|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
Headline
"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way". Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits to over-all traffic flow. I hope that this is more widely adopted -- geomannie |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
"geomannie" wrote in message ... Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way". Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits to over-all traffic flow. I hope that this is more widely adopted Agreed that the more widely adopted it becomes, the more pedestrians 'should' learn to check both ways, but it is a real problem. Cyclists will have to ride on those roads with an expectation that pedestrians may well step out into their path It's just like the way that pedestrians step out in front of 'silent' electric cars because they sometimes just use auditory clues to judge whether there is a car behind them. Bells needed - thinks I must get one!. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
geomannie wrote:
Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" I hope its implemented better than in Ipswich - there are some back streets in the roads between the main shopping area/St Matthews Street and Princes Street towards the station and they are lethal. Cars parked down 1 side, single lane for road traffic (mostly buses) then an against the flow bike lane on what are narrow streets with fairly tight corners. I'll walk that bit thanks. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
OG wrote:
"geomannie" wrote in message ... Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs It's just like the way that pedestrians step out in front of 'silent' electric cars because they sometimes just use auditory clues to judge whether there is a car behind them. Bells needed - thinks I must get one!. Yes but we would need to ring them all the time. Anyone make lightweight cow-bells ? -- CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:28:04 +0000, geomannie
wrote: Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way". Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits to over-all traffic flow. I hope that this is more widely adopted Well - if you had not snipped the word "illegally" out of the AA quote - then it would have made different sense. So the quote - was in fact - not a quote - well done - typical urc behaviour. judith -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I pointed out the web page He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for years. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:51:36 +0000, OG
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:28:04 +0000, geomannie wrote: Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way". Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits to over-all traffic flow. I hope that this is more widely adopted Well - if you had not snipped the word "illegally" out of the AA quote - then it would have made different sense. So the quote - was in fact - not a quote - well done - typical urc behaviour. Yes, but he also snipped the word 'nearly' from the AA quote; as in 'nearly being hit ...'. Does this mean you are selective in your objections to misquotation? What the AA are actually quoted as saying: "On a number of one-way streets we have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out on to the road, and then nearly being hit by cyclists riding illegally the wrong way." Thanks - No - just that I didn't notice that omission - he is obviously more devious than I thought. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
geomannie wrote:
Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way". Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits to over-all traffic flow. I hope that this is more widely adopted I don't know if you have noticed but your cut & paste is wrong, it should be "we have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out on to the road, and then nearly being hit by cyclists riding *illegally* the wrong way." -- Tony the Dragon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs .... ... ... Agreed that the more widely adopted it becomes, the more pedestrians 'should' learn to check both ways, but it is a real problem. Cyclists will have to ride on those roads with an expectation that pedestrians may well step out into their path It's just like the way that pedestrians step out in front of 'silent' electric cars because they sometimes just use auditory clues to judge whether there is a car behind them. Bells needed - thinks I must get one!. Pedestrians on my London commute (and probably most other places) often step out without looking, particularly when it's raining or windy. Happens about once every month or three. I ride on the correct side of the road in the correct direction. They are relying on their hearing so step out if they don't hear any motorised vehicles. They usually seem very surprised as I go past them. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists to ride against the traffic
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:33:34 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote: geomannie wrote: Headline "Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the Square Mile" Source the Evening Standard http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way". Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits to over-all traffic flow. I hope that this is more widely adopted I don't know if you have noticed but your cut & paste is wrong, it should be "we have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out on to the road, and then nearly being hit by cyclists riding *illegally* the wrong way." And as someone else has pointed out the cut and paste "lost" the word "nearly" as well It is very unusual for a cut and past to make these sort of mistakes. I must admit I don't understand how it happened - unless he went to the Chapman school of ****wittery. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Traffic Light Spoofer for Cyclists | Bret Cahill[_2_] | General | 27 | January 26th 09 04:50 AM |
"UK minister backs call for more traffic police to protect cyclists" | [email protected] | UK | 9 | July 2nd 08 09:08 AM |
High density traffic good for cyclists! | tam | UK | 0 | December 7th 07 02:23 PM |
Ever Ride in City Traffic? | NYC XYZ | Recumbent Biking | 35 | July 22nd 05 12:55 AM |
Ever Ride in City Traffic? | NYC XYZ | General | 27 | July 22nd 05 12:55 AM |