The £100,000 cycle path you can't cycle on

Reported via the Cambridge Cycle Campaign ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nbike09.xml


Mike

Mike Causer wrote:
Reported via the Cambridge Cycle Campaign ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nbike09.xml


Mike

I can't see how the council can absolve themselves of responsibility by
putting up a few signs. They know the path needs widening, which is
THEIR problem from from the outset.

I can't see how the council can absolve themselves of responsibility
by putting up a few signs. They know the path needs widening, which
is THEIR problem from from the outset.

IIRC they knew that a stretch of the path would be too narrow before they'd
started building. Dunno why a wider path couldn't be made thobut, and none
of the journalists seems to have bothered to ask.

On 10/06/2006 11:24, Mark Thompson said,

IIRC they knew that a stretch of the path would be too narrow before they'd
started building. Dunno why a wider path couldn't be made thobut, and none
of the journalists seems to have bothered to ask.

But so long as cyclists obey the signs, there isn't a problem. The
"county's transport strategy manager" really said that, and still keeps
his job?????

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

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:26:00 +0100, pete whelan wrote:
Mike Causer wrote:
Reported via the Cambridge Cycle Campaign ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nbike09.xml

I can't see how the council can absolve themselves of responsibility by
putting up a few signs. They know the path needs widening, which is
THEIR problem from from the outset.

I think there's case law - you can't 'do' council officials for
failing to do something. I've a recollection of a case about a pile
of spoil obstructing the view at a junction, consequent collision, and
an attempt to prosecurte the council officer responsible (who knew
the heap was there, and knew it reduced visibility - I think might
have said so in a report).

Court ruled that the issue was the council officer responsible had
failed to get the heap removed, but that you couldn't penalise him for
something he hadn't done.

For some reason, this doesn't apply to mere mortals, only council
employees.

Or maybe I'm making it all up.

Anyway, assuming I'm not making it up, that would suggest you can't
hold them responsible for the consequences of failing to widen the
path - so actually, they don't need the signs to be absolved of
responsibility.

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

But so long as cyclists obey the signs, there isn't a problem. The
"county's transport strategy manager" really said that, and still
keeps his job?????

I'm hoping there were good reasons for that particular stretch of the path
being less than the minimum. I assume he said a good deal more, and his
quoted statement wasn't intended to be read in isolation.

Half Time: England 1, Paraguay 0.

Half Time: England X, Paraguay X.

Aksurely that could be a bit of a spoiler couldn't it. I'm saved by the
fact that you lot will all pretend to be uninterested in/unaware of the
match/tournament.

Sorry.

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:26:00 +0100, pete whelan wrote:

Mike Causer wrote:

Reported via the Cambridge Cycle Campaign ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nbike09.xml

I can't see how the council can absolve themselves of responsibility by
putting up a few signs. They know the path needs widening, which is
THEIR problem from from the outset.


I think there's case law - you can't 'do' council officials for
failing to do something. I've a recollection of a case about a pile
of spoil obstructing the view at a junction, consequent collision, and
an attempt to prosecurte the council officer responsible (who knew
the heap was there, and knew it reduced visibility - I think might
have said so in a report).

Court ruled that the issue was the council officer responsible had
failed to get the heap removed, but that you couldn't penalise him for
something he hadn't done.

For some reason, this doesn't apply to mere mortals, only council
employees.

Or maybe I'm making it all up.

Anyway, assuming I'm not making it up, that would suggest you can't
hold them responsible for the consequences of failing to widen the
path - so actually, they don't need the signs to be absolved of
responsibility.

regards, Ian SMith

But in this case there is a positive action first. IE: The council have
taken a measure in providing a facility which is in itself dangerous.
The fact that they fail to act in repairing the fault which they know to
exist is immaterial the act of wilfully providing a dangerous facility
and then seeking to mitigate their liability through the use of
unenforceable and incorrect road signage should make no difference to
any claim for compensation.
I may be wrong but surly there is a difference between failing to
rectify a fault and knowingly building something one knows to be poorly
designed or dangerous in the first place.

Sniper8052

Following on from Sniper8052(L96A1)'s message. . .
But in this case there is a positive action first. IE: The council have
taken a measure in providing a facility which is in itself dangerous.
NO
You are falling into the trap that 2.5m is dangerous. It is some
ignorant wonk in the council's definition. I suggest you ask them
under FOI for their reference for this 'dangerous' definition. (+ cost
of installing and removing cyclists get off' signs. (Pedestrians hop,
drivers get out and push)

Look at the only official guidance:

LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
Cyclists

from

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ts/page/dft_lo
caltrans_028707-06.hcsp#P308_56667







Minimum acceptable width

6.2.5 A width of 1.5m should be regarded as the minimum acceptable for a
footway under most circumstances. This will allow a pedestrian to pass a
wheelchair user. The absolute minimum is 1.0m but this will require all
users to give way to each other, so this width should only be retained
at pinch points, or short, very lightly used locations where overtaking
and passing manoeuvres are likely to be rare. In any case, 1.0m wide
sections should not exceed 6.0m in length.

6.2.6 A cycle track width of 2.0m will allow two cyclists to pass each
other but this should be regarded as the minimum acceptable under most
circumstances. The absolute minimum is 1.5m but using this figure is not
as onerous as using the equivalent 1.0m figure for footways as cyclists
will still be able to pass each other, albeit with some difficulty.

6.2.7 The above mentioned widths are minimum effective widths and the
figures apply where they are exclusively for pedestrians or cyclists,
i.e. where the facility is segregated. Actual widths will need to be
greater to maintain the effective values if vertical features bound the
edges of a footway or a cycle track (see Table 1 below).

6.2.8 If there is insufficient room to achieve the required widths, it
may be best to omit segregation altogether. A route which generally has
a combined width of 3m or less is probably best left unsegregated.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bottom fell out of the bucket business

www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

Anyway, assuming I'm not making it up, that would suggest you can't
hold them responsible for the consequences of failing to widen the
path - so actually, they don't need the signs to be absolved of
responsibility.

The fact that they fail to act in repairing the fault which they know to
exist is immaterial the act of wilfully providing a dangerous facility
and then seeking to mitigate their liability through the use of
unenforceable and incorrect road signage should make no difference to
any claim for compensation.

I think that's what I said - they don't need the signs. The signs
make no difference.

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