Three cycling fatalities in London last month.
 

JNugent writes:

They don't *have* to cycle along the footway, though some undoubtedly
will choose to break the law.

Break the law? It's long-established in case law that motor vehicles
may cross the footway in order to reach parking spaces, why do you say
it is not so for cycles?

Better still, Argyll Street is easily reachable by road from Great
Marlborough Street.

As Argyll St is pedestrianised and the cycle stands are at the north
end, it's hard to see how a railing-free exit at the south end makes
that much difference.


-dan

Three cycling fatalities in London last month.
 

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

They don't *have* to cycle along the footway, though some undoubtedly
will choose to break the law.

Break the law? It's long-established in case law that motor vehicles
may cross the footway in order to reach parking spaces, why do you say
it is not so for cycles?

i'd not trust that my self since a bike can be reasonbly wheeled and in
a busy place like that it's more reasonble to wheel a bike than ride.

Better still, Argyll Street is easily reachable by road from Great
Marlborough Street.

As Argyll St is pedestrianised and the cycle stands are at the north
end, it's hard to see how a railing-free exit at the south end makes
that much difference.


-dan

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Three cycling fatalities in London last month.
 

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

They don't *have* to cycle along the footway, though some undoubtedly
will choose to break the law.

Break the law? It's long-established in case law that motor vehicles
may cross the footway in order to reach parking spaces, why do you say
it is not so for cycles?

I don't. There is an easy distinction between crossing a footway and
travelling along it. The footways at and immediately around Oxford Circus are
*no* place for cycling, as I'm certain you, being such a safety-conscious
chap, will agree.

Better still, Argyll Street is easily reachable by road from Great
Marlborough Street.

As Argyll St is pedestrianised and the cycle stands are at the north
end, it's hard to see how a railing-free exit at the south end makes
that much difference.

Pedestrianised, eh?

I think you mean only the north end adjoining Oxford Street. But whether
approaching from the south (Gt Marlborough Street), the west (Little Argyll
Street) or the east/west from Oxford Street/Regent Street, it's still against
the law to cycle along the footway.

Three cycling fatalities in London last month.
 

JNugent writes:

I don't. There is an easy distinction between crossing a footway and
travelling along it. The footways at and immediately around Oxford
Circus are *no* place for cycling, as I'm certain you, being such a
safety-conscious chap, will agree.

To be honest, I waver. Sometimes I scoot my bike while sitting astride
it, other times I dismount. Wheeling a bicycle in a crowd of
pedestrians often seems to confuse them as many expect they can pass
between me and the bicycle (obviously, not possible while I am holding
onto it) whereas they find it easier on the whole to cope when I and the
bike are a "single object", so to speak. Funny how that works.

But the point is largely immaterial, anyway: a bicycle in that mass of
pedestrians is an ungainly object whether wheeled or scooted and I would
much prefer to be able to reenter the roadway as soon as possible. The
railings are preventing me from doing so.

Pedestrianised, eh?

I think you mean only the north end adjoining Oxford Street.

Indeed. The end where the cycle stands are, which is the end point of
my journey. On the assumption that the same authority was responsible
for placing those stands there and for putting up the railings that
prevent convenient access to them from the north, it does demonstrate a
lack of joined up thinking.


-dan

Three cycling fatalities in London last month.
 

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

I don't. There is an easy distinction between crossing a footway and
travelling along it. The footways at and immediately around Oxford
Circus are *no* place for cycling, as I'm certain you, being such a
safety-conscious chap, will agree.

To be honest, I waver.

That's disappointing. The issues are clear-cut.

Sometimes I scoot my bike while sitting astride
it, other times I dismount. Wheeling a bicycle in a crowd of
pedestrians often seems to confuse them as many expect they can pass
between me and the bicycle (obviously, not possible while I am holding
onto it) whereas they find it easier on the whole to cope when I and the
bike are a "single object", so to speak. Funny how that works.

But the point is largely immaterial, anyway: a bicycle in that mass of
pedestrians is an ungainly object whether wheeled or scooted and I would
much prefer to be able to reenter the roadway as soon as possible. The
railings are preventing me from doing so.

Pedestrianised, eh?
I think you mean only the north end adjoining Oxford Street.

Indeed. The end where the cycle stands are, which is the end point of
my journey. On the assumption that the same authority was responsible
for placing those stands there and for putting up the railings that
prevent convenient access to them from the north, it does demonstrate a
lack of joined up thinking.

I would never seek to deny that.