Today's Grauniad

Dan Gregory said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1871017,00.html

:-))

Normally I don't like her columns but I just love this quote:

If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists about
cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."

...d

Dan Gregory said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1871017,00.html

:-))

I thought your link would be this one, but it wasn't:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1870934,00.html

Wherein Matt Seaton paraphrases Ian Walker's findings but then ends
with, "Armed with this new knowledge, it is tempting to throw away the
helmet, on the assumption that my cycling will be safer and more
pleasant without. But I'm convinced helmets do prevent injury and save
lives. I'm definitely thinking about getting a wig to wear under it,
though."

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1870934,00.html

Wherein Matt Seaton paraphrases Ian Walker's findings but then ends
with, "Armed with this new knowledge, it is tempting to throw away the
helmet, on the assumption that my cycling will be safer and more
pleasant without. But I'm convinced helmets do prevent injury and save
lives. I'm definitely thinking about getting a wig to wear under it,
though."

Seaton wrote a column a year or two back that basically said 'people
have tried to convince me that helmets are a bad idea, but because
a helmet once saved my life the research must be wrong and I now
think helmets should be compulsory.'

The man's a bit of a pillock, if you ask me.

John

Quoted message said:

The man's a bit of a pillock, if you ask me.

Yer not wrong there. The same pillock wrote this week that he wouldn't
want to have a bell on his bike /for aesthetic reasons/.

I actually have a bell on my bike - I even use it sometimes. Indeed, I
have it through choice, for the simple reason that it /can/ sometimes
be useful when riding on shared paths, to warn people that I am coming
up behind them - usually it takes several rings before they acknowledge
it, but most of the time they cotton on eventually.

However, I would seriously question the usefulness of a bell for road
cycling - especially since most of the so-called bells sold in bike
shops make a barely audible 'ping' at best. It took me ages of
searching to find a bell that made a half-decent 'ding-a-ling' - and
it's still somewhat quieter than I would like.

That said, I recently acquired an Air Zound - my brother was given it
free and didn't want it for himself - but I haven't used it yet. I must
give it a go - it would have been handy this morning to use on the
large group of tourists going through Kensington Gardens, who refused
to acknowledge my bell however many times I rang it.

I had to resort to bellowing "excuse me" in the end, which just got me
dirty looks. I have no problem with slowing down and giving pedestrians
priority on shared paths, but hogging the whole path and refusing to
make way for other path users is just downright rude.

So, license plates and bells for cyclists by all means, but only if we
can also introduce mandatory indicators and rear-view mirrors for
pedestrians.

d.

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Dan Gregory said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1871017,00.html

:-))

Normally I don't like her columns but I just love this quote:

If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists about
cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."

Agreed. I have, in fact, just stolen it for a .sig

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

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.

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

Quoted message said:

So, license plates and bells for cyclists by all means, but only if we
can also introduce mandatory indicators and rear-view mirrors for
pedestrians.

Pedestrians sometimes need to be prosecuted for walking without due care and
attention, walking with ipods etc, using mobile phones without pulling over
to the edge of the path and of course just geneerally getting into a deep
thought or conversation with someone without any other cares in the world.

I mmet them all when riding on the towpath and they look at you as though
you are stupid.

DaveB

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians sometimes need to be prosecuted for walking without due
care and attention, walking with ipods etc, using mobile phones
without pulling over to the edge of the path and of course just
geneerally getting into a deep thought or conversation with someone
without any other cares in the world.

Not forgetting crossing roads when the man is red and not crossing roads at
designated points.

Dave

Dave L said:

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians sometimes need to be prosecuted for walking without due
care and attention, walking with ipods etc, using mobile phones
without pulling over to the edge of the path and of course just
geneerally getting into a deep thought or conversation with someone
without any other cares in the world.

Not forgetting crossing roads when the man is red and not crossing roads at
designated points.

Why? What is wrong with crossing the road away from 'designated
crossing points'?

Roads are multimodal shared use facilities. That includes pedestrians.

...d

David Martin said:

Why? What is wrong with crossing the road away from 'designated
crossing points'?

I suspect it is only a matter of time before some clever backbencher
tries to introduce jaywalking to the statute...

Quoted message said:

Roads are multimodal shared use facilities. That includes pedestrians.

Just out of interest, what is the legal status of the little red/green
men? Can you be done for crossing on a red man (assuming the way is
clear)?

I also wonder about the legal status of the barriers along the edge of
the footpath on some busy roads - eg Marylebone Rd, which I was trying
to cross only recently and had to go some distance out of my way to do
so. I'm sure the authorities would claim the barriers are there for my
safety, but like all such measures I'm well aware that the true reason
is to make life easier for motorists.

Would I have a case against the council if I tried to make them remove
the barriers on a 'right of way' claim?

And to get this back on topic, same question goes for using the Euston
underpass on a bicycle, which is currently banned, meaning you have to
negotiate several sets of traffic lights instead of using the
convenient, direct route.

Oh yes, there's no doubt about it, we're heading the way of the US when
it comes to the 'rights' of motorists v. anyone else who wants to get
from A to B...

d.

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Dave L said:

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians sometimes need to be prosecuted for walking without due
care and attention, walking with ipods etc, using mobile phones
without pulling over to the edge of the path and of course just
geneerally getting into a deep thought or conversation with someone
without any other cares in the world.

Not forgetting crossing roads when the man is red and not crossing
roads at designated points.

Why? What is wrong with crossing the road away from 'designated
crossing points'?

Read the post that I was following up

On 13 Sep,

Dan Gregory said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1871017,00.html

:-))

They'll be suggesting a big sign for us to wear saying unclean next!

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Dave L said:

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians sometimes need to be prosecuted for walking without due
care and attention, walking with ipods etc, using mobile phones
without pulling over to the edge of the path and of course just
geneerally getting into a deep thought or conversation with someone
without any other cares in the world.

Not forgetting crossing roads when the man is red and not crossing roads
at designated points.

Why? What is wrong with crossing the road away from 'designated
crossing points'?

Roads are multimodal shared use facilities. That includes pedestrians.

Actually, roads are there - in law anyway - primarily for pedestrians, and
every other user is there on sufferance.

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

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

davek said:

And to get this back on topic, same question goes for using the Euston
underpass on a bicycle, which is currently banned, meaning you have to
negotiate several sets of traffic lights instead of using the
convenient, direct route.

Is it? When did that happen?

Haven't been up there for a while, but I never used to consider doing
anything but use the underpass - same at Hyde Park Corner. Kingsway
now, that's a little less pleasant ...

Quoted message said:

Oh yes, there's no doubt about it, we're heading the way of the US when
it comes to the 'rights' of motorists v. anyone else who wants to get
from A to B...

Amen to that. I do wish the buggers would remember they only have a
*licence* to use the roads.

John

Quoted message said:

Is it? When did that happen?

I don't know when but I am fairly sure it is - I remember seeing it on a
sign when I was up that way recently.

Unless I'm misremembering and it's the Hyde Park Corner underpass I'm
thinking of.

Or unless I'm imagining it completely...

d.

davek said:

Quoted message said:

Is it? When did that happen?

I don't know when but I am fairly sure it is - I remember seeing it on a
sign when I was up that way recently.

Unless I'm misremembering and it's the Hyde Park Corner underpass I'm
thinking of.

Or unless I'm imagining it completely...

I've not been that way for about a year but I don't remember the Euston
Underpass being closed to cycles.

However, you possibly don't want to use it in high winds (the underpass
itself is fine once you are underground, but the mouth can have the
wind blowing from bizarre directions that you can't anticipate but just
have to react to)

Tim.

Quoting davek <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

And to get this back on topic, same question goes for using the Euston
underpass on a bicycle, which is currently banned, meaning you have to
negotiate several sets of traffic lights instead of using the
convenient, direct route.

I think you are thinking of the underpass reached when you go North across
Waterloo Bridge, where cycling is banned. I have never seen any indication
that cycling is banned at Euston.

Mind you, the Waterloo one would be jolly handy too.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, September.