Nightmare junction [Archive]

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 12:06 AM

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:13:23 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>
>"Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message
...
>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>> Road.
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>
>> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
>> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO
>>
>
>it would appear possible that the light phasing is wrong, still at least she
>had the sense to give way and wear a helmet.

No. The light phasing isn't wrong, or if it is wrong, it is officially
wrong.

Deals Gateway used to have its own green phase. But in order to
"smooth traffic flow" Mayor Boris commanded that it be re-phased to
show green at the same time as Greenwich High Road. Most traffic
emerging from Greenwich High Road turns right, and never give way to
oncoming cyclists.

Did you see both clips?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/

Scary!

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 12:18 AM

On 22/07/2012 00:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:13:23 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>> Road.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>
>>> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
>>> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO
>>>
>>
>> it would appear possible that the light phasing is wrong, still at least she
>> had the sense to give way and wear a helmet.
>
> No. The light phasing isn't wrong, or if it is wrong, it is officially
> wrong.
>
> Deals Gateway used to have its own green phase. But in order to
> "smooth traffic flow" Mayor Boris commanded that it be re-phased to
> show green at the same time as Greenwich High Road. Most traffic
> emerging from Greenwich High Road turns right, and never give way to
> oncoming cyclists.
>
> Did you see both clips?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/
>
> Scary!

So it's quite possible that traffic turning right onto the A2 from GHR is
doing what it used to do before the re-phasing, with drivers perhaps unaware
of the change (and assuming, for some totally unfathomable reason, that
oncoming cyclists are ignoring a red traffic light, just as if cyclists
*ever* did that)?

OWN ONE'S WITH PETARD HOIST

Re-arrange the words into a well-known quotation from Shakespeare.

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 12:30 AM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:18:59 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 22/07/2012 00:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:13:23 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>>> Road.
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>
>>>> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
>>>> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO
>>>>
>>>
>>> it would appear possible that the light phasing is wrong, still at least she
>>> had the sense to give way and wear a helmet.
>>
>> No. The light phasing isn't wrong, or if it is wrong, it is officially
>> wrong.
>>
>> Deals Gateway used to have its own green phase. But in order to
>> "smooth traffic flow" Mayor Boris commanded that it be re-phased to
>> show green at the same time as Greenwich High Road. Most traffic
>> emerging from Greenwich High Road turns right, and never give way to
>> oncoming cyclists.
>>
>> Did you see both clips?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>
>> Scary!
>
>So it's quite possible that traffic turning right onto the A2 from GHR is
>doing what it used to do before the re-phasing, with drivers perhaps unaware
>of the change (and assuming, for some totally unfathomable reason, that
>oncoming cyclists are ignoring a red traffic light, just as if cyclists
>*ever* did that)?

The lights have been rephased for well over a year.

>OWN ONE'S WITH PETARD HOIST
>
>Re-arrange the words into a well-known quotation from Shakespeare.

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 12:48 AM

On 22/07/2012 00:30, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:18:59 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2012 00:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:13:23 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>>>> Road.
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>>
>>>>> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
>>>>> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it would appear possible that the light phasing is wrong, still at least she
>>>> had the sense to give way and wear a helmet.
>>>
>>> No. The light phasing isn't wrong, or if it is wrong, it is officially
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Deals Gateway used to have its own green phase. But in order to
>>> "smooth traffic flow" Mayor Boris commanded that it be re-phased to
>>> show green at the same time as Greenwich High Road. Most traffic
>>> emerging from Greenwich High Road turns right, and never give way to
>>> oncoming cyclists.
>>>
>>> Did you see both clips?
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>
>>> Scary!
>>
>> So it's quite possible that traffic turning right onto the A2 from GHR is
>> doing what it used to do before the re-phasing, with drivers perhaps unaware
>> of the change (and assuming, for some totally unfathomable reason, that
>> oncoming cyclists are ignoring a red traffic light, just as if cyclists
>> *ever* did that)?
>
> The lights have been rephased for well over a year.

And?

>> OWN ONE'S WITH PETARD HOIST
>> Re-arrange the words into a well-known quotation from Shakespeare.

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 12:51 AM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:48:09 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 22/07/2012 00:30, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:18:59 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/07/2012 00:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:13:23 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>>>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>>>>> Road.
>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
>>>>>> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it would appear possible that the light phasing is wrong, still at least she
>>>>> had the sense to give way and wear a helmet.
>>>>
>>>> No. The light phasing isn't wrong, or if it is wrong, it is officially
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Deals Gateway used to have its own green phase. But in order to
>>>> "smooth traffic flow" Mayor Boris commanded that it be re-phased to
>>>> show green at the same time as Greenwich High Road. Most traffic
>>>> emerging from Greenwich High Road turns right, and never give way to
>>>> oncoming cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> Did you see both clips?
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>
>>>> Scary!
>>>
>>> So it's quite possible that traffic turning right onto the A2 from GHR is
>>> doing what it used to do before the re-phasing, with drivers perhaps unaware
>>> of the change (and assuming, for some totally unfathomable reason, that
>>> oncoming cyclists are ignoring a red traffic light, just as if cyclists
>>> *ever* did that)?
>>
>> The lights have been rephased for well over a year.
>
>And?

It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
re-phasing of the lights.

>>> OWN ONE'S WITH PETARD HOIST
>>> Re-arrange the words into a well-known quotation from Shakespeare.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 22nd 12, 01:20 AM

On 21/07/2012 19:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
> Road.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>
> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO
>

Simple answer to the problem.

Erect a sign saying "Junction unsuitable for cyclists and other users of
children's toys".

Since cyclists represent less than 2% of journeys & make no specific
contribution to the roads, they should switch to a more sensible form of
transport.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 01:23 AM

On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>>Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote:

>>>>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>>>>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>>>>>> Road.
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>>>> Location: the Socialist Republic of Lewisham-
>>>>>>> http://goo.gl/maps/UXeO

>>>>>> it would appear possible that the light phasing is wrong, still at least she
>>>>>> had the sense to give way and wear a helmet.

>>>>> No. The light phasing isn't wrong, or if it is wrong, it is officially
>>>>> wrong.

>>>>> Deals Gateway used to have its own green phase. But in order to
>>>>> "smooth traffic flow" Mayor Boris commanded that it be re-phased to
>>>>> show green at the same time as Greenwich High Road. Most traffic
>>>>> emerging from Greenwich High Road turns right, and never give way to
>>>>> oncoming cyclists.
>>>>> Did you see both clips?
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>> Scary!

>>>> So it's quite possible that traffic turning right onto the A2 from GHR is
>>>> doing what it used to do before the re-phasing, with drivers perhaps unaware
>>>> of the change (and assuming, for some totally unfathomable reason, that
>>>> oncoming cyclists are ignoring a red traffic light, just as if cyclists
>>>> *ever* did that)?

>>> The lights have been rephased for well over a year.

>> And?

> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> re-phasing of the lights.

Why ever not?

I wasn't aware of either the previous arrangements or the current ones, until
I read of them here (and I am taking them on trust in any event).

>>>> OWN ONE'S WITH PETARD HOIST
>>>> Re-arrange the words into a well-known quotation from Shakespeare.

July 22nd 12, 06:39 AM

On Jul 22, 3:03*am, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >> re-phasing of the lights.
>
> > Why ever not?
>
> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but
> the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction,
> to say the least.

The direction the cycle is coming from has hardly any traffic, it was
a short dead end until recently.

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 09:47 AM

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:39:06 -0700 (PDT), NM >
wrote:

>On Jul 22, 3:03*am, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> >> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>> >> re-phasing of the lights.
>>
>> > Why ever not?
>>
>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but
>> the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction,
>> to say the least.
>
>The direction the cycle is coming from has hardly any traffic, it was
>a short dead end until recently.

And how does that excuse the poor driving exhibited?

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 10:29 AM

On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:

>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>> re-phasing of the lights.

>> Why ever not?

> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction, to
> say the least.

I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.

The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
A2210 and the A2211.

I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.

If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
Good riddance (in more than one sense).

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 10:29 AM

On 22/07/2012 06:39, NM wrote:

> On Jul 22, 3:03 am, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>>
>>> Why ever not?
>>
>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but
>> the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction,
>> to say the least.
>
> The direction the cycle is coming from has hardly any traffic, it was
> a short dead end until recently.

Thank you. I THOUGHT it was.

July 22nd 12, 10:49 AM

On Jul 22, 9:47*am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:39:06 -0700 (PDT), NM >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 22, 3:03*am, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
> >> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> >> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >> >> re-phasing of the lights.
>
> >> > Why ever not?
>
> >> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but
> >> the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction,
> >> to say the least.
>
> >The direction the cycle is coming from has hardly any traffic, it was
> >a short dead end until recently.
>
> And how does that excuse the poor driving exhibited?

There are only cycles emerging there the vast amount of local traffic
have never seen a vehicle emerge from that direction I suspect most
don't even realise it is part of the junction.

July 22nd 12, 11:07 AM

On Jul 22, 10:29*am, JNugent > wrote:
> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> > "JNugent" > wrote:
> >> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >>> re-phasing of the lights.
> >> Why ever not?
> > Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
> > bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction, to
> > say the least.
>
> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.

It was following alongside the original track of the railway that ran
from the now long disused junction in Lewisham Way through to
terminate at where the Ibis Hotel now stands in Greenwich, after
removal of the railway the area was turned into a park, there was
access into the park for cyclists but no road for vehicular traffic,
the junction was modified after construction of the DLR at Deptford
Bridge station the DLR follows the approx course of the river
Ravensbourne from the head of Deptford Creek. For the best part of a
century there has been no traffic coming out of that junction. at this
point it was named. AFAIK it is still acul de sac as far as vehicles
are concerned though there may now be a bike route through to
Lewisham.

Traces of the old railway can be seen in Brookmill Road where the
buttress for the crossbridge in now fenced off as a wildlife sanctuary
and various gaps between the buildings denote the lay of the line to
the terminus. The station building at the junction with Lewisham Way
is still in use as a secondhand architectural Salvage business and is
situated opposite the junction or Tyrwhitt (sp) Road although all
traces line side have long vanished.

Judith[_4_]

July 22nd 12, 11:23 AM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:06:17 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

<snip>

>Did you see both clips?
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/set-72157630679600510/
>
>Scary!

Cycling in London is dangerous.

Many thanks

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 12:58 PM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:49:46 -0700 (PDT), NM >
wrote:

>On Jul 22, 9:47*am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:39:06 -0700 (PDT), NM >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 22, 3:03*am, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
>> >> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> >> >> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>> >> >> re-phasing of the lights.
>>
>> >> > Why ever not?
>>
>> >> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but
>> >> the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction,
>> >> to say the least.
>>
>> >The direction the cycle is coming from has hardly any traffic, it was
>> >a short dead end until recently.
>>
>> And how does that excuse the poor driving exhibited?
>
>There are only cycles emerging there the vast amount of local traffic
>have never seen a vehicle emerge from that direction I suspect most
>don't even realise it is part of the junction.

I ask again, how does that excuse the poor driving exhibited?

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 01:31 PM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>
>>> Why ever not?
>
>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction, to
>> say the least.
>
>I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>
>The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
>upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
>south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>A2210 and the A2211.
>
>I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
>recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
>look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
>used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
>connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
>called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>
>If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
>expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
>traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
>could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
>all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
>of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
>Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
>amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
>way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
>be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
>Good riddance (in more than one sense).

As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals

I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.

July 22nd 12, 01:34 PM

On Jul 22, 12:58*pm, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:49:46 -0700 (PDT), NM >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 22, 9:47 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:39:06 -0700 (PDT), NM >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 22, 3:03 am, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
> >> >> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> >> >> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >> >> >> re-phasing of the lights.
>
> >> >> > Why ever not?
>
> >> >> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but
> >> >> the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction,
> >> >> to say the least.
>
> >> >The direction the cycle is coming from has hardly any traffic, it was
> >> >a short dead end until recently.
>
> >> And how does that excuse the poor driving exhibited?
>
> >There are only cycles emerging there the vast amount of local traffic
> >have never seen a vehicle emerge from that direction I suspect most
> >don't even realise it is part of the junction.
>
> I ask again, how does that excuse the poor driving exhibited?

How about the poor cycling? the main road from Greenwich turns to the
right at this junction, occasionally someone turns left up towards
Blackheath but the vast amount turn right, nobody goes straight on
except cyclists no vehicles are entering the junction from the South
with the intentions of crossing directly Northbound except the
occasional cyclist.

A cyclist should take care of their own safety and be more aware, the
junction is IMO poorly thought out, observation should show that it
would be dammed silly to go straight ahead as the cyclist did. it
would be safer to turn left then in a hundred yards or so turn right
at the lights and continue around in a U turn bringing back up at the
same junction where a left turn will put the cyclist back on the track
north with the option of continuing ahead on the road to Blackheath.

The problem is nobody expects traffic to emerge from this cul de sac,
it IMO should not be subject to traffic light control.

Pseudonym[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 01:36 PM

On 22/07/2012 13:34, NM wrote:

>
> A cyclist should take care of their own safety and be more aware, the
> junction is IMO poorly thought out, observation should show that it
> would be dammed silly to go straight ahead as the cyclist did. it
> would be safer to turn left then in a hundred yards or so turn right
> at the lights and continue around in a U turn bringing back up at the
> same junction where a left turn will put the cyclist back on the track
> north with the option of continuing ahead on the road to Blackheath.
>

And for those cyclists who don't know the area and see a green traffic
signal telling them to go on?

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 01:40 PM

On 22/07/2012 11:07, NM wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:29 am, JNugent > wrote:
>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>>>> Why ever not?
>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
>>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction, to
>>> say the least.
>>
>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>
> It was following alongside the original track of the railway that ran
> from the now long disused junction in Lewisham Way through to
> terminate at where the Ibis Hotel now stands in Greenwich, after
> removal of the railway the area was turned into a park, there was
> access into the park for cyclists but no road for vehicular traffic,
> the junction was modified after construction of the DLR at Deptford
> Bridge station the DLR follows the approx course of the river
> Ravensbourne from the head of Deptford Creek. For the best part of a
> century there has been no traffic coming out of that junction. at this
> point it was named. AFAIK it is still acul de sac as far as vehicles
> are concerned though there may now be a bike route through to
> Lewisham.
>
> Traces of the old railway can be seen in Brookmill Road where the
> buttress for the crossbridge in now fenced off as a wildlife sanctuary
> and various gaps between the buildings denote the lay of the line to
> the terminus. The station building at the junction with Lewisham Way
> is still in use as a secondhand architectural Salvage business and is
> situated opposite the junction or Tyrwhitt (sp) Road although all
> traces line side have long vanished.

Thanks for that.

The history of (often defunct) local transport within London is an
interesting subject.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 22nd 12, 02:59 PM

On 22/07/2012 13:31, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>
>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>>
>>>> Why ever not?
>>
>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
>>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction, to
>>> say the least.
>>
>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>>
>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
>> upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
>> south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>
>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
>> recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
>> look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
>> used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
>> connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
>> called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>>
>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
>> expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
>> could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
>> all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
>> of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
>> amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
>> way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
>> Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>
> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
> Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
> concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>
> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>
They could use it in perfect safety - in a car.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

jnugent

July 22nd 12, 03:15 PM

On 22/07/2012 14:59, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 22/07/2012 13:31, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:

>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>>>> re-phasing of the lights.

>>>>> Why ever not?

>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way,
>>>> but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed
>>>> junction, to say the least.

>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>>> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>>> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>>> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>>> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a
>>> minimum.
>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
>>> upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
>>> south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
>>> recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
>>> look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
>>> used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
>>> connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
>>> called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
>>> expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
>>> could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
>>> all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
>>> of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
>>> amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
>>> way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
>>> Good riddance (in more than one sense).

>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
>> Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
>> concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals

>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.

> They could use it in perfect safety - in a car.

Well, only if they did what the cyclist did anyway: proceed cautiously and
let the better part of valour be discretion. Full marks to the cyclist for
that, by the way. Not all of them would have been as sensible.

One of those buses would flatten a small car just as effectively as it would
a cyclist.
______________________________________________

BW's post didn't turn up here, though it is reproduced as part of Dave's post.

"Deals Gateway" (Deal's Causeway) provided no route to anything except the
premises immediately adjacent to it until very recently. That's because it
was a very short cul-de-sac (as can be seen on any 1970s London A-Z,
including the copy I have in my map collection).

So what we have here is a claim that very short cul-de-sac provided a cycling
route along the Ravensbourne. We have it on good authority that two thousand
years ago, there was a man who could walk on water. But *cycling* on it...

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 04:47 PM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:15:13 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 22/07/2012 14:59, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2012 13:31, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>
>>>>>> Why ever not?
>
>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way,
>>>>> but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed
>>>>> junction, to say the least.
>
>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>>>> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>>>> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>>>> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>>>> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a
>>>> minimum.
>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
>>>> upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
>>>> south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
>>>> recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
>>>> look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
>>>> used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
>>>> connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
>>>> called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
>>>> expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
>>>> could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
>>>> all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
>>>> of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
>>>> amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
>>>> way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
>>>> Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>
>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
>>> Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
>>> concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>
>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>
>> They could use it in perfect safety - in a car.
>
>Well, only if they did what the cyclist did anyway: proceed cautiously and
>let the better part of valour be discretion. Full marks to the cyclist for
>that, by the way. Not all of them would have been as sensible.
>
>One of those buses would flatten a small car just as effectively as it would
>a cyclist.
>______________________________________________
>
>BW's post didn't turn up here, though it is reproduced as part of Dave's post.
>
>"Deals Gateway" (Deal's Causeway) provided no route to anything except the
>premises immediately adjacent to it until very recently. That's because it
>was a very short cul-de-sac (as can be seen on any 1970s London A-Z,
>including the copy I have in my map collection).

I am not sure why you call it Deals Causeway. I'm now looking at a
1895 1:1,056 scale map and it is clearly labeled "Deal's Gateway";
only the apostrophe seems to have changed over the past 117 years.

>So what we have here is a claim that very short cul-de-sac provided a cycling
>route along the Ravensbourne. We have it on good authority that two thousand
>years ago, there was a man who could walk on water. But *cycling* on it...

!?

Judith[_4_]

July 22nd 12, 05:08 PM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 13:31:23 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

<snip>

>I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.

Because the amount of traffic wanting to cross the junction S to N is
insignificant - the "odd" cyclist.

The road marking and the lights should be changed so that the traffic from the
north turning west has priority at the junction. That is all that is wrong.

There was considerable discussions about changes to the sequencing - at the
requests of cyclists before the changes.

The amount of traffic wanting to cross the junction is obviously next to
nothing apart from the odd cyclists (aren't they all - I hear you say)

Of course Crispin is well aware of the discussions which took place a year ago.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenwichcyclists/message/8510

I wonder who the "Lewisham college who should have an interest in this" was?

..

Mrcheerful[_3_]

July 22nd 12, 05:42 PM

Bertie Wooster wrote:
> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
> Road.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/

Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not giving way
to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is exactly what cyclists
do all the time.

Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it may
well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this' side gets a
red, which would give exactly the situation we see in the video.

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 06:32 PM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>> Road.
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>
>Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not giving way
>to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is exactly what cyclists
>do all the time.

We've already been through this...

Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
cyclists.

Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
code so blatantly?

>Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it may
>well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this' side gets a
>red, which would give exactly the situation we see in the video.

As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
behave selfishly.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 22nd 12, 08:19 PM

On 22/07/2012 18:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>> Road.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>
>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not giving way
>> to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is exactly what cyclists
>> do all the time.
>
> We've already been through this...
>
> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
> cyclists.

Evidence to support this load of old bollox?
>
> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
> code so blatantly?
>
>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it may
>> well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this' side gets a
>> red, which would give exactly the situation we see in the video.
>
> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
> behave selfishly.
>
Why was public money wasted on an ASL in the first place? Why pander to
the needs of a tiny, non contributing minority in the first place?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Mrcheerful[_3_]

July 22nd 12, 08:21 PM

Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she
>>> tries to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into
>>> Greenwich High Road.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>
>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not
>> giving way to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is
>> exactly what cyclists do all the time.
>
> We've already been through this...
>
> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
> cyclists.
>
> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
> code so blatantly?
>
>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it
>> may well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this'
>> side gets a red, which would give exactly the situation we see in
>> the video.
>
> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
> behave selfishly.

anyone that watches traffic in London will be able to observe that cyclists
in their hundreds jump red lights, certainly some motor vehicles do,
including immediately after they change (less now that many lights have red
light cameras), but nothing like the blatant cyclists that will wander up
the inside of a queue of stationary traffic and go straight through on the
red causing pedestrians to jump out of the way, and cars to swerve and
brake.

Tony Dragon

July 22nd 12, 08:38 PM

On 22/07/2012 18:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>> Road.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>
>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not giving way
>> to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is exactly what cyclists
>> do all the time.
>
> We've already been through this...
>
> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
> cyclists.
>

I can't recall when I last saw a motor vehicle arrive at a red light
(that had been red some time) then just drive through the red light &
turn left.
Also I can not remember having to dodge a motor vehicle while crossing
the road with the green man showing.

I see cyclists doing this every day I go to work.

(cue usual response)

> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
> code so blatantly?
>
>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it may
>> well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this' side gets a
>> red, which would give exactly the situation we see in the video.
>
> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
> behave selfishly.
>

Tony Dragon

July 22nd 12, 08:39 PM

On 22/07/2012 20:21, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she
>>>> tries to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into
>>>> Greenwich High Road.
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>
>>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not
>>> giving way to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is
>>> exactly what cyclists do all the time.
>>
>> We've already been through this...
>>
>> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
>> cyclists.
>>
>> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
>> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
>> code so blatantly?
>>
>>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it
>>> may well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this'
>>> side gets a red, which would give exactly the situation we see in
>>> the video.
>>
>> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
>> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
>> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
>> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
>> behave selfishly.
>
> anyone that watches traffic in London will be able to observe that cyclists
> in their hundreds jump red lights, certainly some motor vehicles do,
> including immediately after they change (less now that many lights have red
> light cameras), but nothing like the blatant cyclists that will wander up
> the inside of a queue of stationary traffic and go straight through on the
> red causing pedestrians to jump out of the way, and cars to swerve and
> brake.
>
>

I would agree.

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 09:46 PM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:39:31 +0100, Tony Dragon
> wrote:

>On 22/07/2012 20:21, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she
>>>>> tries to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into
>>>>> Greenwich High Road.
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>
>>>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not
>>>> giving way to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is
>>>> exactly what cyclists do all the time.
>>>
>>> We've already been through this...
>>>
>>> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
>>> cyclists.
>>>
>>> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
>>> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
>>> code so blatantly?
>>>
>>>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>>>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it
>>>> may well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this'
>>>> side gets a red, which would give exactly the situation we see in
>>>> the video.
>>>
>>> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
>>> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
>>> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
>>> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
>>> behave selfishly.
>>
>> anyone that watches traffic in London will be able to observe that cyclists
>> in their hundreds jump red lights, certainly some motor vehicles do,
>> including immediately after they change (less now that many lights have red
>> light cameras), but nothing like the blatant cyclists that will wander up
>> the inside of a queue of stationary traffic and go straight through on the
>> red causing pedestrians to jump out of the way, and cars to swerve and
>> brake.
>>
>>
>
>I would agree.

Is jumping red lights blatantly, as you claim cyclists do, any worse
than jumping red lights surreptitiously, as you suggest motorists do?

I would suggest that a blatant red light jump is done with full
awareness of other road users, whereas a surreptitious red light jump
is done by flooring the accelerator pedal instead of the brake,
without a full awareness of other road users.

Just a thought, but I would suggest that the surreptitious one is more
dangerous - not that I would like to excuse, in any way, the blatant
red light jump.

Pseudonym[_2_]

July 22nd 12, 10:09 PM

On 22/07/2012 21:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:

>> I would agree.
>
> Is jumping red lights blatantly, as you claim cyclists do, any worse
> than jumping red lights surreptitiously, as you suggest motorists do?
>
> I would suggest that a blatant red light jump is done with full
> awareness of other road users, whereas a surreptitious red light jump
> is done by flooring the accelerator pedal instead of the brake,
> without a full awareness of other road users.
>
> Just a thought, but I would suggest that the surreptitious one is more
> dangerous - not that I would like to excuse, in any way, the blatant
> red light jump.
>

What bout us motor bicyclists. I wouldn't be too happy going through a
green light and having a bus decide it's ok to turn across me.

Tony Dragon

July 22nd 12, 10:37 PM

On 22/07/2012 21:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:39:31 +0100, Tony Dragon
> > wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2012 20:21, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she
>>>>>> tries to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into
>>>>>> Greenwich High Road.
>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not
>>>>> giving way to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is
>>>>> exactly what cyclists do all the time.
>>>>
>>>> We've already been through this...
>>>>
>>>> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
>>>> cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
>>>> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
>>>> code so blatantly?
>>>>
>>>>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>>>>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it
>>>>> may well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this'
>>>>> side gets a red, which would give exactly the situation we see in
>>>>> the video.
>>>>
>>>> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
>>>> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
>>>> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
>>>> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
>>>> behave selfishly.
>>>
>>> anyone that watches traffic in London will be able to observe that cyclists
>>> in their hundreds jump red lights, certainly some motor vehicles do,
>>> including immediately after they change (less now that many lights have red
>>> light cameras), but nothing like the blatant cyclists that will wander up
>>> the inside of a queue of stationary traffic and go straight through on the
>>> red causing pedestrians to jump out of the way, and cars to swerve and
>>> brake.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would agree.
>
> Is jumping red lights blatantly, as you claim cyclists do, any worse
> than jumping red lights surreptitiously,

Jumping red lights is against the law (most of the time) & potentially
dangerous.

> as you suggest motorists do?

I must have missed the bit where I suggested motorists did something.

>
> I would suggest that a blatant red light jump is done with full
> awareness of other road users, whereas a surreptitious red light jump
> is done by flooring the accelerator pedal instead of the brake,
> without a full awareness of other road users.

What a strange idea, according to you if I am crossing a road at a
junction (with the green man lit) I expect a cyclist to jump the light.

>
> Just a thought, but I would suggest that the surreptitious one is more
> dangerous - not that I would like to excuse, in any way, the blatant
> red light jump.
>

The Medway Handyman[_4_]

July 23rd 12, 08:38 AM

On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul 2012
> 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>>>
>>>>> Why ever not?
>>>
>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
>>>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction, to
>>>> say the least.
>>>
>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>>> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>>> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>>> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>>> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>>>
>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
>>> upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
>>> south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>>
>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
>>> recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
>>> look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
>>> used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
>>> connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
>>> called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>>>
>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
>>> expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
>>> could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
>>> all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
>>> of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
>>> amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
>>> way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
>>> Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>>
>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
>> Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
>> concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>>
>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>
> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>
No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 23rd 12, 08:39 AM

On 22/07/2012 21:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:39:31 +0100, Tony Dragon
> > wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2012 20:21, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she
>>>>>> tries to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into
>>>>>> Greenwich High Road.
>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not
>>>>> giving way to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is
>>>>> exactly what cyclists do all the time.
>>>>
>>>> We've already been through this...
>>>>
>>>> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
>>>> cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
>>>> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
>>>> code so blatantly?
>>>>
>>>>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>>>>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it
>>>>> may well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this'
>>>>> side gets a red, which would give exactly the situation we see in
>>>>> the video.
>>>>
>>>> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
>>>> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
>>>> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
>>>> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
>>>> behave selfishly.
>>>
>>> anyone that watches traffic in London will be able to observe that cyclists
>>> in their hundreds jump red lights, certainly some motor vehicles do,
>>> including immediately after they change (less now that many lights have red
>>> light cameras), but nothing like the blatant cyclists that will wander up
>>> the inside of a queue of stationary traffic and go straight through on the
>>> red causing pedestrians to jump out of the way, and cars to swerve and
>>> brake.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would agree.
>
> Is jumping red lights blatantly, as you claim cyclists do, any worse
> than jumping red lights surreptitiously, as you suggest motorists do?
>
> I would suggest that a blatant red light jump is done with full
> awareness of other road users, whereas a surreptitious red light jump
> is done by flooring the accelerator pedal instead of the brake,
> without a full awareness of other road users.
>
> Just a thought, but I would suggest that the surreptitious one is more
> dangerous - not that I would like to excuse, in any way, the blatant
> red light jump.
>
Wriggling Cwispin again.

"Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
cyclists".

Evidence?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Dave - Cyclists VOR

July 23rd 12, 08:41 AM

On 22/07/2012 22:00, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul 2012
> 18:32:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
>>>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
>>>> Road.
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-72157630679600510/
>>>
>>> Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not giving way
>>> to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is exactly what cyclists
>>> do all the time.
>>
>> We've already been through this...
>>
>> Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
>> cyclists.
>>
>> Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
>> cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
>> code so blatantly?
>>
>>> Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
>>> impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it may
>>> well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this' side gets a
>>> red, which would give exactly the situation we see in the video.
>>
>> As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
>> lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
>> occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
>> cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
>> behave selfishly.
>
> It could be sorted out with a few prosecutions of errant bus and taxi
> drivers. They account for a sufficiently high proportion of traffic
> that even if other motorists didn't follow their example, their
> observance of the law would provide safe passage for the cyclists.
> And they have their own "grapevine" so word would spread that the
> junction is no longer a safe place to ignore the law.
>
Much easier to ban the tiny minority of sponging cyclists.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 23rd 12, 09:20 AM

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:23:49 +0100, Judith wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:06:17 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Did you see both clips?
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/
set-72157630679600510/
>>
>>Scary!
>
>
> Cycling in London is dangerous.
>
> Many thanks

Life is dangerous. Many thanks.

--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

Judith[_4_]

July 23rd 12, 12:01 PM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:20:02 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller >
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:23:49 +0100, Judith wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:06:17 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Did you see both clips?
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615061428/in/
>set-72157630679600510/
>>>
>>>Scary!
>>
>>
>> Cycling in London is dangerous.
>>
>> Many thanks
>
>Life is dangerous. Many thanks.

Silly old sod

Still - you can't got long to go now.

Talking of which - have you heard from Numb-nuts?

July 24th 12, 06:18 AM

On Jul 22, 8:13*pm, Phil W Lee > wrote:
> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul 2012
> 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent >
> >wrote:
>
> >>On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >>> "JNugent" > wrote:
> >>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> >>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>
> >>>> Why ever not?
>
> >>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
> >>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction, to
> >>> say the least.
>
> >>I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
> >>It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
> >>highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
> >>London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
> >>that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
> >>the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
> >>traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>
> >>The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
> >>upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
> >>south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
> >>A2210 and the A2211.
>
> >>I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
> >>recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
> >>look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
> >>used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
> >>cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
> >>connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
> >>called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>
> >>If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
> >>expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
> >>traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
> >>could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
> >>all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
> >>of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
> >>with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
> >>Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
> >>amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
> >>way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
> >>be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
> >>Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>
> >As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
> >Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
> >concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
> >http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>
> >I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
> >enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>
> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
> motorists) is more important than the right to life?

Well he's right isn't he?

July 24th 12, 06:24 AM

On Jul 22, 10:00*pm, Phil W Lee > wrote:
> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul 2012
> 18:32:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:42:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
> >>Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >>> Motor vehicle drivers simply ignore this hapless cyclist as she tries
> >>> to ride across the TLRN road from Deals Gateway into Greenwich High
> >>> Road.
> >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/brompton1/7615204196/in/set-721576306796....
>
> >>Presumably this is cyclist complaining about other vehicles not giving way
> >>to them and ignoring red lights, ironic when that is exactly what cyclists
> >>do all the time.
>
> >We've already been through this...
>
> >Motor vehicle drivers are far more likely to shoot red lights than
> >cyclists.
>
> >Anyway, that fact aside, why should the actions of a few errant
> >cyclists by shooting red lights make those drivers disobey the highway
> >code so blatantly?
>
> >>Without being able to see both sets of lights at the same time it is
> >>impossible to say whether the lights are phased correctly or not, it may
> >>well be that the 'other side' gets a green light before 'this' side gets a
> >>red, which would give exactly the situation we see in the video.
>
> >As Judith has so eloquently pointed out, the poor phasing of those
> >lights has been pointed out to Transport for London on numerous
> >occasions over the past few years. They have even moved the ASL for
> >cyclists forward a little - but motor vehicle drivers continue to
> >behave selfishly.
>
> It could be sorted out with a few prosecutions of errant bus and taxi
> drivers. *They account for a sufficiently high proportion of traffic
> that even if other motorists didn't follow their example, their
> observance of the law would provide safe passage for the cyclists.
> And they have their own "grapevine" so word would spread that the
> junction is no longer a safe place to ignore the law.

Better would be the, ten or so every day, cycles who need to cross
this junction to be forced to turn left, a left turn only on the green
light would solve the problem instantly and cheaply. There is a short
easy and safe route back to the junction.

I'm aware this will make little or no difference as the cyclists will
ignore the traffic lights anyway but at least it will stop them
moaning.

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 24th 12, 08:22 AM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38:00 +0100, The Medway Handyman
> wrote:

>On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul 2012
>> 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
>>>>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why ever not?
>>>>
>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
>>>>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a poorly designed junction, to
>>>>> say the least.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
>>>> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
>>>> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
>>>> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
>>>> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>>>>
>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
>>>> upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
>>>> south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>>>
>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
>>>> recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
>>>> look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
>>>> used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
>>>> connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
>>>> called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>>>>
>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
>>>> expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone. DC
>>>> could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
>>>> all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
>>>> of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
>>>> amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
>>>> way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
>>>> Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>>>
>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
>>> Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
>>> concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>>>
>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>>
>> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
>> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>>
>No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
>important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.

He's done some rephrasing of the lights at the Kidbrooke interchange.
Northbound bound traffic on the A2 is held back at Kidbrooke for twice
as long as before to smooth Olympic Lane traffic flow for eastbound A2
traffic turning northbound onto the A102, Blackwell Tunnel Approach
Road.
http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 24th 12, 09:20 AM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:01:05 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Silly old sod

Is that the best you can do you vorephilic whore?
I really am working towards the greater honour of being diseased and
suppressive.

--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

Peter Keller[_3_]

July 24th 12, 09:22 AM

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:01:05 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Still - you can't got long to go now.

Murderous ****.

--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

Mrcheerful[_3_]

July 24th 12, 10:50 AM

Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38:00 +0100, The Medway Handyman
> > wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul
>>> 2012 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware
>>>>>>>> of the re-phasing of the lights.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why ever not?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of
>>>>>> way, but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a
>>>>>> poorly designed junction, to say the least.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of
>>>>> that word.
>>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point
>>>>> for two highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the
>>>>> ancient way from London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a
>>>>> short branch to Greenwich from that Dover road, just after the
>>>>> lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek, the intersection
>>>>> being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water
>>>>> crossings to a minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to
>>>>> have been upgraded in recent years to allow significant
>>>>> redevelopment of land to the south of the A2 in the northern end
>>>>> of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before
>>>>> these more recent changes (and considerable widening - the
>>>>> junction, though it doesn't look it, is a major network node for
>>>>> that part of London and I'm sure that DC used to be a nonentity
>>>>> of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice
>>>>> that DC only connects with the road network in the rest of the
>>>>> triangle via a thoroughfare called "Breck Close": a name which
>>>>> tells its own tale.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable
>>>>> traffic from the expanded DC (and other points south) to access
>>>>> the A2 at the expense of
>>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was
>>>>> undone. DC could profitably either be closed off to traffic at
>>>>> the A2 junction, leaving all traffic to gain northward access via
>>>>> the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple of hundred yards away to the
>>>>> east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the
>>>>> Lewisham
>>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the
>>>>> smaller amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north
>>>>> at A2/GHR. Either way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not
>>>>> so great as to permit it to
>>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of
>>>>> traffic lights. Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>>>>
>>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map,
>>>> Deals Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River
>>>> Ravensbourne now concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>>>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>>>>
>>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>>>
>>> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
>>> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>>>
>> No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
>> important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.
>
> He's done some rephrasing of the lights at the Kidbrooke interchange.
> Northbound bound traffic on the A2 is held back at Kidbrooke for twice
> as long as before to smooth Olympic Lane traffic flow for eastbound A2
> traffic turning northbound onto the A102, Blackwell Tunnel Approach
> Road.
> http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
> The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
> part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network

'rephrased' ? twice? the word is 're-phased'

July 24th 12, 12:27 PM

On Jul 24, 10:50*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Bertie Wooster wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38:00 +0100, The Medway Handyman
> > > wrote:
>
> >> On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
> >>> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul
> >>> 2012 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent
> >>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware
> >>>>>>>> of the re-phasing of the lights.
>
> >>>>>>> Why ever not?
>
> >>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of
> >>>>>> way, but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a
> >>>>>> poorly designed junction, to say the least.
>
> >>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of
> >>>>> that word.
> >>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point
> >>>>> for two highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the
> >>>>> ancient way from London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a
> >>>>> short branch to Greenwich from that Dover road, just after the
> >>>>> lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek, the intersection
> >>>>> being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
> >>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water
> >>>>> crossings to a minimum.
>
> >>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to
> >>>>> have been upgraded in recent years to allow significant
> >>>>> redevelopment of land to the south of the A2 in the northern end
> >>>>> of the triangle formed by the A2, the
> >>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>
> >>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before
> >>>>> these more recent changes (and considerable widening - the
> >>>>> junction, though it doesn't look it, is a major network node for
> >>>>> that part of London and I'm sure that DC used to be a nonentity
> >>>>> of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
> >>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice
> >>>>> that DC only connects with the road network in the rest of the
> >>>>> triangle via a thoroughfare called "Breck Close": a name which
> >>>>> tells its own tale.
>
> >>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable
> >>>>> traffic from the expanded DC (and other points south) to access
> >>>>> the A2 at the expense of
> >>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was
> >>>>> undone. DC could profitably either be closed off to traffic at
> >>>>> the A2 junction, leaving all traffic to gain northward access via
> >>>>> the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple of hundred yards away to the
> >>>>> east OR closed off at its southerly junction
> >>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the
> >>>>> Lewisham
> >>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the
> >>>>> smaller amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north
> >>>>> at A2/GHR. Either way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not
> >>>>> so great as to permit it to
> >>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of
> >>>>> traffic lights. Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>
> >>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map,
> >>>> Deals Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River
> >>>> Ravensbourne now concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
> >>>>http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>
> >>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
> >>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>
> >>> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
> >>> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>
> >> No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
> >> important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.
>
> > He's done some rephrasing of the lights at the Kidbrooke interchange.
> > Northbound bound traffic on the A2 is held back at Kidbrooke for twice
> > as long as before to smooth Olympic Lane traffic flow for eastbound A2
> > traffic turning northbound onto the A102, Blackwell Tunnel Approach
> > Road.
> >http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
> > The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
> > part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network
>
> 'rephrased' *? twice? *the word is 're-phased'

Give him a bit of slack. he's a teacher.

July 24th 12, 12:33 PM

On Jul 22, 1:31*pm, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >> "JNugent" > wrote:
> >>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> >>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >>>> re-phasing of the lights.
>
> >>> Why ever not?
>
> >> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
> >> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction, to
> >> say the least.
>
> >I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
> >It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
> >highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
> >London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
> >that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
> >the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
> >traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>
> >The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to have been
> >upgraded in recent years to allow significant redevelopment of land to the
> >south of the A2 in the northern end of the triangle formed by the A2, the
> >A2210 and the A2211.
>
> >I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before these more
> >recent changes (and considerable widening - the junction, though it doesn't
> >look it, is a major network node for that part of London and I'm sure that DC
> >used to be a nonentity of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
> >cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice that DC only
> >connects with the road network in the rest of the triangle via a thoroughfare
> >called "Breck Close": a name which tells its own tale.
>
> >If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable traffic from the
> >expanded DC (and other points south) to access the A2 at the expense of
> >traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was undone.. DC
> >could profitably either be closed off to traffic at the A2 junction, leaving
> >all traffic to gain northward access via the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple
> >of hundred yards away to the east OR closed off at its southerly junction
> >with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the Lewisham
> >Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the smaller
> >amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north at A2/GHR. Either
> >way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not so great as to permit it to
> >be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of traffic lights.
> >Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>
> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map, Deals
> Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River Ravensbourne now
> concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>
> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.

They can and most do, the idiots who want to stand on their 'rights'
and who are experiencing a common sense over are the ones who have
'problems'. What is wrong with turning left?

Bertie Wooster[_2_]

July 24th 12, 01:19 PM

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:50:11 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38:00 +0100, The Medway Handyman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul
>>>> 2012 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware
>>>>>>>>> of the re-phasing of the lights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why ever not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of
>>>>>>> way, but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a
>>>>>>> poorly designed junction, to say the least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of
>>>>>> that word.
>>>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point
>>>>>> for two highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the
>>>>>> ancient way from London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a
>>>>>> short branch to Greenwich from that Dover road, just after the
>>>>>> lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek, the intersection
>>>>>> being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water
>>>>>> crossings to a minimum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to
>>>>>> have been upgraded in recent years to allow significant
>>>>>> redevelopment of land to the south of the A2 in the northern end
>>>>>> of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before
>>>>>> these more recent changes (and considerable widening - the
>>>>>> junction, though it doesn't look it, is a major network node for
>>>>>> that part of London and I'm sure that DC used to be a nonentity
>>>>>> of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice
>>>>>> that DC only connects with the road network in the rest of the
>>>>>> triangle via a thoroughfare called "Breck Close": a name which
>>>>>> tells its own tale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable
>>>>>> traffic from the expanded DC (and other points south) to access
>>>>>> the A2 at the expense of
>>>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was
>>>>>> undone. DC could profitably either be closed off to traffic at
>>>>>> the A2 junction, leaving all traffic to gain northward access via
>>>>>> the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple of hundred yards away to the
>>>>>> east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the
>>>>>> Lewisham
>>>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the
>>>>>> smaller amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north
>>>>>> at A2/GHR. Either way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not
>>>>>> so great as to permit it to
>>>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of
>>>>>> traffic lights. Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map,
>>>>> Deals Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River
>>>>> Ravensbourne now concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>>>>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>>>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>>>>
>>>> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
>>>> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>>>>
>>> No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
>>> important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.
>>
>> He's done some rephrasing of the lights at the Kidbrooke interchange.
>> Northbound bound traffic on the A2 is held back at Kidbrooke for twice
>> as long as before to smooth Olympic Lane traffic flow for eastbound A2
>> traffic turning northbound onto the A102, Blackwell Tunnel Approach
>> Road.
>> http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
>> The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
>> part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network
>
>'rephrased' ? twice? the word is 're-phased'

Yes. Sorry about that. I typed in "rephased" and my spillchecker
suggested "rephrased" and I accepted the change. A stupid mistake on
my part.

July 24th 12, 02:34 PM

On Jul 24, 1:19*pm, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:50:11 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38:00 +0100, The Medway Handyman
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
> >>>> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul
> >>>> 2012 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware
> >>>>>>>>> of the re-phasing of the lights.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why ever not?
>
> >>>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of
> >>>>>>> way, but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a
> >>>>>>> poorly designed junction, to say the least.
>
> >>>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of
> >>>>>> that word.
> >>>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point
> >>>>>> for two highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the
> >>>>>> ancient way from London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a
> >>>>>> short branch to Greenwich from that Dover road, just after the
> >>>>>> lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek, the intersection
> >>>>>> being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
> >>>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water
> >>>>>> crossings to a minimum.
>
> >>>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to
> >>>>>> have been upgraded in recent years to allow significant
> >>>>>> redevelopment of land to the south of the A2 in the northern end
> >>>>>> of the triangle formed by the A2, the
> >>>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>
> >>>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before
> >>>>>> these more recent changes (and considerable widening - the
> >>>>>> junction, though it doesn't look it, is a major network node for
> >>>>>> that part of London and I'm sure that DC used to be a nonentity
> >>>>>> of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
> >>>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice
> >>>>>> that DC only connects with the road network in the rest of the
> >>>>>> triangle via a thoroughfare called "Breck Close": a name which
> >>>>>> tells its own tale.
>
> >>>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable
> >>>>>> traffic from the expanded DC (and other points south) to access
> >>>>>> the A2 at the expense of
> >>>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was
> >>>>>> undone. DC could profitably either be closed off to traffic at
> >>>>>> the A2 junction, leaving all traffic to gain northward access via
> >>>>>> the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple of hundred yards away to the
> >>>>>> east OR closed off at its southerly junction
> >>>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the
> >>>>>> Lewisham
> >>>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the
> >>>>>> smaller amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north
> >>>>>> at A2/GHR. Either way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not
> >>>>>> so great as to permit it to
> >>>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of
> >>>>>> traffic lights. Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>
> >>>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map,
> >>>>> Deals Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River
> >>>>> Ravensbourne now concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
> >>>>>http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>
> >>>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
> >>>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>
> >>>> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
> >>>> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>
> >>> No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
> >>> important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.
>
> >> He's done some rephrasing of the lights at the Kidbrooke interchange.
> >> Northbound bound traffic on the A2 is held back at Kidbrooke for twice
> >> as long as before to smooth Olympic Lane traffic flow for eastbound A2
> >> traffic turning northbound onto the A102, Blackwell Tunnel Approach
> >> Road.
> >>http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
> >> The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
> >> part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network
>
> >'rephrased' *? twice? *the word is 're-phased'
>
> Yes. Sorry about that. I typed in "rephased" and my spillchecker
> suggested "rephrased" and I accepted the change. A stupid mistake on
> my part.

I stopped using spill chuckers as I'm dyslexic, they are no help, they
just encourage lazyness.

Pseudonym[_2_]

July 24th 12, 04:36 PM

On 24/07/2012 12:27, NM wrote:

>>> http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
>>> The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
>>> part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network
>>
>> 'rephrased' ? twice? the word is 're-phased'
>
> Give him a bit of slack. he's a teacher.
>

Or to put it another way ...

[email protected][_2_]

July 24th 12, 05:22 PM

You wrote:
'you can't got to (sic) long now'

You are an idiotic troll piece of excremental debris. No wonder a lying imbecile like you hides his identity - you combine stupidity with cowardice.

Mrcheerful[_3_]

July 24th 12, 06:13 PM

wrote:
> You wrote:
> 'you can't got to (sic) long now'
>

no, that is not what was written.

[email protected][_2_]

July 24th 12, 06:18 PM

So ****ing what

[email protected][_2_]

July 24th 12, 06:39 PM

Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 19:13:40 UTC+2 schreef Mrcheerful het volgende:
> wrote:
> > You wrote:
> > 'you can't got to (sic) long now'
> >
>
> no, that is not what was written.

So ****ing what: that Judith slime is the same as you - a waste of resources

jnugent

July 24th 12, 07:26 PM

On 24/07/2012 10:50, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38:00 +0100, The Medway Handyman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/07/2012 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>> Bertie Wooster > considered Sun, 22 Jul
>>>> 2012 13:31:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:29:10 +0100, JNugent
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware
>>>>>>>>> of the re-phasing of the lights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why ever not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of
>>>>>>> way, but the bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. It's a
>>>>>>> poorly designed junction, to say the least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of
>>>>>> that word.
>>>>>> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point
>>>>>> for two highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the
>>>>>> ancient way from London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a
>>>>>> short branch to Greenwich from that Dover road, just after the
>>>>>> lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek, the intersection
>>>>>> being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
>>>>>> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water
>>>>>> crossings to a minimum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The minor route from the south (Deal's Causeway "DC") seems to
>>>>>> have been upgraded in recent years to allow significant
>>>>>> redevelopment of land to the south of the A2 in the northern end
>>>>>> of the triangle formed by the A2, the
>>>>>> A2210 and the A2211.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't remember DC bringing much traffic to that junction before
>>>>>> these more recent changes (and considerable widening - the
>>>>>> junction, though it doesn't look it, is a major network node for
>>>>>> that part of London and I'm sure that DC used to be a nonentity
>>>>>> of a route. This is probably because it used to be a
>>>>>> cul de sac. Looking at Google Maps, one can't help but notice
>>>>>> that DC only connects with the road network in the rest of the
>>>>>> triangle via a thoroughfare called "Breck Close": a name which
>>>>>> tells its own tale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the lights were re-phased under Mad Ken so as to enable
>>>>>> traffic from the expanded DC (and other points south) to access
>>>>>> the A2 at the expense of
>>>>>> traffic on the A2 and GHR, it was indeed time that the damage was
>>>>>> undone. DC could profitably either be closed off to traffic at
>>>>>> the A2 junction, leaving all traffic to gain northward access via
>>>>>> the Greenwich-Lewisham Road a couple of hundred yards away to the
>>>>>> east OR closed off at its southerly junction
>>>>>> with Breck Close, preventing through traffic (which would use the
>>>>>> Lewisham
>>>>>> Road or the road from Lewisham to Deptford) and allowing only the
>>>>>> smaller amount of traffic from the redeveloped land to move north
>>>>>> at A2/GHR. Either way, the capacity of the A2/GHR junction is not
>>>>>> so great as to permit it to
>>>>>> be artificially restricted by Mad Ken's malicious phasing of
>>>>>> traffic lights. Good riddance (in more than one sense).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you would know if you took even a cursory look at an old map,
>>>>> Deals Gateway provided a route to a branch of the River
>>>>> Ravensbourne now concealed built sometime between 1882 and 1895.
>>>>> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/deals
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see no reason why cyclists today should not still be able to
>>>>> enjoy this hundred and twenty year old right of way in safety.
>>>>
>>>> Because Boris thinks that "smoothing traffic flow" (but only for
>>>> motorists) is more important than the right to life?
>>>>
>>> No, because smoothing traffic flow for the paying majority is more
>>> important than pandering to ****wit cyclist minorities.
>>
>> He's done some rephrasing of the lights at the Kidbrooke interchange.
>> Northbound bound traffic on the A2 is held back at Kidbrooke for twice
>> as long as before to smooth Olympic Lane traffic flow for eastbound A2
>> traffic turning northbound onto the A102, Blackwell Tunnel Approach
>> Road.
>> http://goo.gl/maps/0JmM
>> The warning sign shows the rephrased lights. The orange line shows
>> part of the smoothed flow Olympic Route Network
>
> 'rephrased' ? twice? the word is 're-phased'

Bertie ought to rephrase his post.

jnugent

July 24th 12, 07:28 PM

On 24/07/2012 18:18, wrote:

> So ****ing what

What a literate and informative chap you aren't.

July 24th 12, 08:15 PM

On Jul 22, 1:40*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> On 22/07/2012 11:07, NM wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:29 am, JNugent > wrote:
> >> On 22/07/2012 03:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >>> "JNugent" > wrote:
> >>>> On 22/07/2012 00:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >>>>> It is not reasonable for motor vehicle drivers to be unaware of the
> >>>>> re-phasing of the lights.
> >>>> Why ever not?
> >>> Ordinary drivers might not realise that the cyclist has right of way, but the
> >>> bus drivers cannot claim that excuse. *It's a poorly designed junction, to
> >>> say the least.
>
> >> I'm sure the junction was never "designed" in the normal sense of that word.
> >> It is simply the ancient and effectively unplanned meeting point for two
> >> highways which pre-date the modern transport era: one the ancient way from
> >> London to Canterbury and Dover and the other a short branch to Greenwich from
> >> that Dover road, just after the lowest easy crossing point of Deptford Creek,
> >> the intersection being effectively dictated by the geomorphology and the
> >> traditional need to keep the number of (expensive) water crossings to a minimum.
>
> > It was following alongside the original track of the railway that ran
> > from the now long disused junction in Lewisham Way through to
> > terminate at where the Ibis Hotel now stands in Greenwich, after
> > removal of the railway the area was turned into a park, there was
> > access into the park for cyclists but no road for vehicular traffic,
> > the junction was modified after construction of the DLR at Deptford
> > Bridge station the DLR follows the approx course of the river
> > Ravensbourne from the head of Deptford Creek. For the best part of a
> > century there has been no traffic coming out of that junction. at this
> > point it was named. AFAIK it is still acul de sac as far as vehicles
> > are concerned though there may now be a bike route through to
> > Lewisham.
>
> > Traces of the old railway can be seen in Brookmill Road where the
> > buttress for the crossbridge in now fenced off as a wildlife sanctuary
> > and various gaps between the buildings denote the lay of the line to
> > the terminus. The station building at the junction with Lewisham Way
> > is still in use as a secondhand architectural Salvage business and is
> > situated opposite the junction or Tyrwhitt (sp) Road although all
> > traces line side have long vanished.
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> The history of (often defunct) local transport within London is an
> interesting subject.

This thread had me thinking and doing a bit of digging, I strongly
suspect that the entire cul de sac was in fact the old station
forecourt of the Blackheath Hill Station opened in 1871 as part of the
London Dover and Chatam Railway's extension to it's new terminus at
Greenwich Park (now the Ibis Hotel site). It was closed in 1917 and
remained disused until 1928 when it was totally removed, there is
still evidence of some brick piers remaining on the North side of the
A2. The station buildings changed use and were finally demolished in
1960 (I can vaguely remember that as I passed by on the A2 many times
in my youth).

Visual aspect for those approaching from Greenwich is that of a
shallow cul de sac with considerable width, as one would expect from a
station forecourt, it is hardly surprising that nobody expects traffic
from that direction from their perspective it is not a junction with a
straight ahead road, the main stream of traffic turns right. I suspect
the traffic light is a result of the relative recent addition of the
cycle track from Lewisham.