Disgraceful snide remark

John Hearns wrote on 25/07/2006 16:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Get this:

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=242

"As visitors to the Weekly Gripe website make clear, the new breed of
cyclist – helped by wheelchairfriendly ramps that have been added to every
pavement "

So let's not have all those bothersome dropped pavements so that
wheelchair users can get along the street?
Outrageous gutter journalism. If journalists made snide remarks like that
about ethnic minorities they would be prosecuted.

If you want to have your say, the have your say page on the story is here:
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On 25/07/2006 16:42, John Hearns said,

Quoted message said:

Outrageous gutter journalism. If journalists made snide remarks like that
about ethnic minorities they would be prosecuted.

I don't understand why these sort of articles are never written about
car drivers. "Most" jump red lights where I live, "most" ignore give
way markings or signs, "most" exceed the speed limit, "most" drive
inconsiderately and recklessly.

I'm sure that the word "most" is totally inaccurate, but as it's the
same word that is applied to cyclists, I don't see why it can't be
applied to cars, vans or buses.

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

On 25/07/2006 17:32, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

If you want to have your say, the have your say page on the story is here:
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

Hmmm.. that's a different story with the same first paragraph. I can't
find the author's name on either version...

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

Paul Boyd wrote on 25/07/2006 17:38 +0100:

Quoted message said:

On 25/07/2006 17:32, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

If you want to have your say, the have your say page on the story is
here:
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

Hmmm.. that's a different story with the same first paragraph. I can't
find the author's name on either version...

I think its a synopsis to the story for the feedback section - for those
Daily Outrage readers who can't be bothered to read the actual story
before putting outraged fingers to keyboard.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

In article said:

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=242
"As visitors to the Weekly Gripe website make clear, the new breed of
cyclist – helped by wheelchairfriendly ramps that have been added to every
pavement "

So let's not have all those bothersome dropped pavements so that
wheelchair users can get along the street?
Outrageous gutter journalism.

That might might be true of the article as a whole, but surely "let's have
wheelchair friendly ramps but let's have cyclists not abuse them" is as
valid an interpretation?

On 25/07/2006 18:47, Alan Braggins said,

Quoted message said:

That might might be true of the article as a whole, but surely "let's have
wheelchair friendly ramps but let's have cyclists not abuse them" is as
valid an interpretation?

Except where local councils paint white lines leading up and over these
ramps, across pedestrian crossings and in front of bus stops, with a few
random white bike symbols thrown around for good measure. Actually, I
think this is the councils abusing the ramps, not the cyclists.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Get this:

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=242

"As visitors to the Weekly Gripe website make clear, the new breed of
cyclist – helped by wheelchairfriendly ramps that have been added to every
pavement "

I was surprised to see no reference to Princess Diana's death.

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

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:04:42 +0100,

Paul Boyd said:

On 25/07/2006 18:47, Alan Braggins said,

Quoted message said:

That might might be true of the article as a whole, but surely "let's have
wheelchair friendly ramps but let's have cyclists not abuse them" is as
valid an interpretation?

Except where local councils paint white lines leading up and over these
ramps, across pedestrian crossings and in front of bus stops, with a few
random white bike symbols thrown around for good measure. Actually, I
think this is the councils abusing the ramps, not the cyclists.

What makes a pavement ok to cycle on? Is it the presence of signs, or
just a traffic order of some description?

The reason I ask is that the second nearest crossroads to where I live
has toucan crossings but AFAICT, no signs allowing cycling on the
pavement to get to the crossings.

I have little problem with pavement cycling, even the "yobs". Although
occasionally they come shooting past you at speed (probably about 12mph)
and surprise you, almost all of the time it is the surprise rather than
the danger that makes you jump. When they have to go slowly because
there isn't room to pass then they either go slowly or ride on the road
to get around. I will let pavement cyclists past when convenient but, if
it's inconvenient to me (e.g. aproaching a lamppost where either I'm
going to have to stop or they are going to have to cycle at my walking
pace for a few seconds) then I let them wait.

I have more problems with very young cyclists who are just old enough to
not have a leash connecting them to their parents. And even there, I'm
most concerned about getting tripped up and falling on them, but this
applies as much to toddlers on foot as on bicycle except that generally,
once you are past toddlers on foot then they won't catch you up again.

I do wish that they (all but the toddlers) wouldn't cycle on the
pavement. Most of the time it looks more dangerous, and they will zoom
out into the road, back onto the pavement, back onto the road and that
scares me far more. I really don't ever want to see a cyclist go under a
car or lorry; Friday night on the Euston road where it looked like a
cyclist (or at least his/her bike) had gone under a lorry was more than
I ever wanted to see and the cyclist had gone by the time I went past.
(Even worse, I ended up going past twice - because of working my way
through the traffic congestion, I forgot I wanted KX and went to Euston
as usual, then had to walk back pushing my bike because the east bound
road was completely closed)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On 25/07/2006 21:48, Tim Woodall said,

Quoted message said:

What makes a pavement ok to cycle on? Is it the presence of signs, or
just a traffic order of some description?

In the case of the specific example I mentioned (yes, that was a real
example!), the presence of little white-painted bikes on half of the
pavement, and a little blue sign indicating a segregated cycle/ped
route. These little accoutrements suddenly turn a path that is illegal
for cyclists to use because of the danger to peds into a cycle facility.
The fact that the "facility" crosses another ramp onto an island
crossing and passes in front of a bus shelter thereby increasing the
danger to peds seems to have been lost on the council. The only
advantage is that it drops back down onto the road just past a set of
lights at a junction, so if they're red a cyclist can quite legally go
onto the "pavement" and jump the red lights.

Then suddenly there are articles in daily papers decrying exactly this
behaviour! OK, in this case it's legal, and another case it may not be,
but the average Joe Public isn't going to know the difference.

Quoted message said:

I have little problem with pavement cycling

I have to confess, I am a regular pavement cyclist! This is mainly
because one cyclepath ends, but it continues at the end of a 100 yard
bit of pavement. I can choose to follow the correct route between the
two sections which involves two toucan crossings, two "gawd help you"
crossings, a leisure centre car park access road, a speed bump or two
and a wiggly cyclepath wandering around some bushes with no visibility
on the bends, or I can turn right and go on the pavement for a hundred
yards, which only involves one easy road crossing. So I use the pavement...

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

Tim Woodall wrote on 25/07/2006 21:48 +0100:

Quoted message said:

What makes a pavement ok to cycle on? Is it the presence of signs, or
just a traffic order of some description?

10.1.5 To convert all or part of a footway to cycle track, all or the
appropriate part of the footway must be removed under section 66(4) of
the Highways Act 1980, and a cycle track 'constructed' under section
65(1) of the act. No physical construction is necessary but there needs
to be clear evidence that the local highway authority has exercised
these powers. This can be provided by a resolution of the appropriate
committee."
LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists

There is nothing I am aware of to say the signs or paint have to be
used. So you need to go and look in the local Council records in the
same way as you need to go and look for records of a TRO to know whether
the solid white line at the edge of a road is a cycle lane or just an
edge of carriageway marker.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven wrote on 25/07/2006 17:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

John Hearns wrote on 25/07/2006 16:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Get this:

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=242

"As visitors to the Weekly Gripe website make clear, the new breed of
cyclist – helped by wheelchairfriendly ramps that have been added to
every
pavement "

So let's not have all those bothersome dropped pavements so that
wheelchair users can get along the street?
Outrageous gutter journalism. If journalists made snide remarks like that
about ethnic minorities they would be prosecuted.

If you want to have your say, the have your say page on the story is here:
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

Well, I never. The Express seems to have a vocal majority of cyclists
amongst its readers ;-) The only problem is, can Simon and I live down
the shame of appearing to have read the damn thing ;-)
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Response to Tony Raven:

Quoted message said:

Well, I never. The Express seems to have a vocal majority of cyclists
amongst its readers ;-) The only problem is, can Simon and I live down
the shame of appearing to have read the damn thing ;-)

Don't worry - apparently, so did Lance Armstrong! :-D

--
Mark, UK
"Prejudice is never easy unless it can pass itself off for reason."

Paul Boyd said:

On 25/07/2006 16:42, John Hearns said,

Quoted message said:

Outrageous gutter journalism. If journalists made snide remarks like that
about ethnic minorities they would be prosecuted.

I don't understand why these sort of articles are never written about
car drivers. "Most" jump red lights where I live, "most" ignore give
way markings or signs, "most" exceed the speed limit, "most" drive
inconsiderately and recklessly.

It's the old playground psychology - to make yourself popular, pick out
a minority group and [censored] them off. Seems to be the way to sell
papers, too. It's got nothing to do with high-lighting law breakers.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that the word "most" is totally inaccurate

I read 'most' as 'a significant number'

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Well, I never. The Express seems to have a vocal majority of cyclists
amongst its readers ;-) The only problem is, can Simon and I live
down the shame of appearing to have read the damn thing ;-)
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

Worse still, can we live down the shame of agreeing with one another?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

Simon Brooke wrote on 26/07/2006 14:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Well, I never. The Express seems to have a vocal majority of cyclists
amongst its readers ;-) The only problem is, can Simon and I live
down the shame of appearing to have read the damn thing ;-)
http://www.express.co.uk/have_your_say_story.html?sku=29

Worse still, can we live down the shame of agreeing with one another?

You're right. I can't live with the shame. I'm going out to ride my
bicycle without a helmet; I may be some time. ;-/

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:31:05 +0100,

Tony Raven said:

Tim Woodall wrote on 25/07/2006 21:48 +0100:

Quoted message said:

What makes a pavement ok to cycle on? Is it the presence of signs, or
just a traffic order of some description?

10.1.5 To convert all or part of a footway to cycle track, all or the
appropriate part of the footway must be removed under section 66(4) of
the Highways Act 1980, and a cycle track 'constructed' under section
65(1) of the act. No physical construction is necessary but there needs
to be clear evidence that the local highway authority has exercised
these powers. This can be provided by a resolution of the appropriate
committee."
LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists

There is nothing I am aware of to say the signs or paint have to be
used. So you need to go and look in the local Council records in the
same way as you need to go and look for records of a TRO to know whether
the solid white line at the edge of a road is a cycle lane or just an
edge of carriageway marker.

Thanks, that's useful. I might try and find out where exactly these
"cycle facilities" actually start and end but it won't be for a few
weeks.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

I can choose to follow the correct route between the two sections
which involves two toucan crossings, two "gawd help you" crossings, a
leisure centre car park access road, a speed bump or two and a wiggly
cyclepath wandering around some bushes with no visibility on the
bends, or I can turn right and go on the pavement for a hundred yards,
which only involves one easy road crossing. So I use the pavement...

I'm amazed that to avoid 100 yards along a road you need to cross five
roads and a length of cyclepath...

Why not just ride along the road rather than the pavement alongside
it?

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Tim Woodall of None said:

I do wish that they (all but the toddlers) wouldn't cycle on the
pavement. Most of the time it looks more dangerous, and they will zoom
out into the road, back onto the pavement, back onto the road and that
scares me far more.

Now this bit scares the hell out of me, as the (slow) road cyclist going in
the same direction at a similar pace. The pavement cyclists leave the
pavement and hop on to the road without looking around at all if they can't
hear any motor vehicles (and sometimes even if they can). I've had several
near misses this way when there was enough time to brake, and I did actually
just nudge one very surprised cyclist who left the pavement right in front
of me and then stopped. One of these days I'll hit one of them and I'll be
the one who is injured.
--
Steph Peters
Chorlton Wanderers Cycling Group
Monthly slow and easy rides from South Manchester
http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/cycling/chwan.htm

On 26/07/2006 20:43, Stevie D said,

Quoted message said:

I'm amazed that to avoid 100 yards along a road you need to cross five
roads and a length of cyclepath...

Technically, I have would have to cross the same road three times -
twice at one end because there are two separate crossing - one for each
direction of travel on the road. The correct route is probably getting
on for 250 yards, but with all the crossings and faffing about it takes
ages.

Quoted message said:

Why not just ride along the road rather than the pavement alongside
it?

Because to do that I have to cross the two separate toucan crossings to
get onto the correct side of the road, negotiate a roundabout (OK - not
a major challenge, this one!), then get back across onto the other side
of the road to pick up the cyclepath again. If I stayed on the road it
is very narrow and a very busy rat-run, with zero tolerance drivers when
they see a perfectly good cycle lane alongside the road. None of this
is exactly difficult, but I just can't be arsed to faff about with
ridiculous farcilities after work. So I use 100 yds of pavement that
for pedestrians goes from nowhere to nowhere, so there aren't any....

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