Yet another obstruction

Here's a new variation on the theme of making life difficult for cyclists,
and this time it's in the photo gallery offered by Cycling England --

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/imag...2&pic=184&sf=0


Mike

Mike Causer wrote:
Here's a new variation on the theme of making life difficult for cyclists,
and this time it's in the photo gallery offered by Cycling England --

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/imag...2&pic=184&sf=0

That is without doubt the most evil-looking (official) barrier I've
ever seen. It should to be taken down quickly, before someone is very
seriously injured. It is so bad I'm having trouble convincing myself
it's unintentional. Some kind of malicious practical joke by an
anti-cycling engineer perhaps. What other rational explanation could
there be?

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone here think I'm over-stating the case?

--
Dave...

dkahn400 wrote:
What other rational explanation could
there be?

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone here think I'm over-stating the case?

I must admit, it looks pretty odd. And those reflectors; they are not
indicating the narrowest points of the passage at all! Could lead to some
nasty night-time njuries.

Simon Bennett wrote:
dkahn400 wrote:
What other rational explanation could
there be?

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone here think I'm over-stating the case?

I must admit, it looks pretty odd. And those reflectors; they are not
indicating the narrowest points of the passage at all! Could lead to some
nasty night-time njuries.



I have a vision of the paddles whomping the cyclist, TombRaider stylee,
as they cycle through.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

in message , Simon Bennett
') wrote:

dkahn400 wrote:
What other rational explanation could
there be?

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone here think I'm over-stating the case?

I must admit, it looks pretty odd. And those reflectors; they are not
indicating the narrowest points of the passage at all! Could lead to
some nasty night-time njuries.

I honestly don't understand what the designers are trying to achieve?
While I agree they're dangerous, I just don't see what the point is.
What's worrying is the it looks as if Cycling England actually approve of
these.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund

Simon Brooke wrote:

I honestly don't understand what the designers are trying to achieve?
While I agree they're dangerous, I just don't see what the point is.
What's worrying is the it looks as if Cycling England actually approve of
these.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? "Routes by the road and sea plus
examples of cycle friendly barriers." What hope is there?

Take a look at the Cleethorpes Promenade example too. The cycle path
seems to go through the edge of a sand dune.

--
Dave...

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:00:46 +0100 someone who may be Simon Brooke
wrote this:-

I honestly don't understand what the designers are trying to achieve?

They were undoubtedly on some sort of mind altering drug. I have
asked those that came up with the web site what drug it was, though
I doubt if I will get an answer.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Simon Bennett
') wrote:

dkahn400 wrote:
What other rational explanation could
there be?

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone here think I'm over-stating the case?

I must admit, it looks pretty odd.
snip
I honestly don't understand what the designers are trying to achieve?
snip
What's worrying is the it looks as if Cycling England actually approve of
these.
snip

I had a look through the photos in the gallery.
I honestly could not tell from browsing the images if these
"engineering solutions" were things they were complaining about, or
things they were proud of having helped create. Reading through the
site makes clears that up, but that just makes me even more irritated.

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/imag...2&pic=180&sf=0
Do I spy two cyclists on the road, merrily ignoring the cyclepath? How
apt.

God love the English cyclist if these are the best examples. What are
the worst? Landmines?

bookieb.

I honestly don't understand what the designers are trying to achieve?
While I agree they're dangerous, I just don't see what the point is.

It's obviously to stop upside-down motorcyclists from using the path.

dkahn400 said the following on 03/04/2006 14:36:

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/imag...2&pic=184&sf=0

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone here think I'm over-stating the case?

No, I don't think so. Those solid-looking projecting bits look to be
just about head height for a child on a bike, or face height for a rider
on drops.

If you go up a page to http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/gallery.php?id=2,
it shows this as an example of a "cycle friendly barrier". I assume
this is meant as sarcasm. The mind boggles!


--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/