another farcility...

davek said:

(or <url:http://tinyurl.com/gd8rz>😉

I shall be forwarding these to the WCC.

The mind boggles. "Put some bollards in to stop 4x4s parking up on it"
- brilliant. "Let's put them on the cycle path itself" - ???!!!

R.

"davek" <[email hidden]> wrote:
| ... (on the other side, with the
| footpath, it is just allotments). ...

Oi! You don't use words like "just" about allotments.
Unless, of course, you mean "as opposed to unjust".

If only those bollards were more central it would a great slalom course

"davek" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Spotted this one when I took a different route to the station from
normal yesterday morning.

Geraint Jones said:

Oi! You don't use words like "just" about allotments.
Unless, of course, you mean "as opposed to unjust".

Heh. I used to have a plot there but I now have a third of an acre of
garden instead... I meant "just" allotments to highlight that there is
relatively little traffic attracted by what's on that side of the road
(compared to the amount of traffic attracted by the large - and
recently expanded - high school on the opposite side).

d.

davek said:

Spotted this one when I took a different route to the station from
normal yesterday morning.

Yes, that is fairly appalling. One of the disturbing things about all
these farcilities is that the people designing them cannot have the
least idea about cycling. And judging from these photos they're
fairly clue-free about the behaviour of pedestrians too. What
pedestrian in their right mind is going to edge along the footpath
with their arms outstretched and their back to the fence like a
cat burglar on a high ledge in order to stay off the cyce side?

It's all too depressing. :-(

--
Dave...

The council officials responsible should be shot with blunderbusses
filled with their own excrement.

These people are wasting OUR money.

John Hearns said:

The council officials responsible should be shot with blunderbusses
filled with their own excrement.

These people are wasting OUR money.

I suspect that much of the problem is to to with Targets (Got to have cycle
lanes so they get put in anyway even if unsuitable) and Ring Fenced money
(Can only be spent on cycle infratructure/lanes) bothe these work agains the
sensible logic: If a road is too narrow for proper cycle laces don't put one
in at all.

pk

p.k. said:

If a road is too narrow for proper cycle laces don't put one
in at all.

Are these like really wide 70s ties: laces so wide that you can't fit
down the road?

:-)

Sorry. I agree with your intended sentiment, though.

PhilD

--
<><

p.k. said:

John Hearns said:

The council officials responsible should be shot with blunderbusses
filled with their own excrement.

These people are wasting OUR money.

I suspect that much of the problem is to to with Targets (Got to have cycle
lanes so they get put in anyway even if unsuitable) and Ring Fenced money
(Can only be spent on cycle infratructure/lanes) bothe these work agains the
sensible logic: If a road is too narrow for proper cycle laces don't put one
in at all.

We have been trying to persuade TPTB in our meetings with them that
splashing white paint around is counterproductive, but putting bike
route signs up is A Good Idea and is very cheap per mile.
And without the hassle of having to do any engineering.
And without th ecurse of crappy painted pavements
And they get to meet their targets..

...d

davek wrote:
<farcility details snipped>

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed? You're all 100%
spot on; these decisions are made by people with zero understanding or
experience[1] of cycling but unless people turn up to point this out,
they will continue to squander /your/ money on this dangerous junk.

[1] Acutally, it's worse than zero. There is a widespread belief that
cyclists /want/ to be on the pavement.

Not Responding said:

davek wrote:
<farcility details snipped>

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed? You're all 100%
spot on; these decisions are made by people with zero understanding or
experience[1] of cycling but unless people turn up to point this out,
they will continue to squander /your/ money on this dangerous junk.

But unless you are a political hack, no one hears about these meetings.
It is almost as if they don't want their cosy world disturbed. <5 mins
later> Or is that because we don't look.

I have just found the Dundee ones very quickly on-line and will
certainly keep my eyes open for anything worth attending. Not sure
though whether the cycling comes under transport or leisure and arts.
It might come under both.

...d

Not Responding said:

davek wrote:
<farcility details snipped>

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed? You're all 100%
spot on; these decisions are made by people with zero understanding or
experience[1] of cycling but unless people turn up to point this out,
they will continue to squander /your/ money on this dangerous junk.

[1] Acutally, it's worse than zero. There is a widespread belief that
cyclists /want/ to be on the pavement.

Why should you need to do that? These people are paid to be and should
be professionals. Do you expect to turn up to your relative's operation
to make sure the surgeon knows what they should do or sit in the cockpit
to make sure the pilot knows how to fly when you go on holiday. If they
are not competent to do the job they are paid to do without members of
the public having to sit over them then perhaps they and the person who
employed them should seek other employment.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Martin said:

Not sure though whether the cycling comes under transport or
leisure and arts. It might come under both.

In North Ayrshire cemeteries come under the Leisure Dept. - suppose
it figures.

--
T h e - e x t e n d e r ! ! ! !

Not Responding said:

Quoted message said:

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed? You're all 100%
spot on; these decisions are made by people with zero understanding or
experience[1] of cycling but unless people turn up to point this out,
they will continue to squander /your/ money on this dangerous junk.

and David Martin responded:

Quoted message said:

But unless you are a political hack, no one hears about these meetings.
It is almost as if they don't want their cosy world disturbed. <5 mins
later> Or is that because we don't look.

Coincidentally, I left work early to attend just such a meeting this
evening.

For the first time, the council's executive member for planning and
transportation was in attendance. Disturbingly, she admitted that she
can't ride a bike. Still more disturbingly, I overheard her expressing
disbelief that cyclists object to allowing horses onto cyclepaths.

But what do you do if such public meetings do not occur? Until last
year, such was the case in South Gloucestershire. Local cyclists
(particularly Rich/Burt of this parish) had to push quite hard to get
the council to hold these meetings. In the past it has usually been the
case that such dangerous junk gets installed with *no* public
consultation. Even /with/ the bimonthly cycle forum meetings, it still
happens.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

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

Quoted message said:

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed? You're all 100%
spot on; these decisions are made by people with zero understanding or
experience[1] of cycling but unless people turn up to point this out,
they will continue to squander /your/ money on this dangerous junk.

OTOH even if you do turn up and voice your concerns, prepare to be ignored.
Round here we're getting consulted on cycle routes. Some sensible, but the
cycling officer guy (do you read URC?) is very keen on one completely
unnecessary pavement route which has the rather poor feature of ending at a
junction and expecting all the riders to cross the prevailing traffic flow.
The basic excuse is 'it's for kids, so it can afford to be bad'.

Fortunately it's also the most expensive, which has put it on the low
priority list, but I've really got my work cut out to argue with this. It
doesn't help that none of the other cyclists who are showing themselves for
the consultation see it as a problem.

(and it's not as if the guy isn't a cyclist either...)

cheers,
clive

Tony Raven said:

Not Responding said:

davek wrote:
<farcility details snipped>

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Why should you need to do that? These people are paid to be and should
be professionals. Do you expect to turn up to your relative's operation
to make sure the surgeon knows what they should do or sit in the cockpit
to make sure the pilot knows how to fly when you go on holiday. If they
are not competent to do the job they are paid to do without members of
the public having to sit over them then perhaps they and the person who
employed them should seek other employment.

The people who make the decisions are most certainly /not/
professionals. They are bog standard lay people like you and, er, me.
Indeed, they take /advice/ from professionals but when it comes to
roads related matters these experts are likely to be very car
orientated. In fact the lay councillors who appointed them will
probably have appointed them for that very reason.

There may be a cynical suspicion among cyclists that such facilities
are designed to deliberately deter cyclists and speed the flow of motor
traffic (I've heard it said here). But the truth is, IMO, /worse/.
These [censored] facilities are put in because they believe it's what
cyclists want.

If cyclists don't put them right, we'll continue to get [censored]
facilities. How do you put them right? Watch the agendas of the
Planning & Transportation committees etc and make deputations (most
councils allow this). Write letters to the once who decide.

Finally, as I say, councillors are not professionals; while it is true
that councillors do get paid, it is a minimal sum that works out as
less than the minimum wage and most of which gets eaten up by expenses.

Danny Colyer said:

Not Responding said:

Quoted message said:

Look, I hate to say this /again/ but did any local cyclists turn up to
any of the council meetings where this was discussed? You're all 100%
spot on; these decisions are made by people with zero understanding or
experience[1] of cycling but unless people turn up to point this out,
they will continue to squander /your/ money on this dangerous junk.

and David Martin responded:

Quoted message said:

But unless you are a political hack, no one hears about these meetings.
It is almost as if they don't want their cosy world disturbed. <5 mins
later> Or is that because we don't look.

Coincidentally, I left work early to attend just such a meeting this
evening.

For the first time, the council's executive member for planning and
transportation was in attendance. Disturbingly, she admitted that she
can't ride a bike. Still more disturbingly, I overheard her expressing
disbelief that cyclists object to allowing horses onto cyclepaths.

But what do you do if such public meetings do not occur? Until last
year, such was the case in South Gloucestershire. Local cyclists
(particularly Rich/Burt of this parish) had to push quite hard to get
the council to hold these meetings. In the past it has usually been the
case that such dangerous junk gets installed with *no* public
consultation. Even /with/ the bimonthly cycle forum meetings, it still
happens.

I'm not talking about Cycle Forums and Cyclist Consultation. I'm
talking about the Planning & Transportation meetings [1] and so on.
These are where the decisions are made although they may pay heed to
output from meetings with cyclists. In fact, forget cyclists' forums
altogether (I refuse to have one round here) it seems to be treated as
a safe ring fenced talking shop that keeps trouble makers away from the
P&T committee where the real business of keeping the cars moving can
take place uninterrupted.

[1] Well, it's less clear cut now with cabinet system authorities,
executives with power and a scrutiny body. You might need to dig a bit
but the principle remains that all decisions are accountable and
certainly do not take place in Cyclists' Forums.

"p.k." <[email hidden]> wrote in message If a road is
too narrow for proper cycle laces don't put one

Quoted message said:

in at all.

pk

And if it's wide enough why put one in anyway.

Toby

Whats the problem? I dont see what you have to complain about. You're right it will stop people parking there. If the bollards where not there you would be on here saying that there are people parking on 'our' cycle path.

Bloody British people never stop whinging.