There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and yet the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's driving them. Is this also discriminatory?
>There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and yet >the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's driving >them. Is this also discriminatory?
I haven't lurked for a bit, nor read the earlier posts, but it seems that some are odd, some require a bit of thought from both two and four wheel road users; some are bleeding obvious what the intent of the design was and some seem to be the result of traffic engineers trying to make the best of a crap situation.
> There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and yet > the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's driving > them. Is this also discriminatory?
Well clearly they are not motoring facilities which can be compared to crap cycle lanes. BTW, why would you seem to be defending crap cycle lanes on a cycling newsgroup?
Pip Luscher wrote: > On 6 Nov 2009 10:26:24 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Clearly demonstrating the idiocy of some cycling facilities. If they >>> did it to motorists there would be mass outrage.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/groups/cyclelanes/pool/ >> There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and yet >> the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's driving >> them. Is this also discriminatory?
> I haven't lurked for a bit, nor read the earlier posts, but it seems > that some are odd, some require a bit of thought from both two and > four wheel road users; some are bleeding obvious what the intent of > the design was and some seem to be the result of traffic engineers > trying to make the best of a crap situation.
> Then I noticed that the OP was Doug.
I think that a lot of the problems with cycle lanes is that the man in charge at the Town Hall is trying to meet a target, instead of being sensible.
Doug wrote: > On 6 Nov, 10:26, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > Clearly demonstrating the idiocy of some cycling facilities. If > > > they did it to motorists there would be mass outrage.
> > There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and > > yet the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's > > driving them. Is this also discriminatory?
> Well clearly they are not motoring facilities which can be compared to > crap cycle lanes. BTW, why would you seem to be defending crap cycle > lanes on a cycling newsgroup?
I'm not .. I'm saying that lots of roads and lanes get shut to car drivers and there isn't the mass outrage you say there is.
> Doug wrote: > > On 6 Nov, 10:26, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Doug wrote: > > > > Clearly demonstrating the idiocy of some cycling facilities. If > > > > they did it to motorists there would be mass outrage.
> > > There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and > > > yet the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's > > > driving them. Is this also discriminatory?
> > Well clearly they are not motoring facilities which can be compared to > > crap cycle lanes. BTW, why would you seem to be defending crap cycle > > lanes on a cycling newsgroup?
> I'm not .. I'm saying that lots of roads and lanes get shut to car > drivers and there isn't the mass outrage you say there is.
You seem to be missing the point. They are not motoring facilities. Suppose, for example, there were many roads with no turn-offs which without warning suddenly had a no entry sign and a dead-end, or very narrow roads with a lamppost in the middle of them, or car routes a just a few metres long? There would be mass outrage but this sort of thing is considered quite acceptable for cyclists. I am sure there are many more examples that could be given.
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime.
> On 7 Nov, 14:28, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doug wrote: > > > On 6 Nov, 10:26, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > Clearly demonstrating the idiocy of some cycling facilities. If > > > > > they did it to motorists there would be mass outrage.
> > > > There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... and > > > > yet the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop 4x4's > > > > driving them. Is this also discriminatory?
> > > Well clearly they are not motoring facilities which can be compared to > > > crap cycle lanes. BTW, why would you seem to be defending crap cycle > > > lanes on a cycling newsgroup?
> > I'm not .. I'm saying that lots of roads and lanes get shut to car > > drivers and there isn't the mass outrage you say there is.
> You seem to be missing the point. They are not motoring facilities. > Suppose, for example, there were many roads with no turn-offs which > without warning suddenly had a no entry sign and a dead-end, or very > narrow roads with a lamppost in the middle of them, or car routes a > just a few metres long? There would be mass outrage but this sort of > thing is considered quite acceptable for cyclists. I am sure there are > many more examples that could be given.
> -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > One man's democracy is another man's regime.- Hide quoted text -
Doug wrote: > On 7 Nov, 14:28, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > On 6 Nov, 10:26, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > Clearly demonstrating the idiocy of some cycling facilities. > > > > > If they did it to motorists there would be mass outrage.
> > > > There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... > > > > and yet the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop > > > > 4x4's driving them. Is this also discriminatory?
> > > Well clearly they are not motoring facilities which can be > > > compared to crap cycle lanes. BTW, why would you seem to be > > > defending crap cycle lanes on a cycling newsgroup?
> > I'm not .. I'm saying that lots of roads and lanes get shut to car > > drivers and there isn't the mass outrage you say there is.
> You seem to be missing the point. They are not motoring facilities.
Of course they are ... one example within a few miles of my home is Hayfields Lane ... http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.489782,-1.041126&spn=0.029772,0. 066175&z=14 ... closed at one end, end next to A638 a couple of years ago. Causes locals a lot of extra mileage and therefore cost. Some businesses have stopped delivering to the addresses now.
> Doug wrote: > > On 7 Nov, 14:28, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Doug wrote: > > > > On 6 Nov, 10:26, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > > Clearly demonstrating the idiocy of some cycling facilities. > > > > > > If they did it to motorists there would be mass outrage.
> > > > > There are many roads and lanes that are undriveable by cars ... > > > > > and yet the councils still shut them down or TRO them to stop > > > > > 4x4's driving them. Is this also discriminatory?
> > > > Well clearly they are not motoring facilities which can be > > > > compared to crap cycle lanes. BTW, why would you seem to be > > > > defending crap cycle lanes on a cycling newsgroup?
> > > I'm not .. I'm saying that lots of roads and lanes get shut to car > > > drivers and there isn't the mass outrage you say there is.
> > You seem to be missing the point. They are not motoring facilities.
> Of course they are ... one example within a few miles of my home is > Hayfields Lane ...http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.489782,-1.041126&spn=0.029772,0. > 066175&z=14 ... closed at one end, end next to A638 a couple of years > ago. Causes locals a lot of extra mileage and therefore cost. Some > businesses have stopped delivering to the addresses now.
> There are many more ...
Yes I believe they are to prevent rat-runs and make residential streets less unsafe due to speeding drivers. Of course such safety measures are not necessary with cyclists because they don't kill people nearly as much as drivers do.
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Doug wrote: > On 8 Nov, 14:28, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > You seem to be missing the point. They are not motoring > > > facilities.
> > Of course they are ... one example within a few miles of my home is > > Hayfields Lane > > ...http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.489782,-1.041126&spn=0.02 > > 9772,0. 066175&z=14 ... closed at one end, end next to A638 a > > couple of years ago. Causes locals a lot of extra mileage and > > therefore cost. Some businesses have stopped delivering to the > > addresses now.
> > There are many more ...
> Yes I believe they are to prevent rat-runs and make residential > streets less unsafe due to speeding drivers.
err, sorry, this is a rural road/lane, not a residential street.
What about the point made that there isn't the mass outrage you insist happens when roads close?
> There are equally crap roads which motorists and trucks that deliver > YOUR food and goods have to use and pay for. > I am massively outraged.
Its OUR food and goods. Many motorists have no pressing need to be there and merely serve to help clog up those roads and impede the delivery of essential goods while putting pedestrians and cyclists at serious risk.
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
|
