On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:44:16 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:
wrote:
If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated
lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling.
No they aren't, you bloody fool. Some of them are existing bus lanes,
some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade
segregated paths built [...]
So, "No they aren't (segregated paths)", followed by "some are
segregated paths". No, you're right, I don't see any contradiction
there at all. LOL!
Boris might as well turf them over and plant geraniums - the 'hard
case' cyclists always, always, ALWAYS ignore areas dedicated for their
use. Ironically, they complain about cars, but then say they only use
the primary part of the road because cars have swept them clear of
debris!
Whoever 'for_chappers' is hasn't been reading the posts carefully for
the past few weeks/ months. There is no "always, ALWAYS".
And 'irony' doesn't come in to it either as there has been a lot of info
about how much crap there is in segregated and even just separately
marked cycle lanes.
I wouldn't drive in that stuff - why should anyone have to cycle in it?
Please keep up, thanks.
And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white
line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates
cycists from drivers.
Well okay lets not get into a discourse on the definition of a word -
whatever you call it, a part of the road that is only to be used by
cyclists to the exclusion of other traffic ALWAYS falls into disuse
quickly because the riders prefer the part of the road that is 'swept'
by car tyres. So the point remains true - to REMOVE bikes from a road,
make provisions FOR bikes on that road!