A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High CycleBridge



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 26th 15, 12:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High Cycle Bridge

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 25/11/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscraper...164450982.html




How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!



Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.

Progress.

Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.


Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.
Ads
  #22  
Old November 26th 15, 12:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High Cycle Bridge

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:53:08 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/25/2015 3:25 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Thank goodness we don't have that system in the U.S..


No, I understand that you live in the "Home of the Free and the Land
of the Brave". Or is it the Land of the Free and the Home of the
Brave"?

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #23  
Old November 26th 15, 01:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High Cycle Bridge

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 6:13:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane
wrote:

Snipped

Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.


Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.


That's NOT how it works here in Canada john.

Of those who vote 30% manage to vote in a government with a majority. The other 70% who voted are SOL FUBAR'd.

On top of that the 30% minority get to make the Laws for the 705 majority. Hardly democratic is it? unless like I say, you don't mind democratically elected dictatorships because here in Canada that's what we usually end up with.

Cheers
  #24  
Old November 26th 15, 03:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High CycleBridge

On 11/25/2015 3:54 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:

Snipped
Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Which is exactly why they're building that bicycle/pedestrian bridge Ilinked to. I's TWO KILOMETERS to the closest bridge from this new bridge. That means it would be 4 kilometers ride to cross that river without the brige = 2 kilometers to the closest bridge and two kilometers back.


Well, they're actually not building that "bicycle/pedestrian bridge," as
the article explains.

The author of the site you linked, and Mikhael Colville-Andersen, both
seem to think the plan is extreme and not justified. If the tower in
question is supposed to be (partly?) residential, and if that 500m rule
exists, it seems more reasonable for the city's zoning department to say
"don't build residences there."

In my mind, plowing a freeway through a formerly walkable/bikeable city
is a different matter. Including bike & ped accommodations should be a
minor cost increase. Requiring extremely costly bike access when a new
place is built at the end of what's effectively a peninsula seems a
different matter.

As an alternative, why not a ferry?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old November 26th 15, 03:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High CycleBridge

On 11/25/2015 6:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:13:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Any democracy needs provisions to guarantee that the rights of
minorities are not taken away by the majority.


What rights are those? The right to smoke dope? Or the right that
although we can't afford it we have the right to a mortgage for a big
fancy home? Or the one that says we don't have to obey traffic laws if
we don't want to?


I was thinking about the right to use a public road. Even if you're not
using the fastest vehicle on that road.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #26  
Old November 26th 15, 12:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre HighCycle Bridge

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 25/11/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscraper...164450982.html




How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!



Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.

Progress.

Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.


Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)

--

Cheers,

I should have said 30% of voters. With 3 or 4 candidates the PM's party
usually wins with ~30% of the vote. There are no run offs.

--
duane
  #27  
Old November 26th 15, 12:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre HighCycle Bridge

Phil W Lee wrote:
John B. considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:13:44
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 25/11/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscraper...164450982.html




How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!



Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.

Progress.

Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.


Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)


You clearly don't understand.
We suffer under the same system here in the UK, where the current
regime was elected by under 25% of the electorate, and less than 34%
of those who actually voted.
Under this first-past-the-post scheme of parliamentary "democracy",
any vote for a losing candidate is effectively thrown away, and the
result is that despite receiving less than 34% of votes cast, the
Tories have a majority of seats, and can do as they please, with
almost no way of removing them short of a revolution (which they seem
to be doing their best to provoke).


Exactly. Parliamentary democracy.

--
duane
  #28  
Old November 26th 15, 12:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre HighCycle Bridge

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 6:13:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane
wrote:

Snipped

Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.


Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.


That's NOT how it works here in Canada john.

Of those who vote 30% manage to vote in a government with a majority. The
other 70% who voted are SOL FUBAR'd.

On top of that the 30% minority get to make the Laws for the 705
majority. Hardly democratic is it? unless like I say, you don't mind
democratically elected dictatorships because here in Canada that's what
we usually end up with.

Cheers


The US system, though pretty broken lately, at least has some checks and
balances. There's no impeachment in Canada. And in the US you actually
vote for the president. He's not appointed by the party with the most
seats. And the senate is also voted on. In Canada they're appointed for
life by the current PM. We call it the senate because "house of lords"
sounds bad.

--
duane
  #29  
Old November 26th 15, 12:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High Cycle Bridge

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:41:08 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:13:44
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 25/11/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscraper...164450982.html




How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!



Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.

Progress.

Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?


Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.


Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)


You clearly don't understand.
We suffer under the same system here in the UK, where the current
regime was elected by under 25% of the electorate, and less than 34%
of those who actually voted.
Under this first-past-the-post scheme of parliamentary "democracy",
any vote for a losing candidate is effectively thrown away, and the
result is that despite receiving less than 34% of votes cast, the
Tories have a majority of seats, and can do as they please, with
almost no way of removing them short of a revolution (which they seem
to be doing their best to provoke).


I'm not sure that I completely understand the system you describe but
it appears that, in essence, a number of voters ganged (one might say)
together and voted for a single party while a large number of others
voted here and voted there and thus the cohesive group got their party
elected, which, while not, one might say, by a majority of the voters
in the country but by a cohesive group that set out to get into power
and did it.

So what is the alternate? A government elected by a bunch of
disorganized people who can't seem to organize themselves to say
nothing of a national government?

But how so "almost no way of removing them"? Are they elected for
life?
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #30  
Old November 26th 15, 12:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High Cycle Bridge

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:06:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2015 6:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:13:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2015 6:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James
wrote:

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!


Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

Any democracy needs provisions to guarantee that the rights of
minorities are not taken away by the majority.


What rights are those? The right to smoke dope? Or the right that
although we can't afford it we have the right to a mortgage for a big
fancy home? Or the one that says we don't have to obey traffic laws if
we don't want to?


I was thinking about the right to use a public road. Even if you're not
using the fastest vehicle on that road.


But Frank, I've read a number of U.S. Highway Codes and every one I
read specifies that a bicycle is a vehicle and that all vehicles have
the right to use public highways (excepting of course some restricted
access highways).

I have also noted that in every one of the codes I read there is an
article that specifies that a vehicle shall not impede other traffic.
and, I might add, I have observed and participated in moving certain
overly wide loads that did impede traffic and in those cases we were
required to have a police escort and in one case move between the
hours of 23:00 and 03:00 while in the city center.In that particular
instance we were also required to hire "consultants" from both the
electric and telephone companies to ensure that we didn't knock down
any wires.

Does only having only two wheels somehow change things?
--

Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motorists will have to leave a one metre gap when passing cyclistsunder proposed new South Australian laws Bod[_5_] UK 14 January 22nd 15 08:50 PM
Unicore Video linked from CollegeHumor captainkrunk61 Unicycling 7 June 21st 07 04:51 AM
My Blog and who wants to be linked fluxusmaximus Unicycling 1 January 1st 07 11:00 AM
I've been linked Jon Senior UK 14 June 11th 05 11:17 PM
Unicycle video linked to by howstuffworks oregonguy Unicycling 4 December 23rd 04 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.