Cyclists cannot ride over planned bridge

[email hidden] said the following on 16/08/2007 11:29:

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.

http://qurl.com/n122c

I wonder how peds and cyclists sharing a bridge is unsafe, but peds and
cyclists sharing (officially) a pavement is deemed to be OK?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Quoting Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet>:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said the following on 16/08/2007 11:29:

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.
http://qurl.com/n122c

I wonder how peds and cyclists sharing a bridge is unsafe, but peds and
cyclists sharing (officially) a pavement is deemed to be OK?

The original link's to a steaming mess of Javascript, but the footbridge
near where I live is no-cycling; this, I believe, is because it has a
blind corner in it. Makes sense, although proceeding at walking pace
around the corner would do equally well...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Potmos, August.

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

[email hidden] said the following on 16/08/2007 11:29:

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.

Quoted message said:

http://qurl.com/n122c

I wonder how peds and cyclists sharing a bridge is unsafe, but peds and
cyclists sharing (officially) a pavement is deemed to be OK?

--
Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

I assume they are thinking the speed difference is the issue, which it
is really - the main time cyclists are dangerous to peds is when
they're going faster than the peds by some amount. But if its not safe
to have bikes and peds on the same stretch, surely most combined cycle/
footways are also unsafe.....

David Damerell said:

Quoting Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet>:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said the following on 16/08/2007 11:29:

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.
http://qurl.com/n122c

I wonder how peds and cyclists sharing a bridge is unsafe, but peds and
cyclists sharing (officially) a pavement is deemed to be OK?

The original link's to a steaming mess of Javascript, but the footbridge
near where I live is no-cycling; this, I believe, is because it has a
blind corner in it. Makes sense, although proceeding at walking pace
around the corner would do equally well...

I can't really see anything wrong with requiring cyclists to dismount
_if_ the bridge is such that to not do so is dangerous. However this is
a new bridge, it hasn't been built yet, so surely the common sense thing
to do would be to go back and design a bridge that it is safe to cycle
over. If the architects cannot manage that (award winning or not) then
find different architects. It does sound though as if this particular
design is a triumph of design over function.

Andrew

Andrew May said:

architects .... a triumph of design over function.

I think that is tautology ;-)

Tony

Paul Boyd said:

[email hidden] said the following on 16/08/2007 11:29:

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.

http://qurl.com/n122c

I wonder how peds and cyclists sharing a bridge is unsafe, but peds and
cyclists sharing (officially) a pavement is deemed to be OK?

Pavements don't usually move.

Could it be that the council have got cold-feet over the prospect of
defending claims against them for allowing cyclists to endanger
themselves, and others, by riding onto, and along a moving structure.

--
Matt B

Tony Raven said:

Andrew May said:

architects .... a triumph of design over function.

I think that is tautology ;-)

Tony

Why? I actually have a lot of respect for what some architects can do in
difficult situations. I also sometime secretly wish that I had gone into
architecture rather than engineering but that is another story. However
I am also very well aware that some architects are quite capable of
designing something that looks very impressive but actually fails to
satisfactorily achieve what they set out to do. I fear that this bridge
may be one of those occasions. Hence my comment.

Andrew

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:17:39 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

architects .... a triumph of design over function.

I think that is tautology ;-)

It is indeed. The problem is that the word design has been
appropriated by various groups of "artistic" people.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:53:10 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

I wonder how peds and cyclists sharing a bridge is unsafe, but peds and
cyclists sharing (officially) a pavement is deemed to be OK?

Cross-winds?

Nick.

CoyoteBoy said the following on 16/08/2007 15:07:

Quoted message said:

But if its not safe
to have bikes and peds on the same stretch, surely most combined cycle/
footways are also unsafe.....

You win the prize for spotting precisely the point I was making :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Matt B said the following on 16/08/2007 15:30:

Quoted message said:

Pavements don't usually move.

Nor do bridges when they are in use.

Quoted message said:

Could it be that the council have got cold-feet over the prospect of
defending claims against them for allowing cyclists to endanger
themselves, and others, by riding onto, and along a moving structure.

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. Presumably whilst the
bridge is moving then *no-one* will be on it. If it's not moving it's
no different to any other shared path.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.

We have had exactly the same situation in Bristol, twice!

The first time, Pero's Bridge for anyone that knows it, the planning
committee gave permission for peds-only bridge, despite it being on a
council-defined "strategic cycle route" I took them to the ombudsman and
won. We were told many times that it would never happen again, and that
cyclists would definitely be allowed to ride over the other planned bridge
in the docks.

No. Valentines Bridge was designed by idiots (WS Atkins, are you blushing?)
despite being planned as a ped/cyclist bridge, it was designed as ped-only,
and approved by, you guessed, the planners. Allegedly, a cyclist fell off
because the surface wasn't suitable for cycling, so the owners put up
chicanes to make the cyclists dismount, which the council then refused
planning permission for and supposedly issued an enforcement notice - three
years later, they're still there.

Oh, and Sustrans gave the bridge an award for being so good for cyclists.
The local paper featured the story and took a picture which managed to mask
the "cyclists dismount" signs.

My advice is to make very large waves indeed, all the press and publicity
you can get, now and at the planning committee, pointing out that their
planning policies include cycling, and if this goes ahead, you will be
asking for an investigation into why they aren't following their own
policies.

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said the following on 16/08/2007 15:30:

Quoted message said:

Pavements don't usually move.

Nor do bridges when they are in use.

Quoted message said:

Could it be that the council have got cold-feet over the prospect of
defending claims against them for allowing cyclists to endanger
themselves, and others, by riding onto, and along a moving structure.

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. Presumably whilst the
bridge is moving then *no-one* will be on it. If it's not moving it's no
different to any other shared path.

In the city of Hull, all of the bridges that have a shared path advise the
cyclist to dismount. The only shared paths in the city are ex railway lines
where presumably there is enough width for both peds and cyclists to exist
side by side.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

CoyoteBoy said the following on 16/08/2007 15:07:

Quoted message said:

But if its not safe
to have bikes and peds on the same stretch, surely most combined cycle/
footways are also unsafe.....

You win the prize for spotting precisely the point I was making :-)

Woo 🙂 I win a prize! First one in ages!

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>
My advice is to make very large waves indeed, all the press and publicity
you can get, now and at the planning committee, pointing out that their
planning policies include cycling, and if this goes ahead, you will be
asking for an investigation into why they aren't following their own
policies.

Like one of the replies to the article says - the police are likely to turn
a blind eye to anyone not dismounting.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Paul Boyd said:

Matt B said the following on 16/08/2007 15:30:

Quoted message said:

Pavements don't usually move.

Nor do bridges when they are in use.

The Severn Bridge & the Golden Gate Bridge move a lot!!

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.

http://qurl.com/n122c

Does anyone have any more information on this planning application, e.g
the application number, deadlines etc? As a transport planner working to
prevent this kind of thing I feel the need to have a look at the
application and quite possibly object...

Quoted post said:

Report in local rag about a proposed bridge where cyclist are supposed
to get off and push.

http://qurl.com/n122c

--
Simon Mason

Typical Hull City Council. Last time I was in Hull the bridge over to
'The Deep' - officially built as a cycle bridge using Millennium
funds- still had no signs on it showing it was accessible to cycles,
seven years after it was built!

I also suspect that the new clause in 'The Highway Code' about
cyclists dismounting at level crossings has a lot to do with the car-
centric jokers in Hull City Council!

Simon Mason said:

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>
My advice is to make very large waves indeed, all the press and publicity
you can get, now and at the planning committee, pointing out that their
planning policies include cycling, and if this goes ahead, you will be
asking for an investigation into why they aren't following their own
policies.

Like one of the replies to the article says - the police are likely to turn
a blind eye to anyone not dismounting.

Unless they're bike cops. Mate just got nabbed for turning right
across a major junction on an all-green pedestrian phase. Bike cop
said "you give people like us a bad name"!! Got himself a NIP for it
(failing to observe a traffic sign/signal I presume).