wants a totally different view to the above has only to read the
> CEN letters page most nights ...
Let's see what they say when I start my campaign for the
pedestrianisation of King's Parade.
Cambridge also deserves a better newspaper with less daft readers ;-)
Frank
Jon Anderson
> ...two of the three sets of barriers on Fort St George Bridge have been
> chopped. Vandalism or (c'est impossible!) an act planned by some local
> authority?
Now having had a chance to sample the delights I have to say I'm well
chuffed. Much nicer to use.
And the gates they left in are the ones that you can just clear with
some bikes, too.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Robin Stevens
> over it and white delivery vans abandoned on the pavements?
I've seen something approximating to this. Admittedly most of the vans
were from a film company, and one of the cars was a red Jaguar MkII.
--
Robin Stevens <re...@cynic.org.uk>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
Colin Rosenstiel
Sobott) wrote:
Which of the few classes of vehicles still legally using King's Parade
would you exclude then?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Nick Maclaren
Horse-drawn night soil carts. It wouldn't be much more insane than
than current policies.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
Maclaren) wrote:
A typically unhelpful answer from you. They are not currently permitted.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
Nick Maclaren
It was a JOKE, Colin. Humour, you know.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Al Grant
> I answered. It is because we are not OBLIGED to provide the
> information by law. If we are, the government can sell it ad lib.,
> which is why our driving licence and electoral roll information is
> sold
That's not true, at least in the case of the electoral roll.
Refusal to allow voters to exempt themselves from the roll sold to
third parties is an illegal interference with the right to vote.
It took a test case (Robertson v. Wakefield Council) to bring the
councils into line though.
Frank Sobott
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
>>Which of the few classes of vehicles still legally using King's Parade
>>would you exclude then?
I would remove the parking and thus any motive to drive there.
There could be some form of physical traffic restriction measure on
Trumpington St at the Mill Lane corner (I hate bollards but they seem to
be the method of choice here).
> There are plenty of vehicles that use it illegally....
That's probably the main point - many cars coming from Bene't St turn
right instead of left. Bene't St itself should be pedestrianised (the
pavements are about 5 inches wide on both sides) and traffic from Lion's
Yard car park egress through Corn Exchange St only.
Frank
Martin Lucas-Smith
> Which of the few classes of vehicles still legally using King's Parade
> would you exclude then?
One would hope that cycles would still be allowed, given the consultation
[1] apparently about to start to allow cycles to use Trinity Street 10-4
in both directions rather than purely one-way as at present, following
Cycling Campaign lobbying and a decision by Councillors last summer to
proceed with consultation.
[1] I have no idea what form this consultation is going to take though..
Martin
Colin Davidson
May I ask for clarification here; is it true that the cycle campaing lobbied
for Trinity Street to be two-way, or is it the case that the CCC campaigned
for route to be made available through the city in that direction?
Martin Lucas-Smith
> > One would hope that cycles would still be allowed, given the
> > consultation [1] apparently about to start to allow cycles to use
> > Trinity Street 10-4 in both directions rather than purely one-way as
> > at present, following Cycling Campaign lobbying and a decision by
> > Councillors last summer to proceed with consultation.
>
> May I ask for clarification here; is it true that the cycle campaing
> lobbied for Trinity Street to be two-way, or is it the case that the CCC
> campaigned for route to be made available through the city in that
> direction?
Both is the quick answer :)
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/49/article11.html
was an article I wrote on this and has all the details of which I'm aware.
Personally I feel one of the reasons for the amount of illegal cycling
(which I'm absolutely *not* condoning) through the city centre is the lack
of a viable South TO North route which doesn't require dismounting. Some
would argue that the Hobson Street is that possibility, although I would
disagree.
In the absence of movement on the main cycling ban area, Trinity Street is
the obvious candidate for two-way traversal, given that it is lightly
trafficked through the day and already has cycles travelling through, with
only irresponsible cyclists who travel fast causing any real problems
there. I'm not saying there wouldn't be difficulties with opening it up
for two-way use (particularly outside Nadia's by St. John's) but there
appear to be suggested solutions also.
Martin
Steve Hunt
> motorists.
You keep posting stuff to that effect but I can think of very
few changes to the roads within Cambridge for many years
that increased capacity for motorists. There have
been several traffic commandeered for bus lanes, and
what about the many traffic calming schemes?
-- Steve
jg...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
The order of priority is Taxi>Bus>Motorist>Pedestrian>Cyclist which is why
measures to maximise capacity for motorists only come at the expense of
provision for pedestrians and cyclists (e.g. Trumpington Road, Gonville
Place etc.) and hence the increased number of bus lanes etc..
Colin Davidson
> Both is the quick answer :)
>
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/49/article11.html
> was an article I wrote on this and has all the details of which I'm aware.
>
> Personally I feel one of the reasons for the amount of illegal cycling
> (which I'm absolutely *not* condoning) through the city centre is the lack
> of a viable South TO North route which doesn't require dismounting. Some
> would argue that the Hobson Street is that possibility, although I would
> disagree.
Surely Hobson Street -is- that possibility? Cycling is permitted there, two
way, allbeit agsint the wishes (and comprehension) of other road users and
on occasion the police.
As for the reason for illegal cycling through the city centre, that's quite
obviously caused by the same thing that causes most other illegality on the
road; people break the law when it is both more convenient to do so and not
immediately apparent that something bad will happen as a result. That's
rather like speeding, going through red lights, etc. Providing a less
inconvenient route won't reduce the amount of lawbreaking on other routes
unless those breaking the law are prevented from doing so or persuaded that
breaking the law in this way is a bad idea. Your statement here is akin to
saying that people would be less likely to speed in a 30mph zone if there
were another, less convenient road that provided a 70mph limit; clearly,
people are going to speed in the 30mph zone anyway.
> In the absence of movement on the main cycling ban area, Trinity Street is
> the obvious candidate for two-way traversal, given that it is lightly
> trafficked through the day and already has cycles travelling through, with
> only irresponsible cyclists who travel fast causing any real problems
> there. I'm not saying there wouldn't be difficulties with opening it up
> for two-way use (particularly outside Nadia's by St. John's) but there
> appear to be suggested solutions also.
Has it occurred to the CCC that allowing cycling two way between the periods
of 10 and 4 on Mondays to Saturday, and one way during the rest of the day,
will neither be of use to those commuting North out of the City on their way
home in the evenings, nor will this scheme be simple enough to be workable?
As for it only being irresponsible cyclists causing the problems, I simply
don't agree. Some of the problems I see on that road are caused by
irresponsible cyclists going both slowly and quickly, turning off the road
without indicating, and travelling way too close to other vehicles (cycles
and motorised traffic). Many problems are caused by motorised vehicles doing
all manner of strange manoevres in too small a space, very often also
overtaking cyclists without room to do so. And as many problems are caused
by pedestrisns wrongly assuming that the road is pedestrianised, so the
cycle bells and 'excuse me' calls don't apply to them.
The solution I'd suggest would be to make a different route available for
cycling through the city South-North; perhaps Sidney Sussex street, or
clearly labelled cycle routes up along Hobson Street. I'd have hoped that
the CCC would hold out for something like that, and refrain from cooperating
on other schemes that don't address the problem as well as that would.
Paul Oter
<ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Has it occurred to the CCC that allowing cycling two way between the periods
>of 10 and 4 on Mondays to Saturday, and one way during the rest of the day,
>will neither be of use to those commuting North out of the City on their way
>home in the evenings, nor will this scheme be simple enough to be workable?
I don't know, but after 4pm northbound cyclists can use St
Mary's/Market/Sidney Street
PaulO
Colin Davidson
"Paul Oter" <paul...@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4tks8096khb2a0qe5...@4ax.com...
> I don't know, but after 4pm northbound cyclists can use St
> Mary's/Market/Sidney Street
They can indeed, but the idea of swappinng which roads a cyclist can or
can't use during the day really does seem to be asking for trouble.
Paul Oter
I agree it's going to be confusing, especially as I suspect the County
Council will be trying to use the absolutely minimum number of
additional signs.
But I think the councillors on the AJC deserve some credit for trying
to make cycling more convenient in the City Centre even if they're at
risk of doing the opposite in some less central locations such as
Hills Road and Milton Road.
PaulO
Colin Rosenstiel
> Personally I feel one of the reasons for the amount of illegal cycling
> (which I'm absolutely *not* condoning) through the city centre is the
> lack of a viable South TO North route which doesn't require dismounting.
> Some would argue that the Hobson Street is that possibility, although I
> would disagree.
I agree. If you're in Trumpington St or King's Parade Hobson St is useless
as an alternative route.
The objections are on the grounds of safety. But if a third of the
existing cycle traffic is going the wrong way and there is no non-trivial
accident problem why shouldn't we do it? A restriction has to be justified
by good reasons.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
Sobott) wrote:
You haven't studied the situation when 1000 cars are all trying to get out
of lion Yard at once?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Martin Lucas-Smith
> Surely Hobson Street -is- that possibility? Cycling is permitted there,
> two way, allbeit agsint the wishes (and comprehension) of other road
> users and on occasion the police.
If going from the Trumpington Street end northwards, e.g. up Castle Hill,
Trinity Street is very much the desire line.
> As for the reason for illegal cycling through the city centre, that's
> quite obviously caused by the same thing that causes most other
> illegality on the road; people break the law when it is both more
> convenient to do so and not immediately apparent that something bad will
> happen as a result.
Yes, there's a lack of enforcement; of course. But in the absence of a
suitable route (coupled with pathetic levels of enforcement) the
likelihood that people will consider breaking the law becomes higher,
surely?
> Has it occurred to the CCC that allowing cycling two way between the
> periods of 10 and 4 on Mondays to Saturday, and one way during the rest
> of the day, will neither be of use to those commuting North out of the
> City on their way home in the evenings
Why? What about the Sidney Street route, which is impassable only during
10-4?
> nor will this scheme be simple enough to be workable?
I think that will remain to be seen. It'll be much simpler than Silver
Street is :)
> As for it only being irresponsible cyclists causing the problems, I
> simply don't agree.
I didn't say that. My reference to "real problems" rather than just
"problems" is highlighted by the fact that Officers themselves have said
[1] there is not an accident problem here despite the high levels of
illegal use.
> Some of the problems I see on that road are caused by irresponsible
> cyclists going both slowly and quickly, turning off the road without
> indicating, and travelling way too close to other vehicles (cycles and
> motorised traffic). Many problems are caused by motorised vehicles doing
> all manner of strange manoevres in too small a space, very often also
> overtaking cyclists without room to do so.
These problems are not unique to Trinity Street though, and I don't really
see how they negate the argument that opening up access in a northern
direction would be worthwhile trying.
> And as many problems are caused by pedestrisns wrongly assuming that the
> road is pedestrianised, so the cycle bells and 'excuse me' calls don't
> apply to them.
If anything a legal two-way passage will make this clearer, though
personally I regard pedestrians having priority here as important, hence
my point about fast cyclists legally but still inconsiderately going
through this area.
> The solution I'd suggest would be to make a different route available
> for cycling through the city South-North; perhaps Sidney Sussex street,
> or clearly labelled cycle routes up along Hobson Street. I'd have hoped
> that the CCC would hold out for something like that, and refrain from
> cooperating on other schemes that don't address the problem as well as
> that would.
Given that the CCC has tried (and failed), would you rather it tried to
achieve *something* rather than waiting another X years and getting yet
more *nothing*? If anything, the incremental approach I'd suggest is more
likely to achieve undoing the main ban (which I admit there are varied
views on!) than any sort of big-bang approach.
If you can get Councillors to agree to what you're proposing, good luck.
But so far the pragmatic route is the only one that's getting anywhere at
all.
[1] I don't have the exact wording to hand. If Colin/whoever could correct
me if they know exactly what was said, I'd be grateful.
Martin
Martin Lucas-Smith
> > I don't know, but after 4pm northbound cyclists can use St
> > Mary's/Market/Sidney Street
>
> They can indeed, but the idea of swappinng which roads a cyclist can or
> can't use during the day really does seem to be asking for trouble.
Well, that's exactly what's happening at the moment, surely. All that's
being proposed is decreasing the number of such restrictions.
Martin
Frank Sobott
> You haven't studied the situation when 1000 cars are all trying to get out
> of lion Yard at once?
Haven't studied that subject no thanks but know what it looks like,
getting in their way occasionally.
That's the main reason why I completely objected to rebuilding the
parking to the same size as before the Grand Arcade project.
Since there won't be enough cycle parking why don't we convert one
storey (ground floor not basement please)??
Frank
Frank Sobott
> Surely Hobson Street -is- that possibility? Cycling is permitted there, two
> way, allbeit agsint the wishes (and comprehension) of other road users and
> on occasion the police.
I regard the legality of cycling there (or elsewhere) as irrelevant
since it's very unsafe and sometimes nigh impossible to do it.
As a cyclist I chose routes which I'm more likely to survive and where I
can feel responsible about what I 'do' to other road users. That's not
the case in Hobson St, nor on most of the pavements which have been
declared fit for cycling (barely being walkable).
Maybe the police has more sense there after all. Since we all agree that
you can't have everything at the same time, we might have to make a
decision and allow only certain road users through there. It's up to the
Council(s) to decide if they be pedestrians, cyclists, motorists or
buses. Just pretending that there wasn't a problem won't help.
> As for the reason for illegal cycling through the city centre, that's quite
> obviously caused by the same thing that causes most other illegality on the
> road; people break the law when it is both more convenient to do so and not
> immediately apparent that something bad will happen as a result. That's
> rather like speeding, going through red lights, etc. Providing a less
> inconvenient route won't reduce the amount of lawbreaking on other routes
> unless those breaking the law are prevented from doing so or persuaded that
> breaking the law in this way is a bad idea. Your statement here is akin to
> saying that people would be less likely to speed in a 30mph zone if there
> were another, less convenient road that provided a 70mph limit; clearly,
> people are going to speed in the 30mph zone anyway.
Does it maybe also happen because there is no alternative near or far?
Have you ever tried using the ring road (Queen's Road) instead when it's
full of traffic? As long as car parking there is more important then
provisions for cycling - and don't the Backs look beautiful with all
these cars parked alongside?
Through and around the city centre, roads are either off limits for
cyclists, or declared 'major roads' without facilities for cyclists.
> Has it occurred to the CCC that allowing cycling two way between the periods
> of 10 and 4 on Mondays to Saturday, and one way during the rest of the day,
> will neither be of use to those commuting North out of the City on their way
> home in the evenings, nor will this scheme be simple enough to be workable?
>
> As for it only being irresponsible cyclists causing the problems, I simply
> don't agree. Some of the problems I see on that road are caused by
> irresponsible cyclists going both slowly and quickly, turning off the road
> without indicating, and travelling way too close to other vehicles (cycles
> and motorised traffic). Many problems are caused by motorised vehicles doing
> all manner of strange manoevres in too small a space, very often also
> overtaking cyclists without room to do so. And as many problems are caused
> by pedestrisns wrongly assuming that the road is pedestrianised, so the
> cycle bells and 'excuse me' calls don't apply to them.
>
> The solution I'd suggest would be to make a different route available for
> cycling through the city South-North; perhaps Sidney Sussex street, or
> clearly labelled cycle routes up along Hobson Street. I'd have hoped that
> the CCC would hold out for something like that, and refrain from cooperating
> on other schemes that don't address the problem as well as that would.
Well said Colin, I completely agree. I don't think we (I'm a CCC member
as well) should endorse such crap schemes, just to have a few more miles
on the map marked as cycle paths when they clearly aren't.
If I want to cycle through there now, I can do it anyway, at least I'll
be more wary (looking out more for police than oncoming traffic I
presume :-)) than when it's made legal.
I don't see any point at all in schemes like that*, just like many of
the other ones.
Frank
P.S. I'm not against it either, but feel that if we continue to support
the council in finding such 'easy' solutions - the key point for them
being that they only harm pedestrians and not motorists and are
therefore okay - it will become an established policy to do so. It
shouldn't.
Frank Sobott
> The objections are on the grounds of safety. But if a third of the
> existing cycle traffic is going the wrong way and there is no non-trivial
> accident problem why shouldn't we do it? A restriction has to be justified
> by good reasons.
Have concillors ever considered to make the city centre a
'pedestrian-speed' zone, which would apply to cars after 4pm and would
allow to remove the cycling restrictions during the day?
Hasn't that also be suggested for Riverside??
Frank
Alan
Because by nature I don't think cyclists want to park in one place and
walk. Look at how under used the facilities in Park Street are.
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email
Frank Sobott
> You keep posting stuff to that effect but I can think of very
> few changes to the roads within Cambridge for many years
> that increased capacity for motorists. There have
> been several traffic commandeered for bus lanes, and
> what about the many traffic calming schemes?
Stuff like that comes direct from the Local Transport Plan - have a look
yourself and tell me what you find. I also made references to arguments
which were brought forward why cycle lanes only exist where roadspace
was 'going spare'.
Traffic calming is often done at the expense of cyclists (I just love
these restriction points, central traffic island or whatever they are)
which make it impossible for a car to pass a cyclist! Raised tables and
the like aren't much fun to cycle over either - ever done it with
bags/basket full of shopping?
As with buses, they are included in the 'motorists' section (being often
the worst offenders with regard to cycle conflicts, and the installation
of bus lanes endangering cycling in Cambridge). There has certainly been
a lot of road capacity re-allocated to buses recently.
Frank
Frank Sobott
>>storey (ground floor not basement please)??
>
> Because by nature I don't think cyclists want to park in one place and
> walk. Look at how under used the facilities in Park Street are.
Fair enough, that wasn't entirely serious. I certainly take my bike to
the shops I want to visit - had enough of them stolen already this year
(to be precise, two).
Frank
Nick Maclaren
In article <5765b025.04042...@posting.google.com>,
I missed that. It doesn't change anything else about my posting,
though :-(
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alan Braggins
>The objections are on the grounds of safety. But if a third of the
>existing cycle traffic is going the wrong way and there is no non-trivial
>accident problem why shouldn't we do it? A restriction has to be justified
>by good reasons.
Of course a restriction doesn't have to be justified by good reasons.
If it did, we could just use the existing one way system in the obvious
way, instead of there being an unjustified cycle ban on part of it.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> > The solution I'd suggest would be to make a different route available
> > for cycling through the city South-North; perhaps Sidney Sussex
> > street, or clearly labelled cycle routes up along Hobson Street. I'd
> > have hoped that the CCC would hold out for something like that, and
> > refrain from cooperating on other schemes that don't address the
> > problem as well as that would.
>
> Well said Colin, I completely agree. I don't think we (I'm a CCC member
> as well) should endorse such crap schemes
The Campaign actually proposed the Trinity Street two-way idea, rather
than "endorsing" it (I opportunitistically dropped it into a paper on the
city centre ban), I think it's fair to say.
Officers of the Council seem to be very against it for reasons I can only
describe as paranoia given their own admission of a historical lack of
safety problems here. Councillors have rightly told them to get on with it
(pending consultations) -- well done Colin et al.
> P.S. I'm not against it either, but feel that if we continue to support
> the council in finding such 'easy' solutions - the key point for them
> being that they only harm pedestrians and not motorists and are
> therefore okay - it will become an established policy to do so. It
> shouldn't.
To be fair on the Councillors who supported the Campaign's proposal, I
don't think it is actually an 'easy' solution. There are various physical
layout problems with this road, and many pedestrians will probably have
objections to making Trinity Street two way.
Martin
Nick Maclaren
In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Yes, very much so. But I can tell you of a scheme that has increased
the capacity for motorists, primarily at the expense of cyclists; it
has also favoured people driving into Cambridge at the expense of
those attempting to bypass it.
This is, of course, the infamous Shelford/Harston Road junction and
related roadworks at Trumpington.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
jg...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
> The Campaign actually proposed the Trinity Street two-way idea, rather
> than "endorsing" it (I opportunitistically dropped it into a paper on the
> city centre ban), I think it's fair to say.
>
> Officers of the Council seem to be very against it for reasons I can only
> describe as paranoia given their own admission of a historical lack of
> safety problems here. Councillors have rightly told them to get on with it
> (pending consultations) -- well done Colin et al.
>
> don't think it is actually an 'easy' solution. There are various physical
> layout problems with this road, and many pedestrians will probably have
> objections to making Trinity Street two way.
>
two opposing vehicles to pass each other without mounting the pavement,
i'm sure they will.
[1]Where one of them is four-wheeled motor vehicle.
Alan
news:slrnc8sqf...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
I think the problem is the definition of "good" :-)
Ed Weatherup
>
> The order of priority is Taxi>Bus>Motorist>Pedestrian>Cyclist which
> is why measures to maximise capacity for motorists only come at the
> expense of provision for pedestrians and cyclists (e.g. Trumpington
> Road, Gonville Place etc.) and hence the increased number of bus
> lanes etc..
What is the source for the order of priority you give here?
--
Ed.
Frank Sobott
> What is the source for the order of priority you give here?
Again, local traffic plan. Does actually *anyone* read them? :-)
Frank
Nick Maclaren
Interesting. I didn't see that written explicitly, but it is pretty
clear from observation and not hard to deduce from the plan. Do you
have a reference to an explicit statement, or have they been careful
enough not to put that in print?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
Sobott) wrote:
> Have concillors ever considered to make the city centre a
> 'pedestrian-speed' zone, which would apply to cars after 4pm and would
> allow to remove the cycling restrictions during the day?
What Act of Parliament would confer such powers then?
> Hasn't that also be suggested for Riverside??
NTIAA (not to the Council anyway).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Nick Maclaren
In article <memo.2004042...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
|> In article <c6lo04$gam$2...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, fs...@cam.ac.uk (Frank
|> Sobott) wrote:
|>
|> > Have concillors ever considered to make the city centre a
|> > 'pedestrian-speed' zone, which would apply to cars after 4pm and would
|> > allow to remove the cycling restrictions during the day?
|>
|> What Act of Parliament would confer such powers then?
The same that allows the setting of 30 MPH limits, unless there is
some lower bound (which I don't think there is).
Yes, cyclists could not be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit,
but they could be for "cycling furiously" or whatever that cyclist
was done for a few years back.
What's the real problem?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Frank Sobott
>>Have concillors ever considered to make the city centre a
>>'pedestrian-speed' zone, which would apply to cars after 4pm and would
>>allow to remove the cycling restrictions during the day?
>
> What Act of Parliament would confer such powers then?
Dunno, EU legislation maybe? The UN traffic council??
>>Hasn't that also be suggested for Riverside??
>
> NTIAA (not to the Council anyway).
I thought it had popped up in a recent area committee meeting or such?
Think 'pedestrian street' was the term used.
Frank
Frank Sobott
Can't be bothered to go through the whole thing again, but it was in the
form of tables for three types of streets, and that order was for 'main
roads' as far a I remember. The documents are online on the County webpages.
Frank
Frank Sobott
> Interesting. I didn't see that written explicitly, but it is pretty
> clear from observation and not hard to deduce from the plan. Do you
> have a reference to an explicit statement, or have they been careful
> enough not to put that in print?
Think I found it:
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/sub/eandt/planning/trplan/2004/chap5.pdf
Frank
Ed Weatherup
>
> Think I found it:
> http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/sub/eandt/planning/trplan/2004/chap5.pdf
> Frank
Thanks for the link.
--
Ed.
Colin Davidson
"Paul Oter" <paul...@pobox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5els80p63aopqmvcf...@4ax.com...
> I agree it's going to be confusing, especially as I suspect the County
> Council will be trying to use the absolutely minimum number of
> additional signs.
>
> But I think the councillors on the AJC deserve some credit for trying
> to make cycling more convenient in the City Centre even if they're at
> risk of doing the opposite in some less central locations such as
> Hills Road and Milton Road.
I don't agree at all, I'm afraid :(
If the AJC come up with what is essentially a bad scheme which will barely
improve things, I think they should be criticised for not coming up with a
better scheme, especially when there are at least two options open to them
to do that.
Colin Davidson
"Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
Thats' being done with a great big gate, it's a lot more obvious; and if you
observe, it doesn't work, cyclists use those roads against the one way flow
of traffic and during times when they're not meant to. That means of managng
traffic in Cambridge has failed, so lets not make the same mistake again.
Colin Rosenstiel
Maclaren) wrote:
> In article <memo.2004042...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> |> In article <c6lo04$gam$2...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, fs...@cam.ac.uk
> > (Frank |Sobott) wrote:
> |>
> |> > Have concillors ever considered to make the city centre a
> |> > 'pedestrian-speed' zone, which would apply to cars after 4pm and
> > > would |allow to remove the cycling restrictions during the day?
> |>
> |> What Act of Parliament would confer such powers then?
>
> The same that allows the setting of 30 MPH limits, unless there is
> some lower bound (which I don't think there is).
I've never thought of 30 MOPGH as 'pedestrian speed' myself.
> Yes, cyclists could not be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit,
> but they could be for "cycling furiously" or whatever that cyclist
> was done for a few years back.
>
> What's the real problem?
Councils can only do what the law specifically allows.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Davidson
"Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
>
>
> > two way, allbeit agsint the wishes (and comprehension) of other road
> > users and on occasion the police.
>
> Trinity Street is very much the desire line.
This scheme will make that possible, as long as you're not doing it on the
way home during commuting hours.When people most want to travel. This will,
if anything, make things as bad along Trinity Street as they are already on
Hobson Street sometimes.
> > As for the reason for illegal cycling through the city centre, that's
> > quite obviously caused by the same thing that causes most other
> > illegality on the road; people break the law when it is both more
> > convenient to do so and not immediately apparent that something bad will
> > happen as a result.
>
> Yes, there's a lack of enforcement; of course.
No, that's only part of it. There's a lack of comprehension that anything
wrong is being done; it's just like speeding on motorways.
> But in the absence of a
> suitable route (coupled with pathetic levels of enforcement) the
> likelihood that people will consider breaking the law becomes higher,
> surely?
Why? It isn't the absence of a useable route that's the problem, it's
already possible to make a detour to go around Hobson Street way; if this
new route doesn't give people just the route they want they'll still go the
wrong way.
> > Has it occurred to the CCC that allowing cycling two way between the
> > periods of 10 and 4 on Mondays to Saturday, and one way during the rest
> > of the day, will neither be of use to those commuting North out of the
> > City on their way home in the evenings
>
> Why? What about the Sidney Street route, which is impassable only during
> 10-4?
And therefore useless during those times unless you're going to break the
law, which many people do. You can't chop and change which routes are
permissible, only inconveniencing the cyclists who choose not to break the
law, and then claim it's an improvement.
> > nor will this scheme be simple enough to be workable?
>
> I think that will remain to be seen. It'll be much simpler than Silver
> Street is :)
It will have little effect of how we cycle in Cambridge.
>
> > As for it only being irresponsible cyclists causing the problems, I
> > simply don't agree.
>
> I didn't say that. My reference to "real problems" rather than just
> "problems" is highlighted by the fact that Officers themselves have said
> [1] there is not an accident problem here despite the high levels of
> illegal use.
Eh? The real problems are only the ones that get people hurt, and the near
misses don't matter so much? If motorists had to put up with half as many
near misses as motorists do on a road like this then it would be hailed as a
death-trap. Oh, and note that the illegal use tat causes a problem (before
ten and after four) won't be reduced by making the use of that route legal
at other times; common sense would seem to suggest that there will be more
of this problematic cycling.
> These problems are not unique to Trinity Street though, and I don't really
> see how they negate the argument that opening up access in a northern
> direction would be worthwhile trying.
They weren't meant to, they were meant to counter the argument put forward
about what most problems on Trinity street are caused by.
> If anything a legal two-way passage will make this clearer, though
> personally I regard pedestrians having priority here as important, hence
> my point about fast cyclists legally but still inconsiderately going
> through this area.
Why will two way cycling make things better? If the road is clearly one way
for some vehicles why do you assume that pedestrians will look both ways?
How often have you seen pedestrians step out into cycle lanes that go the
'wrong way' on a one way street?
> Given that the CCC has tried (and failed), would you rather it tried to
> achieve *something* rather than waiting another X years and getting yet
> more *nothing*?
If what it were claiming to achieve were in any way an achievement, you'd
have a point. I don't see that accepting a scheme just because
it's -something- is worthwhile, when that something is of negligible worth.
> If anything, the incremental approach I'd suggest is more
> likely to achieve undoing the main ban (which I admit there are varied
> views on!) than any sort of big-bang approach.
>
> If you can get Councillors to agree to what you're proposing, good luck.
> But so far the pragmatic route is the only one that's getting anywhere at
> all.
In this case it's got you nowhere at all, it's merely allowed our assorted
councillors to tick a box saying that the CCC (which they wrongly assume
speaks for cyclists in Cambridge with some kind of democratic mandate) are
happy. They can play at saying things are better for cyclists while in no
way changing anything meaningfully to make our lot any better, and the CCC
are allowing them to do that. It would be preferable for the CCC to vocally
walk away from such a scheme than to agree to it.
Colin Davidson
"Frank Sobott" <fs...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c6lnqr$gam$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Colin Davidson wrote:
> > Surely Hobson Street -is- that possibility? Cycling is permitted there,
two
> > way, allbeit agsint the wishes (and comprehension) of other road users
and
> > on occasion the police.
>
> I regard the legality of cycling there (or elsewhere) as irrelevant
> since it's very unsafe and sometimes nigh impossible to do it.
> As a cyclist I chose routes which I'm more likely to survive and where I
> can feel responsible about what I 'do' to other road users. That's not
> the case in Hobson St, nor on most of the pavements which have been
> declared fit for cycling (barely being walkable).
>
> Maybe the police has more sense there after all. Since we all agree that
> you can't have everything at the same time, we might have to make a
> decision and allow only certain road users through there. It's up to the
> Council(s) to decide if they be pedestrians, cyclists, motorists or
> buses. Just pretending that there wasn't a problem won't help.
Hence the comments about good, clear labelling on that road. I can quite see
why you dislike riding there at persent.
> Does it maybe also happen because there is no alternative near or far?
> Have you ever tried using the ring road (Queen's Road) instead when it's
> full of traffic? As long as car parking there is more important then
> provisions for cycling - and don't the Backs look beautiful with all
> these cars parked alongside?
>
> Through and around the city centre, roads are either off limits for
> cyclists, or declared 'major roads' without facilities for cyclists.
I fully agree, none of the options are much cop. And the idea of adding a
route that takes you through the city centre only at times when motorised
traffic is restricted solves none of those problems.
> Well said Colin, I completely agree. I don't think we (I'm a CCC member
> as well) should endorse such crap schemes, just to have a few more miles
> on the map marked as cycle paths when they clearly aren't.
I'm not a member; I've considered joining many times, but the CCC's support
of schemes like this has always put me off.
> If I want to cycle through there now, I can do it anyway, at least I'll
> be more wary (looking out more for police than oncoming traffic I
> presume :-)) than when it's made legal.
>
> I don't see any point at all in schemes like that*, just like many of
> the other ones.
>
> Frank
>
> P.S. I'm not against it either, but feel that if we continue to support
> the council in finding such 'easy' solutions - the key point for them
> being that they only harm pedestrians and not motorists and are
> therefore okay - it will become an established policy to do so. It
> shouldn't.
Hence the CCC become part of the problem :-(
Nick Maclaren
In article <memo.2004042...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
|>
|> > |> > Have concillors ever considered to make the city centre a
|> > |> > 'pedestrian-speed' zone, which would apply to cars after 4pm and
|> > > > would |allow to remove the cycling restrictions during the day?
|> > |>
|> > |> What Act of Parliament would confer such powers then?
|> >
|> > The same that allows the setting of 30 MPH limits, unless there is
|> > some lower bound (which I don't think there is).
|>
|> I've never thought of 30 MOPGH as 'pedestrian speed' myself.
I hope that you thought that you are being funny, because I despair
of you if that was a serious response.
|> > Yes, cyclists could not be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit,
|> > but they could be for "cycling furiously" or whatever that cyclist
|> > was done for a few years back.
|> >
|> > What's the real problem?
|>
|> Councils can only do what the law specifically allows.
The law allows the setting of speed limits. As far as I know, there
is no explicit lower bound. The proposal is to set it to either
5 MPH or (more plausibly) 10 MPH. What is your problem with that?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Davidson
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2004042...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> mv...@cam.ac.uk (Martin Lucas-Smith) wrote:
>
> > Personally I feel one of the reasons for the amount of illegal cycling
> > (which I'm absolutely *not* condoning) through the city centre is the
> > lack of a viable South TO North route which doesn't require dismounting.
> > Some would argue that the Hobson Street is that possibility, although I
> > would disagree.
>
> I agree. If you're in Trumpington St or King's Parade Hobson St is useless
> as an alternative route.
Why? Can't you push your bike a bit or go back and around via Downing
Street? It's what I'd do.
Colin Davidson
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2004042...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > Yes, cyclists could not be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit,
> > but they could be for "cycling furiously" or whatever that cyclist
> > was done for a few years back.
> >
> > What's the real problem?
>
> Councils can only do what the law specifically allows.
There are speed limits in Cambridge already that are less than 30mph. What
law stops the Council from imposning several 10mph limits in the city?