Segregated paths

Mike Causer said:

In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I

So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?

Mike

It appears more to be a good old fashioned [censored] to me than deviation
from guidance and legislation. Suggest you point it out to the Council.

Not Responding said:

Mike Causer said:

In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

Quoted message said:

It appears more to be a good old fashioned [censored] to me than deviation
from guidance and legislation. Suggest you point it out to the Council.

*After* photos and a report to the local press of course.

John B

"Not Responding" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Causer said:

In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path.

At

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right.

So

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I

So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?

Mike

It appears more to be a good old fashioned [censored] to me than deviation
from guidance and legislation. Suggest you point it out to the Council.

yes, they've used the same sign at each end. I assume this is viewed from
the LHS of the road, all these abominations seem to put the bike on the
offside so to speak.
I don't particularly mind them; during the day, use the road, at nignt
especially during chucking out time when no peds about use the path (using
night vision goggles for broken bottles of course) works for me.

MartinM said:

yes, they've used the same sign at each end.

In fact it's worse than that, there are painted signs on the surface
matching the blue signs on posts. Indeed, it could be said to be even
sillier, because the next section has the usual cycle left, ped right at
one end, but is non-segregated at the other. So the full thing looks like
this:

(blue sign)

\ /
\|/
O
_ _
(_)/ (_)
,\(`
--O

I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I
(paint + blue sign)
=====================
Minor Road
=====================
(paint + blue sign)
I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I
(blue sign)

Mike

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:25:24 +0000, Mike Causer
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other.

A clear case for Hanlon's Razor, methinks...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Mike Causer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

yes, they've used the same sign at each end.

In fact it's worse than that, there are painted signs on the surface
matching the blue signs on posts. Indeed, it could be said to be even
sillier, because the next section has the usual cycle left, ped right at
one end, but is non-segregated at the other. So the full thing looks like
this:

And they wonder why we don't use them ? it's a good thing they are not
compulsory,can you imagine trying to bring a case to court with all this
confusion.

Mike Causer said:

(Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

Maybe its because they are not segregated, only bikes are. Bikes are
restricted to one side by law (although which side in this case is
dubious) whereas pedestrians have the right to walk on any part of the
pavement with only courtesy to keep them out of the bike bit.

The equivalent is that we as cyclists do not have to stick to a
mandatory cycle lanes although motorists are not allowed by law to drive
in them.

Tony

"Mike Causer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I

So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?

Cycle on the road. Forget the [censored] farcilities and be safer and quicker.

T

Mike Causer said:

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I

I have nothing worthy to add to this discussion, but that's the
best bit of ASCII art I've seen on usenet in a while. Gold star :-)

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

"Jeremy Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Causer said:

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I

I have nothing worthy to add to this discussion, but that's the
best bit of ASCII art I've seen on usenet in a while. Gold star :-)

Is decapitation now the penalty for walking in the bike lane though? ;-)

Mike Causer said:

(ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I

And most excellent it is!

BugBear

In article said:

"Mike Causer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

Cycle on the road. Forget the [censored] farcilities and be safer and quicker.

Quite likely Mike does, but unless all cyclists do, this is still going
to encourage conflict.

(It's also possible that this is a useful route that isn't alongside a
road, and sticking to the road would mean going a long way around.)

MartinM said:

Quoted message said:

I have nothing worthy to add to this discussion, but that's
the best bit of ASCII art I've seen on usenet in a while.
Gold star :-)

Is decapitation now the penalty for walking in the bike lane
though? ;-)

It only looks that way because you are viewing it in a proportional
font. Try switching to something like Courier.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

MartinM said:

Quoted message said:

I have nothing worthy to add to this discussion, but that's the best
bit of ASCII art I've seen on usenet in a while. Gold star :-)

Is decapitation now the penalty for walking in the bike lane though?
;-)

It only looks that way because you are viewing it in a proportional
font. Try switching to something like Courier.

I think he was referring to the fact that the thing at the top of the
eastern lane:

Quoted message said:

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \

Looks less like an upside-down bike and more like a severed head ...

tom

--
It is a laborious madness, and an impoverishing one, the madness of composing vast books. -- Jorge Luis Borges

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

no it's my font but can't for the life of me work out how to change it on

OE

Tools->Options->Read->Fonts, and change the 'proportional' one to courier
new. (the other one should already be that way).
Do it for both Western European and Unicode.

(I don't believe in email being in proportional text...)

cheers,
clive

MartinM said:

no it's my font but can't for the life of me work out how to
change it on OE

OE? Wouldn't know, but you can always copy/paste it into Notepad if you
want to see how it should look.

--
Dave...

Tom Anderson said:

I think he was referring to the fact that the thing at the top
of the eastern lane:

Quoted message said:

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \

Looks less like an upside-down bike and more like a severed
head ...

Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that. Spooky.

--
Dave...

"Tom Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

MartinM said:

> I have nothing worthy to add to this discussion, but that's the best
> bit of ASCII art I've seen on usenet in a while. Gold star :-)

Is decapitation now the penalty for walking in the bike lane though?
;-)

It only looks that way because you are viewing it in a proportional
font. Try switching to something like Courier.

I think he was referring to the fact that the thing at the top of the
eastern lane:

Quoted message said:

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \

Looks less like an upside-down bike and more like a severed head ...

Oh Yes! a useful alternative to the congestion charge I suppose, just put
your head on a spike on London Bridge if you don't pay up

no it's my font but can't for the life of me work out how to change it on OE

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

no it's my font but can't for the life of me work out how to change it

on

Quoted message said:

OE

Tools->Options->Read->Fonts, and change the 'proportional' one to courier
new. (the other one should already be that way).
Do it for both Western European and Unicode.

(I don't believe in email being in proportional text...)

cheers,
clive

thanks, can see it pefectly now, even better than the troll-ometer!