On 8 June, 07:52, Doug wrote:
On 7 June, 14:10, Tony Dragon wrote:



Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift wrote:
Look at the stretch of road between Merton Park tram stop and
Wimbledon Chase train station. There isn’t the physical space on the
road in these places to do anything other than paint a line down the
road, in full knowledge that it will make the ‘vehicle lane’ too
narrow for a vehicle to drive down, therefore making encroachment on
the cycle lane inevitable.

If it's a slope, mark a cycle lane uphill only.
If it's flat, set and enforce a 20mph limit.

snip

Colin McKenzie

20mph on that road, that would be improvement on the usual speed.

Except late at night or early morning when roads are clear and
speeding is commonplace and highly dangerous.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell me Doug, do you know that road, what knowlwdge of it do you have?


Francis

Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

snip


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.


Perhaps you should inform the DfT of their error:

When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for
cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.


Please keep up, thanks.



Are you really, really, really incapable of reading lines in front of
you - or is it the need to twitch that prevents reading or just the mote
in God's eye?

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

ks wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only
you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't
give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order
to reply to your error

If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly
nym-shift.

sigh

*Plonk*

You really don't get it, do you? If you want to toss terms like "knob"
at me, I'll ensure you see a reply.

The statement "If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly
nym-shift" is generic and applies to anyone. But if the cap fits, please
feel free to wear it.

Just k/f me if you feel the need
but don't bother proudly beating your chest about it and I won't know.

sigh

*Plonk*

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, E.L. O'Hesra wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift

Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets
and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I'm
surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and
keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options,

One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the
Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're
commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few exceptions,
back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are of course some
direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their capacity for
high-speed cycling is low.

Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking
cars and people climbing in and out of them.

So what you mean is that cycling and parking don't mix, then?

tom

--
Eight-bit is forever

In message . li, at
22:10:34 on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking
cars and people climbing in and out of them.

So what you mean is that cycling and parking don't mix, then?

And which are these "High Streets" that allow parking on?
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:59:52 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only
you could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't
give anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order
to reply to your error

If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly
nym-shift.

sigh

*Plonk*

You really don't get it, do you? If you want to toss terms like "knob"
at me, I'll ensure you see a reply.

The statement "If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly
nym-shift" is generic and applies to anyone. But if the cap fits, please
feel free to wear it.

Just k/f me if you feel the need
but don't bother proudly beating your chest about it and I won't know.

sigh

*Plonk*



I think that ks was hoping to prove that you are an
obnoxious ****.

I think you have proved his point for him.


--
Someone calling himself Lou Knee made a post in urc
referring to another poster as "a piece of ****".
The post was made from an IP address which had been used in urc over the last 6 years
uniquely by Guy Chapman.
All available evidence points to Lou Knee being a nym shift of Guy Chapman.
A respected poster to URC, JNugent, has categorically asked Guy Chapman if he has ever posted using the name Lou Knee.
Guy Chapman has refused to answer this question.
Conclusion: Guy Chapman and Lou Knee are one and the same despicable person.

In message
, at
23:58:12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Doug remarked:
Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear special clothing or
protective gear like helmets unless drivers were too.

I don't think they are required to wear any of that.

But lights and reflectors are a good idea, and considering how many
cyclists fail to keep those in working order, reflective clothing is a
useful failsafe.

[Cars, of course, are also required to have lights and reflectors; and
drivers are required to use seatbelts, if not crash helmets].
--
Roland Perry

Doug wrote:

If cyclists were treated as normal road users, instead of as second
class road users, there would be no need for segregation. They would
be expected to travel in the middle of a lane, instead of in the
gutter, which unavoidably would delay faster traffic until it could
safely overtake. Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear
special clothing or protective gear like helmets unless drivers were
too.



If cyclists stopped believing they are victims then thier body language
would also be reflected in the way they cycle. Why should cyclists think
they are second-class? Why should cyclists also be led to believe they
are second-class by other cyclists? There is no special requirement to
wear fluoro/releflective or helmets but if all cyclists hear is 'It's
not safe, the big bogey man/driver/ truck from hell is waiting for you
to come out of your fron door' then, if they manage to pluck up the
courage to venture out on a bike, Chicken Licken has persuaded them that
they must go out wrapped in bright yellow.

Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go 'See, told
you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on the ng
are not dead and risen from the grave?
How come we are still alive after all these years?
How have we managed to happily cycle around without the constant
contest/conflict we are told we are undergoing?

meh


--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On 15 June, 12:18, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Doug wrote:
If cyclists were treated as normal road users, instead of as second
class road users, there would be no need for segregation. They would
be expected to travel in the middle of a lane, instead of in the
gutter, which unavoidably would delay faster traffic until it could
safely overtake. Similarly, cyclists would not be required to wear
special clothing or protective gear like helmets unless drivers were
too.

If cyclists stopped believing they are victims then thier body language
would also be reflected in the way they cycle. Why should cyclists think
they are second-class? Why should cyclists also be led to believe they
are second-class by other cyclists? There is no special requirement to
wear fluoro/releflective or helmets but if all cyclists hear is 'It's
not safe, the big bogey man/driver/ truck from hell is waiting for you
to come out of your fron door' then, if they manage to pluck up the
courage to venture out on a bike, Chicken Licken has persuaded them that
they must go out wrapped in bright yellow.

Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go *'See, told
you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on the ng
are not dead and risen from the grave?
How come we are still alive after all these years?
How have we managed to happily cycle around without the constant
contest/conflict we are told we are undergoing?

It ceases to be a myth when you are hit by a car and deemed to be
culpable for your own injury because you were not wearing a helmet or
reflective vest, etc, etc.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Perpetuating the myth is very handy as it allow people to go Â*'See,
told you so'. If it wasn't a myth, how come so many people posing on
the ng are not dead and risen from the grave? How come we are still
alive after all these years? How have we managed to happily cycle
around without the constant contest/conflict we are told we are
undergoing?

It ceases to be a myth when you are hit by a car and deemed to be
culpable for your own injury because you were not wearing a helmet or
reflective vest, etc, etc.

sigh No. You hit a car because you believe that your "right of way"
gives you some exemption from having to compensate for ****ups other
people make.