A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 23rd 04, 06:23 AM
[Not Responding]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)
Ads
  #2  
Old May 23rd 04, 08:12 AM
Paul Rudin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

"[Not Responding]" writes:

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)


Dunno - but one top tip is to put them in angle brackets - that
way all manner of dodgy news posting and reading software mostly
manages to avoid inserting line feeds into the middle of them.
  #3  
Old May 23rd 04, 09:12 AM
John Hearns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

On Sun, 23 May 2004 06:23:23 +0100, [Not Responding] wrote:

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html



"Meanwhile, experts from Transport for London will go on investigating
whether the new layout, initially verified in an independent safety audit,
needs updating."

I doubt it will happen, but I'd like to see these experts asking
City Cyclists, Southwark Cyclists and the LCC for their advice, whilst
riding a bicycle over the bridge.
Doubt very much that will happen though.

  #4  
Old May 23rd 04, 09:20 AM
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

John Hearns wrote:

"Meanwhile, experts from Transport for London will go on investigating
whether the new layout, initially verified in an independent safety audit,
needs updating."

snip
Doubt very much that will happen though.


"More than 14 months ago safety campaigners warned Transport for London that
changes to the Blackfriars cycle lane could prove dangerous and might not
solve the route's inherent danger. "

This is the same problem I've had locally with central islands being
installed. You write to them, you point out all the problems and risks and
point to independent corroboration and they either ignore you or say there
isn't a problem. Its time planning departments are put under the same
scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive as companies are when someone is
killed after they have ignored clear warnings about safety. Perhaps we need
an equivalent of Corporate Homicide for Councils.

Tony



  #5  
Old May 23rd 04, 11:31 AM
Peter Fox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

Following on from [Not Responding]'s message. . .
At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)


IMHO a bare URL is pretty useless. Most people have better things to do
with their lives (like whizz out on their bikes!) than clicking any old
link.

Tell us in a few words
(a) What's on the link (don't forget this may well be an 'old' story to
many of us with nothing really new) It may have been discussed here
last week and only now be being written up. In this case the story is 2
weeks old.

(b) What's interesting about it. eg Different angle. Strange but true.
You're mystified - can somebody explain. Some rebuttals needed.

(c) Your view about the content (if you have one)



--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge business collapsed

www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides
  #6  
Old May 23rd 04, 11:56 AM
Vivian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

I haven't seen the Blackfriars Bridge cycle lane yet, but the description
reminds me of another very dangerous lane: that of Kennington Park Road,
right after Oval towards Elephant and Castle. The lane is right in the
middle of the road, and you should take it only if you are NOT turning
left at the next traffic lights, which was my case. I used to tense up so
much while riding on that lane that by the time I got to the traffic lights
my shoulders were aching! Luckily, I managed to find a "back roads" route
to work, so no more crazy lanes for me!


Vivian
-------
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school".
No Surrender

"[Not Responding]" wrote in message
...
At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)



  #7  
Old May 23rd 04, 03:35 PM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

in message , [Not
Responding] ') wrote:

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)


Could we stick to URLs, then follow up with full text if someone asks
for it?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

  #8  
Old May 23rd 04, 03:35 PM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

in message , Paul Rudin
') wrote:

"[Not Responding]" writes:

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)


Dunno - but one top tip is to put them in angle brackets - that
way all manner of dodgy news posting and reading software mostly
manages to avoid inserting line feeds into the middle of them.


No.

The correct way of writing a URL in a text document such as a USENET
post is specified in RFC1738, and I quote:

In addition, there are many occasions when URLs are included in other
kinds of text; examples include electronic mail, USENET news
messages, or printed on paper. In such cases, it is convenient to
have a separate syntactic wrapper that delimits the URL and separates
it from the rest of the text, and in particular from punctuation
marks that might be mistaken for part of the URL. For this purpose,
is recommended that angle brackets ("" and ""), along with the
prefix "URL:", be used to delimit the boundaries of the URL. This
wrapper does not form part of the URL and should not be used in
contexts in which delimiters are already specified.

So the correct form is
URL:http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1222936,00.html

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock

  #9  
Old May 23rd 04, 04:51 PM
Steve Peake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

On Sun, 23 May 2004 09:12:02 +0100, John Hearns wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 06:23:23 +0100, [Not Responding] wrote:

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html



"Meanwhile, experts from Transport for London will go on investigating
whether the new layout, initially verified in an independent safety audit,
needs updating."

I doubt it will happen, but I'd like to see these experts asking
City Cyclists, Southwark Cyclists and the LCC for their advice, whilst
riding a bicycle over the bridge.
Doubt very much that will happen though.


TFL are not the sharpest tools in the box. I asked them how they managed
to remove both the east side cycle lane, and the west side bus lane from
kew bridge, and what were they doing next.

Their response, they have no idea.

Steve
  #10  
Old May 23rd 04, 06:04 PM
Paul Rudin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackfriars Bridge Fatality Reported in Guardian

Simon Brooke writes:

in message , Paul Rudin
') wrote:

"[Not Responding]" writes:

At: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...222936,00.html

PS. What is the protocol here for posting URLs. (full text quote or
URL?)


Dunno - but one top tip is to put them in angle brackets - that
way all manner of dodgy news posting and reading software mostly
manages to avoid inserting line feeds into the middle of them.


No.

The correct way of writing a URL in a text document such as a USENET
post is specified in RFC1738, and I quote: ...


Suprisingly I know what the rfc says.. but AFAIK for practical news
reading/posting purposes the 'URL:' part is redundant. I'd be
interested to know if there is a news client that fails to do the
right thing with http://foo.com and yet succeeds
URL:http://foo.com.

 




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
incident on blackfriars bridge davek UK 46 May 20th 04 08:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.