Another Farcility

Tony Raven said:

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

Why have we have got it so utterly, utterly wrong in this country?

Tony Raven said:

Scene elsewhere.

http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

You couldn't make it up!

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

druidh

"Simonb" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

Quoted message said:

Why have we have got it so utterly, utterly wrong in this country?

Because generations have not cycled for normal transport and cycling &
cyclists are despised (except when it makes a pretty story for the local
paper).

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

druidh said:

Tony Raven said:

Scene elsewhere.

http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

You couldn't make it up!

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

That's what I thought

"MartinM" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

druidh said:

Tony Raven said:

Scene elsewhere.

http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

You couldn't make it up!

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

Quoted message said:

That's what I thought

Why bother using it? What's the point? When rejoining the carriageway,
you have to turn right & cross both streams of traffic.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with that one?

That's what I thought

Can I say <aol>me too</aol> now they don't do usenet access?

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with that one?

That's what I thought

Can I say <aol>me too</aol> now they don't do usenet access?

eh what, the Omni Consumer Products of the web don't allow you to have
a newsreader?
Try Google groups instead; I would say ditch AOL as well but apparently
you can't ;-(

At Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:18:32 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by druidh
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with that one?

Apart from being on the wrong side of the road for cyclists able to
read the sign?

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

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

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

druidh said:

Tony Raven wrote:
> Scene elsewhere.
>
> http://simon.nuttall.name/temp/cyclists_rejoin_carriageway.jpg
>
> "Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"
>
> You couldn't make it up!
>
OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

Quoted message said:

That's what I thought

Why bother using it? What's the point?

you could say that about any psychopath but the signing on this one
seems OK for people who _are_ using it. To not add the sign would be
very remiss if cyclists were to try and ride down that narrow footpath
against uncoming (or so it seems to me). Difficult to judge how useless
this farcility is without seeing the rest of it behind the camera.

Quoted message said:

Edgware.

druidh said:

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

Why bother putting a cycle lane in the first place if it ends prematurely
meaning that a cyclist must "Proceed on foot" if he's to continue to use it?
Can you see anyone who might already be on it actually obeying the
instruction?

Just zis Guy said:

At Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:18:32 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by druidh
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with that one?

Apart from being on the wrong side of the road for cyclists able to
read the sign?

Eh?

Surely you'd see the sign as you approach the end of the cycle path? You
then have a choice (a) cross the carriageway and cycle along the road or
(b) push your bike along the footpath.

druidh

Simonb said:

druidh said:

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

Why bother putting a cycle lane in the first place if it ends prematurely
meaning that a cyclist must "Proceed on foot" if he's to continue to use it?
Can you see anyone who might already be on it actually obeying the
instruction?

Yes - why wouldn't they?

druidh

druidh said:

Just zis Guy said:

At Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:18:32 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by druidh
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with that one?

Apart from being on the wrong side of the road for cyclists able to
read the sign?

Eh?

Surely you'd see the sign as you approach the end of the cycle path? You
then have a choice (a) cross the carriageway and cycle along the road or
(b) push your bike along the footpath.

Opposed to b
Seems somehow to miss the purpose of both paths and bike

There is a bridge on a bike path near here.. (actually a couple of
them) where you are supposed to walk the bike. Doesnt work too well if
you meet someone else walking theres tho as the bridge is just about 2
bicycles wide.

dave said:

There is a bridge on a bike path near here.. (actually a couple of
them) where you are supposed to walk the bike. Doesnt work too well if
you meet someone else walking theres tho as the bridge is just about 2
bicycles wide.

Similar problem on an aqueduct near me. It becomes a game of "who can
sequester the barrier side first".

druidh

druidh said:

dave said:

There is a bridge on a bike path near here.. (actually a couple of
them) where you are supposed to walk the bike. Doesnt work too well
if you meet someone else walking theres tho as the bridge is just
about 2 bicycles wide.

Similar problem on an aqueduct near me. It becomes a game of "who can
sequester the barrier side first".

druidh

barrier side? Er you will have to explain aqueduct to me ...
seriously.. 🙂

most people ride these bridges, then its just a question of edging past
handlebars.. Its a real hastle if you meet someone walking their
bike.. but its doable of course. I have no idea what happens if you
meet someone with a kiddie trailer , they pretty much expect you to
ride off the path usually.. . One of these bridges has stairs pretty
close to the end of it anyway.. No signs to say dismount for stairs but
most people do 🙂

Simonb said:

Tony Raven said:

"Cyclists rejoin carriageway or proceed on foot"

Why have we have got it so utterly, utterly wrong in this country?

Dare I say it. but 'effin *campaigning* 'cyclists' are often 'motorists' too.
<ducks>

John B

druidh said:

Simonb said:

druidh said:

OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .

What's wrong with that one?

Why bother putting a cycle lane in the first place if it ends
prematurely meaning that a cyclist must "Proceed on foot" if he's to
continue to use it? Can you see anyone who might already be on it
actually obeying the instruction?

Yes - why wouldn't they?

Because pavement cyclists don't.

Simonb said:

druidh said:

Simonb said:

druidh wrote:

> OK - call me stupid but. . . . . .
>
> What's wrong with that one?

Why bother putting a cycle lane in the first place if it ends
prematurely meaning that a cyclist must "Proceed on foot" if he's to
continue to use it? Can you see anyone who might already be on it
actually obeying the instruction?

Yes - why wouldn't they?

Because pavement cyclists don't.

Yes but I think they are covering themselves (even though it is obvious
that the cycle path ends at the sign)

MartinM said:

Yes but I think they are covering themselves (even though it is
obvious that the cycle path ends at the sign)

Of course they are. It's an admission of their failure to supply a decent
facility.