Cyclists cannot be banned from this pedestrian area.

[Simon Mason]

Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-skateboarders/article-2881286-detail/article.html

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

[JMS]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>
>http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-skateboarders/article-2881286-detail/article.html



No surprise there then


There are signs saying no cycling - and the selfish ****ers ignore
them.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.


--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 +0000, Simon Mason wrote:

> Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>
> http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-
skateboarders/article-2881286-detail/article.html

The article seemed to talk about the dangers posed by skateboarders.
Bicyclists seemed to be only drawn in and included by default because a
lot of people seem to hate an efficient green non-polluting means of
transport.
I would agree that skateboards are not a reasonable means of transport on
public roads or footpaths.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[Derek C]

On Nov 13, 8:33*am, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 +0000, Simon Mason wrote:
> > Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>
> >http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-
>
> skateboarders/article-2881286-detail/article.html
>
> The article seemed to talk about the dangers posed by skateboarders. *
> Bicyclists seemed to be only drawn in and included by default because a
> lot of people seem to hate an efficient green non-polluting means of
> transport.
> I would agree that skateboards are not a reasonable means of transport on
> public roads or footpaths.
>
> --
> 67.4% of statistics are made up.

Are you sure that you are not Doug's alter-ego Peter?

[Peter Keller]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:38:59 -0800, Derek C wrote:


>
> Are you sure that you are not Doug's alter-ego Peter?


And what does that have to with the price of hagfish?


--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 12, 10:34*pm, JMS > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 -0000, "Simon Mason"
>
> > wrote:
> >Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>
> >http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-skateboard...
>
> No surprise there then
>
> There are signs saying no cycling - and the selfish *****ers ignore
> them.
>

No. According to the article, the signs are actually "cyclists
dismount" signs which mean diddly squat.
It is a public highway, so that's why they can't actually *ban*
cycling, only put up meaningless dismount signs.
--
Simon Mason

[Derek C]

On Nov 13, 8:57*am, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:38:59 -0800, Derek C wrote:
>
> > Are you sure that you are not Doug's alter-ego Peter?
>
> And what does that have to with the price of hagfish?
>
> --

Hmmm! The behaviour of hagfish is nearly as strange as some
psycholists, and almost as slimy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish

[JMS]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 01:39:09 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 12, 10:34*pm, JMS > wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 -0000, "Simon Mason"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>>
>> >http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-skateboard...
>>
>> No surprise there then
>>
>> There are signs saying no cycling - and the selfish *****ers ignore
>> them.
>>
>
>No. According to the article, the signs are actually "cyclists
>dismount" signs which mean diddly squat.
>It is a public highway, so that's why they can't actually *ban*
>cycling, only put up meaningless dismount signs.

Meaningless to you maybe - but then we know that you are not actually
bright.

We know your approach to other road users - and as long as it is legal
you don't mind what problems you cause.

Is there a chance that the signs have been put up to "ask" considerate
cycle users to dismount - as it will be for the benefit of all road
users.


That is the point of the article - the inconsiderate ****ers like you
have no respect for fellow road users.


Thanks for confirming it.


--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[Simon Mason]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a chance that the signs have been put up to "ask" considerate
> cycle users to dismount - as it will be for the benefit of all road
> users.
>
>

Looks like cycling down there is not a problem as confirmed by the Council.

"Carmarthenshire Council traffic boss John McEvoy said: "We have not
received any complaints from the public regarding cyclists or skateboarders
in Llanelli town centre."

http://qurl.com/csscm

Just a campaign by some sad old killjoy.

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

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:11:59 +0000, JMS >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 01:39:09 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 12, 10:34*pm, JMS > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 -0000, "Simon Mason"
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>>>
>>> >http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-skateboard...
>>>
>>> No surprise there then
>>>
>>> There are signs saying no cycling - and the selfish *****ers ignore
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>>No. According to the article, the signs are actually "cyclists
>>dismount" signs which mean diddly squat.
>>It is a public highway, so that's why they can't actually *ban*
>>cycling, only put up meaningless dismount signs.
>
>Meaningless to you maybe - but then we know that you are not actually
>bright.
>
>We know your approach to other road users - and as long as it is legal
>you don't mind what problems you cause.
>
>Is there a chance that the signs have been put up to "ask" considerate
>cycle users to dismount - as it will be for the benefit of all road
>users.

The problem is, Judith, that they do not convey that message. It gives
pedestrians the message that cyclists must dismount, and thus any
cyclist on the right-of-way is somehow a criminal. Also, there are so
many of these signs pointlessly errected, that cyclists, however
considerate, commonly ignore them.

An extreme example is this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm

Any regular cyclist can find many examples of such absurdity.

There are certain times when it would be very rude for a cyclist to
ride through a busy pedestrian area, but, of course there are many
times when dismounting and pushing is an unnecessary inconvinience for
cyclists. Perhaps a solution would be to have time restrictions on
some cycling prohibitions, e.g. No cycling: Mon - Sat: 10 am to
4.30pm.

>That is the point of the article - the inconsiderate ****ers like you
>have no respect for fellow road users.
>
>
>Thanks for confirming it.
>
>
>--
>Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
>cannot be of any consequence.
>(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 02:17:18 -0800 (PST), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Nov 13, 8:57*am, Peter Keller > wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:38:59 -0800, Derek C wrote:
>>
>> > Are you sure that you are not Doug's alter-ego Peter?
>>
>> And what does that have to with the price of hagfish?
>>
>> --
>
>Hmmm! The behaviour of hagfish is nearly as strange as some
>psycholists, and almost as slimy!
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish

I think that readers of this group are some of the most informed about
the hagfish.

[Simon Mason]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message >
> The problem is, Judith, that they do not convey that message. It gives
> pedestrians the message that cyclists must dismount, and thus any
> cyclist on the right-of-way is somehow a criminal. Also, there are so
> many of these signs pointlessly erected, that cyclists, however
> considerate, commonly ignore them.
>

I think this is the area in question.

http://qurl.com/csscm

A similar zone is here in a local town. As you can see, *all* vehicles are
banned except for shop deliveries at certain times. Whenever I visit this
town I *always* dismount and wheel my cycle up there. If Llanelli had a real
problem they could do the same.

http://qurl.com/wzljw


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

[ian]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:37 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> > wrote:
>
>>Pensioner's battle to ban cyclists hits a snag.
>>
>>http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Concern-town-centre-skateboarders/article-2881286-detail/article.html
>
>
>
> No surprise there then
>
>
> There are signs saying no cycling - and the selfish ****ers ignore
> them.

It's not the signs that actually count. It is the Traffic Regulation
Order.

If the LA has neglected to create the necessary by-law, then all the
signs in the world have no effect.

>
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
>

My pleasure.
> --
> Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
> cannot be of any consequence.
> (Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks
> it's clever)
>

[JMS]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:53:35 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"JMS" > wrote in message
...
>> Is there a chance that the signs have been put up to "ask" considerate
>> cycle users to dismount - as it will be for the benefit of all road
>> users.
>>
>>
>
>Looks like cycling down there is not a problem as confirmed by the Council.
>
>"Carmarthenshire Council traffic boss John McEvoy said: "We have not
>received any complaints from the public regarding cyclists or skateboarders
>in Llanelli town centre."
>
>http://qurl.com/csscm
>
>Just a campaign by some sad old killjoy.

Ah - so you can read : "A PENSIONER is waging a one-man war "

Perhaps there is just a chance that many cyclists do obey the
"request" to dismount and hence there is not a real problem

I realise that objectionable ****ers like you would ignore the request
- as you "know your rights" - don't you?
--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 13, 7:32*pm, JMS > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:53:35 -0000, "Simon Mason"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"JMS" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Is there a chance that the signs have been put up to "ask" considerate
> >> cycle users to dismount - as it will be for the benefit of all road
> >> users.
>
> >Looks like cycling down there is not a problem as confirmed by the Council.
>
> >"Carmarthenshire Council traffic boss John McEvoy said: "We have not
> >received any complaints from the public regarding cyclists or skateboarders
> >in Llanelli town centre."
>
> >http://qurl.com/csscm
>
> >Just a campaign by some sad old killjoy.
>
> Ah - so you can read : "A PENSIONER is waging a one-man war "
>
> Perhaps there is just a chance that many cyclists do obey the
> "request" to dismount and hence there is not a real problem
>
> I realise that objectionable ****ers like you would ignore the request
> - as you "know your rights" - don't you?
> -- * * *
> Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... *and *so
> cannot be of any consequence.
> (Simon Mason - *who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I do not break non existent laws.

I ride with no helmet - no laws broken.
I sometimes ride in dark clothing - no laws broken.
I listen to the radio/music. - no laws broken.
I exceed the posted speed limit now and again - no laws broken.
I walk past stop lines when needed - no laws broken.
I get off when I approach this road.
http://qurl.com/wzljw

I am very considerate and law abiding.
--
Simon Mason

[JMS]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:02:00 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

<snip>

>I do not break non existent laws.
>
>I ride with no helmet - no laws broken.
>I sometimes ride in dark clothing - no laws broken.
>I listen to the radio/music. - no laws broken.
>I exceed the posted speed limit now and again - no laws broken.
>I walk past stop lines when needed - no laws broken.
>I get off when I approach this road.
>http://qurl.com/wzljw
>
>I am very considerate and law abiding.

I'm sorry - have I suggested that you do break laws?

I have said that you are an inconsiderate ****er - that of course is
quite a different matter.

--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 02:17:18 -0800 (PST), Derek C

> I think that readers of this group are some of the most informed about
> the hagfish.

You think? Several here seem to think the hagfish can be reasoned into
not producong slime rather than just accepting that's what hagfish do.

Tony

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:58:41 +0000, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "cyclists dismount" is just a statement which happens to be true.
> The sign for indicating a prohibition on cycling is a circular one
> with red border and white background, with the outline of a bicycle in
> the centre. It must also meet size requirements.

A 'no vehicles' one would do too, I think. A no motor vehicles (the
low-flying-motorbikes / beware Evil Knievel one) would not.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Simon Mason]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:58:41 +0000, Phil W Lee >
> wrote:
>
>> "cyclists dismount" is just a statement which happens to be true.
>> The sign for indicating a prohibition on cycling is a circular one
>> with red border and white background, with the outline of a bicycle in
>> the centre. It must also meet size requirements.
>
> A 'no vehicles' one would do too, I think. A no motor vehicles (the
> low-flying-motorbikes / beware Evil Knievel one) would not.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

Correct. All they have to do is put one of these up if they were serious
about banning cycling.

http://qurl.com/wzljw


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

[JMS]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:42:19 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

<snip>


>
>Correct. All they have to do is put one of these up if they were serious
>about banning cycling.
>
>http://qurl.com/wzljw


So all "they" have to do if the want to ban cycling on a particular
road is put up a sign.

Are you absolutely sure that is all there is to it?

Perhaps you could write to the council and tell them.


--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 18/11/2010 17:20, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Ian > considered Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:12:02
> +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:58:41 +0000, Phil W > wrote:
>>
>>> "cyclists dismount" is just a statement which happens to be true.
>>> The sign for indicating a prohibition on cycling is a circular one
>>> with red border and white background, with the outline of a bicycle in
>>> the centre. It must also meet size requirements.
>>
>> A 'no vehicles' one would do too, I think. A no motor vehicles (the
>> low-flying-motorbikes / beware Evil Knievel one) would not.
>>
> Isn't that limited in it's effect in that it only disallows passing
> the sign, but not riding on the road beyond it?
>
> I have certainly seen it used that way (in the same way as the low
> flying motorcycles is often used to "plug" one end of a 2 way street
> making it one way, but only for through traffic).
>
> Either way, if there isn't a proper TRO or road closure extinguishing
> the right of way, it's unenforceable (as the council officer seemed to
> confirm)

.... and asking or expecting cyclists to do the right thing and not endanger
pedestrians *anyway* is simply doomed to failure, isn't it?