On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:21:22 +0100, Adrian wrote:

Jeremy Collins ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

It has some flaws though. When trying to plan a route to take me
from Bard Road, W10 to Bowes Road, W3, the route suggested would take
me along the A40(M) - not a problem in itself, I've, err, done that
stretch of moterway on my bicycle before

Is that legal? I live near the A1(M) and certainly wouldn't cycle on
it

Y'know, I was always under the impression that the Highway Code applied
to
cyclists, and that they were meant to *read* it occasionally...?

shrug
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.htm#227

Would you like to hazard a guess as to what the (M) stands for?

I know perfectly well what the M stands for. I think you misunderstood
my post.

--
jc

Adrian wrote:
Tony Raven ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :


I guess the question is how many times have you seen someone cycling
on a motorway (Kenyan team at the Manchester Commonwealth Games
excluded) versus how many times have I seen cars and motorbikes driven
on bridleways? Bet my number is bigger than yours.


Are we back to trying to figure out how many wrongs make a right?


So I take it the answer is you have never seen someone cycling on a
motorway. So much for your HC ignorant cyclists.

However, don't forget that some Bridleways are BOATs, though, and that
vehicles don't need an explicit RoW if they have the landowner's
permission.

No BOATs and Bridleways are different. Only the fast disappearing RUPPs
have variable access rights for motor vehicles and most of those will be
reclassified as Restricted Byways with no motor vehicle rights.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:57:32 +0100, Colin wrote:

There is a small part of my conspiratorial mind that makes me think it
might be part of a wider plan though.

What says you all?

I'd say that cycle routes are very subjective as there are many factors
that can make them good or bad to any given individual cyclist, and as
such they're best planned with a map and experience.

To some extent. Certainly, people have different likes and dislikes for
their routes, but i think there's a reasonable amount of agreement about
what makes a good route. The problem is that the mapping sites don't
incorporate that - they just find the shortest route over the roads,
possibly avoiding classes of roads which they think are scary for
cyclists.

An idea i've been kicking around for a while is to start a website - a
sort of 'cyclist's rutter' - collecting people's tried and tested routes,
broken up into routes between key nodal points, so that someone wanting to
get from A to B can come along and pick out route components which will
help them. This would beat just using a map, since it would incorporate
human judgement on the routes. The routes could also be annotated with
comments, pictures, directions, whatever, which would make them more
useful.

tom

--
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. -- Voltaire

Tony Raven ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I guess the question is how many times have you seen someone cycling
on a motorway (Kenyan team at the Manchester Commonwealth Games
excluded) versus how many times have I seen cars and motorbikes driven
on bridleways? Bet my number is bigger than yours.

Are we back to trying to figure out how many wrongs make a right?

So I take it the answer is you have never seen someone cycling on a
motorway. So much for your HC ignorant cyclists.

I have, actually. But not many people are stupid enough, it's true.

Bear in mind, though, that my post was in response to Jeremy explicitly
asking if cycling on a motorway was legal - to which he really ought to
know the answer.

That doesn't alter the fundamental lack of a 2:1 exchange rate between
wrongs and rights. I've never seen anybody stealing a car, but that
doesn't mean shoplifting is okay, just because more people do it.

No BOATs and Bridleways are different.

You are, of course, right. I was mentally thinking of BOAT as Bridleway
Open to All Traffic, when it is - of course - a Byway Open to All Traffic.
Mea Culpa.

Only the fast disappearing RUPPs have variable access rights for motor
vehicles and most of those will be reclassified as Restricted Byways with
no motor vehicle rights.

Don't remind me. It would seem that exclusive use of 95% of RoWs isn't
enough for some people, and they want over 98% - but, presumably, they
STILL won't be happy. Selfishness abounds, as usual.
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-cou...issues/public/)

Jeremy Collins ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Would you like to hazard a guess as to what the (M) stands for?

I know perfectly well what the M stands for. I think you misunderstood
my post.

Forgive me. I naively assumed that you asking "Is that legal" in response
to a comment about cycling on the A40(M), then going on to say you didn't
fancy cycling on the A1(M) was along the general lines of you asking if it
was legal to cycle on Motorway-classified roads.

David Hansen wrote:

Indeed. According to uk.transport this was part of an anti-motorist
plan by Ken Livingstone. All the little bits of motorway in London
(parts of the plans to destroy London with motorways that were never
carried out) which the road lobby were hoping would eventually be
linked up have been "declassified".

Yay! Ken Leninspart and his black helichopters terrorise uk.tosspot!

However, in spite of the "downgrading" of the assorted proto-motorways,
AFAIK cycling is still Policely Forbidden thereupon, as it is on certain
other not-now-and-never-have-been-a-motorway roads, such as the tunnel and
flyover sections of the A406.

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...

Dave Larrington wrote:

AFAIK cycling is still Policely Forbidden thereupon, as it is on
certain other not-now-and-never-have-been-a-motorway roads, such
as the tunnel and flyover sections of the A406.

All of them? I've cycled over the flyover bit by the start of the M1 a
few times without noticing a "No Cycling" sign. Oh dear, was I bad?
ISTR there are cycling-free bits up towards Whipps Cross.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 wrote:

All of them? I've cycled over the flyover bit by the start of the M1 a
few times without noticing a "No Cycling" sign. Oh dear, was I bad?
ISTR there are cycling-free bits up towards Whipps Cross.

I'm pretty sure there's a "No cycling" sign at the eastbound end of the
Staples Corner flyover; there certainly is at the one by the end of the M11
and in the Fore Street tunnel. I think there are others in the vicinity of
The Death Of The Soul and further round towards Barking.

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
The elder stoat leads, in all circumstances.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:41:49 +0100, David Hansen wrote:


Indeed. According to uk.transport this was part of an anti-motorist
plan by Ken Livingstone. All the little bits of motorway in London
(parts of the plans to destroy London with motorways that were never
carried out) which the road lobby were hoping would eventually be linked
up have been "declassified".

No, not 'anti-motorist' at all.
I read on a website that this was due to the roads in question being
given to Transport for London to run. TfL cannot by law run motorways,
so these short stretches had to be declassified.
I may be wrong - and stand to be corrected.
On the short section from Shepherd's Bush up to join the A40 Westway there
is a cycling ban. 50mph limit on that stretch also.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:13:12 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:


An idea i've been kicking around for a while is to start a website - a
sort of 'cyclist's rutter' - collecting people's tried and tested routes,
broken up into routes between key nodal points, so that someone wanting to
get from A to B can come along and pick out route components which will
help them.
I've kicked about ideas for a London cyclists Wiki.
A Wiki would be ideal for your idea here.