Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles

On 08 Mar 2009 07:51:39 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
see http://tinyurl.com/crjnd4

Where does that contradict what I said?

"There are two sorts of shared footpath and cycleway:
Segregated, where a SOLID white line seperates out cyclists and
pedestrians and
Unsegregated, where cyclists and pedestrians share the full width of the
facility"

The clues are in the words; segregated; separates

Yes, two SEGREGATED area - one for pedestrians only and one for
pedestrians and cyclists.

However, there is no gain for me in convincing you that you are not
Napoleon.

I have told you the facts. You carry on in your wilful ignorance, if
it make you happy, but you ARE wrong.

regards, Ian SMith


Watch it Polly - he has a habit of altering posts before he replies
by altering/snipping them in a most injudicious way.




--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

On 08 Mar 2009 07:51:39 GMT
Ian Smith wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
see http://tinyurl.com/crjnd4

Where does that contradict what I said?

"There are two sorts of shared footpath and cycleway:
Segregated, where a SOLID white line seperates out cyclists and
pedestrians and
Unsegregated, where cyclists and pedestrians share the full width
of the facility"

The clues are in the words; segregated; separates

Yes, two SEGREGATED area - one for pedestrians only and one for
pedestrians and cyclists.

The intention as stated in the document I posted a link to earlier is
that cyclists will never use the pedestrian side, and pedestrians will
only cross into the cyclist's side when necessary - pedestrians should
not be using the whole path without regard to cyclists. So it's pretty
much like a road really - pedestrians are allowed to walk along it or
across it with due care, but they should keep to the pavement when
possible.

In article ,
"Adam Lea" wrote:

aigle_de_la_route wrote:
In article 20090306145626.3e87ae77@bluemoon,
Rob Morley wrote:

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:51:51 +0000
lardyninja wrote:


aigle_de_la_route wrote, On 06/03/2009 13:43:
In article ,
"Light of Aria" wrote:

I am quite worried what my 35 Kilos of Bike
plus 84 Kilos of me plus 10 Kilos of luggage at 20KPH would
inflict on an errant mutt-brained pedestrian.

No more than they deserve.



What an asinine comment. When there are vulnerable and unpredictable
road users around, just bloody well slow down.

No, he's right. Car drivers should likewise knock off any cyclists
who get in their way, especially kids and grannies ...

If I do something 'asinine' on my bicycle whilst mingling with
vehicles far heavier and more destructive than my body and a Surly,
then don't cry for me. Cos it'll be no more than I deserve. We
tolerate ****ing idiots too much already. The world is full of them,
and the world is overcrowed.

If I ride like a ****wit, then I'll get a ****wit's reward. That
seems only fair. How is it any different when some retard walks on a
cycle path (you know, the bit of the ground with big ****ing bicycle
symbols on it?) wearing a set of earplugs and caring only for his
sorry arse and his music?

WTF happened to taking responsibility for one's stupidity?

It could be argued that riding around expecting flawless behaviour from
everyone around you is riding like a ****wit.

It could well be, yes.


--
aigle_de_la_route
Surly Long Haul Trucker

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:38:52 +0100
aigle_de_la_route wrote:

If I do something 'asinine' on my bicycle whilst mingling with
vehicles far heavier and more destructive than my body and a Surly,
then don't cry for me. Cos it'll be no more than I deserve. We
tolerate ****ing idiots too much already. The world is full of them,
and the world is overcrowed.

If I ride like a ****wit, then I'll get a ****wit's reward. That
seems only fair. How is it any different when some retard walks on a
cycle path (you know, the bit of the ground with big ****ing bicycle
symbols on it?) wearing a set of earplugs and caring only for his
sorry arse and his music?

Newsflash: the world is full of people whose intellectual and/or
emotional development leaves something to be desired. If you can't
accept and deal with that in a way that doesn't impact negatively on
you then you're probably not too smart yourself. While the species
that rather grandly refers to itself as Homo sapiens sapiens is
possibly doomed to destroy itself and take the planet with it, you have
a degree of control over the space inside your head, and some influence
on the small area around you - use it wisely or create your own little
bubble of unpleasantness. More easily said than done, of course -
having evolved as hunter-gatherers living in small groups our social
skills are woefully inadequate for the society in which we now live.
But it's only a small planet orbiting a small star in a universe of
millions of galaxies ...

David Hansen wrote:
The link you gave is wrong in this respect. You should ask the
council to correct it.



Very well David, I will ask them to check. I'm sure they will change it
if they find it to be wrong or misleading.

By-the-way Highway code rule 13 (Rules for pedestrians) states "...using
a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot...
On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series..." It then refers
the pedestrian/reader to rule 62 (for cyclists)"...When using segregated
tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian
side remains a pavement or footpath"
Surely that would all mean one side of the line for cyclists and
the other side for pedestrians?

Here's another example http://tinyurl.com/dbxc2c (scroll down) I'm not
suggesting that many wrongs make a right, because I'm not.

Perhaps this sign would be clearer http://tinyurl.com/dgcv37
this is your interpretation as I see it http://tinyurl.com/alsk3w

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:15:18 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

By-the-way Highway code rule 13 (Rules for pedestrians) states "...using
a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot...
On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series..." It then refers
the pedestrian/reader to rule 62 (for cyclists)"...When using segregated
tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian
side remains a pavement or footpath"
Surely that would all mean one side of the line for cyclists and
the other side for pedestrians?

You might think so. I might think so as well. However, the bad
wording of documents by officials does not change the legal
position. All sorts of people don't understand road signs,
especially those which relate to cycling, either.

Should a council wish to ban pedestrians from one side of such a
path then they would have to go through the appropriate loops and
then erect the appropriate signs to inform people of the position.
Fortunately they tend to have better things to do. Cyclists should
just slow down and be prepared to stop, if the cyclist wanted to go
somewhere fast they would be using the roads in most cases.


--
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

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:04:43 +0000, David Hansen
said in
:

Should a council wish to ban pedestrians from one side of such a
path then they would have to go through the appropriate loops and
then erect the appropriate signs to inform people of the position.

It's not even clear to me how they would go about doing this - peds
are banned on motorways and such, but I can't offhand think of any
public space other than a limited-access highway where they are
banned. I'm sure they exist, but they are certainly a great deal
rarer than places where cyclists and motors are forbidden.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:12:20 +0000, (Roger
Merriman) wrote:

Mark wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:21:37 -0000, "Light of Aria"
wrote:


I am increasingly concerned / distressed / irritated by fools with
headphones on who meander along shared use cycle paths, whom upon
approaching, I sound the courtesy bells several times, and yet the
pedestrians do not acknowledge one's approach.

If one is proceeding along the green cycle lane, as designated, at
reasonable speed, sounds several courtesy warning bells, displays lighting,
reflective jackets, and white cycle helmets, what is the legal position
should the pedestrian suddenly veer from the pedestrian section into the
path of the cyclist without looking/shoulder checking/life-saver-ing?

I think you've spotted one of the inherant disadvantages in shared use
cycle paths thingys. I tend to avoid them if at all possible.

some can be very nice though, but you'd be daft to see them as any thing
but a potter at most.

Indeed, they can aid a pleasant potter at the weekend, but are pretty
useless for commuting IMHO. They often force you to rejoin the road
at the most dangerous point possible, too.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

David Hansen wrote:

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width of
the pavement.

Only on a NON segregated feature

See The Highway Code Rule 13, (rules for pedestrians)it clearly
identifies a pedestrian side

"On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series..."

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:

David Hansen wrote:

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width of
the pavement.

Only on a NON segregated feature

Why did you bother asking the question if you are going to refuse to
believe all the answers?

See The Highway Code Rule 13, (rules for pedestrians)it clearly
identifies a pedestrian side

"On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series..."

Yes, that is the side which is exclusively for pedestrians, as opposed
to the other side which is for pedestrians and cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|