Re: Richmond Park - proposal to exclude cyclists from Tamsin Trail

[elyob]

"Paul Luton" > wrote in message
...
> I have just received the newsletter of the Friends of Richmond Park which
> is mainly devoted to an attack on the shared use of off road tracks in
> Royal Parks citing the throwing out of proposals for cycle routes across
> Hampsted Heath and expressing "dismay" that cycling is now allowed in
> Kensington Gardens. The argument makes dishonest selective quotation from
> CTC , Sustrans and Cyclecraft to damn the concept of shared use even in a
> recreational context. Interestingly there is no parallel proposal to
> restrict horse riders to the roads. Horse riders are obviously superior
> beings who enjoy a wider exclusive track when not allowed unfettered
access
> to the whole park.
>
> We may agree that a cheap and nasty shared footway is unsatisfactory for a
> strategic cycle route but for cyclists in west London the Tamsin Trail
> makes an enjoyable short ride at off peak hours. We must be ready to
defend
> our right to use it.
>
> Paul Luton
>

Your kidding right? Tons of people use it, and I have had no real problems
on it. The bicycle hire shop will be fairly knackered if this comes in.
This article was quite interesting though ... http://tinyurl.com/ibr3

How do you sign up for the FoRP newsletter? I'd be interested in a copy if
you can scan it ....

[Paul Kelly]

In ,
Paul Luton > typed:
>>
> We may agree that a cheap and nasty shared footway is unsatisfactory
> for a strategic cycle route but for cyclists in west London the
> Tamsin Trail makes an enjoyable short ride at off peak hours. We must
> be ready to defend our right to use it.
>
> Paul Luton

Lead me to the barricade!

Twice a week round Wimbledon common and the Park is my main exercise!

pk

[elyob]

"Paul Kelly" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Paul Luton > typed:
> >>
> > We may agree that a cheap and nasty shared footway is unsatisfactory
> > for a strategic cycle route but for cyclists in west London the
> > Tamsin Trail makes an enjoyable short ride at off peak hours. We must
> > be ready to defend our right to use it.
> >
> > Paul Luton
>
> Lead me to the barricade!
>
> Twice a week round Wimbledon common and the Park is my main exercise!
>

7 times a week around the park is my main exercise. I might extend this to
include Wimbledon Common. Best check the route ...

[Paul Luton]

In message >
"elyob" > wrote:

>
> "Paul Luton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have just received the newsletter of the Friends of Richmond Park which
> > is mainly devoted to an attack on the shared use of off road tracks in
> > Royal Parks citing the throwing out of proposals for cycle routes across
> > Hampsted Heath and expressing "dismay" that cycling is now allowed in
> > Kensington Gardens.
>
> Your kidding right? Tons of people use it, and I have had no real problems
> on it. The bicycle hire shop will be fairly knackered if this comes in.
> This article was quite interesting though ... http://tinyurl.com/ibr3
>
> How do you sign up for the FoRP newsletter? I'd be interested in a copy if
> you can scan it ....
>
>
Sorry no scanner

The Hon. Membership Secretary is Mrs Mary Thorpe, 226 Sheen Lane SW148LB
020 8878 2789 and the subscription £3.00. We may need all the support we
can get!
--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

[PK]

Paul Luton wrote:
> In message >
> "elyob" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Luton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have just received the newsletter of the Friends of Richmond Park
>>> which is mainly devoted to an attack on the shared use of off road
>>> tracks in Royal Parks citing the throwing out of proposals for
>>> cycle routes across Hampsted Heath and expressing "dismay" that
>>> cycling is now allowed in Kensington Gardens.
>>
>> Your kidding right? Tons of people use it, and I have had no real
>> problems on it. The bicycle hire shop will be fairly knackered if
>> this comes in. This article was quite interesting though ...
>> http://tinyurl.com/ibr3
>>
>> How do you sign up for the FoRP newsletter? I'd be interested in a
>> copy if you can scan it ....
>>
>>
> Sorry no scanner
>
> The Hon. Membership Secretary is Mrs Mary Thorpe, 226 Sheen Lane
> SW148LB 020 8878 2789 and the subscription £3.00. We may need all
> the support we can get!



A post dredged from my achives.....

Prompted by the above, I joined FRP and was shocked by the tone and content
of the article on cycling in the Park.

I was therefore much relieved to read in the October newsletter a much
moderated line from the vice president, clearly prompted by complaints re
the previous anti cyclist line.

Key sentence:

"One alternative, removing cyclists altogether from the Trail - apart from
being thoroughly undesirable from the cyclists' point of view, would not be
legally allowable: the money was originally bequeathed on the express
condition that it would be used to build a cycle track"

The whole tone has switched from "anti cyclist" to "walkers and cyclists
together against the car"

pk

[PK]

Paul Luton wrote:
> In message >
> "elyob" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Luton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have just received the newsletter of the Friends of Richmond Park
>>> which is mainly devoted to an attack on the shared use of off road
>>> tracks in Royal Parks citing the throwing out of proposals for
>>> cycle routes across Hampsted Heath and expressing "dismay" that
>>> cycling is now allowed in Kensington Gardens.
>>
>> Your kidding right? Tons of people use it, and I have had no real
>> problems on it. The bicycle hire shop will be fairly knackered if
>> this comes in. This article was quite interesting though ...
>> http://tinyurl.com/ibr3
>>
>> How do you sign up for the FoRP newsletter? I'd be interested in a
>> copy if you can scan it ....
>>
>>
> Sorry no scanner
>
> The Hon. Membership Secretary is Mrs Mary Thorpe, 226 Sheen Lane
> SW148LB 020 8878 2789 and the subscription £3.00. We may need all
> the support we can get!



A post dredged from my achives.....

Prompted by the above, I joined FRP and was shocked by the tone and content
of the article on cycling in the Park.

I was therefore much relieved to read in the October newsletter a much
moderated line from the vice president, clearly prompted by complaints re
the previous anti cyclist line.

Key sentence:

"One alternative, removing cyclists altogether from the Trail - apart from
being thoroughly undesirable from the cyclists' point of view, would not be
legally allowable: the money was originally bequeathed on the express
condition that it would be used to build a cycle track"

The whole tone has switched from "anti cyclist" to "walkers and cyclists
together against the car"

pk

[Nathaniel Porter]

"PK" > wrote in message
...
>
> The whole tone has switched from "anti cyclist" to "walkers and cyclists
> together against the car"
>

Is that any better? Can't everyone be sensible and say "responsible
reasonable walkers, cyclists, motorists et al against irresponsible
unreasonable road users"?

[Nathaniel Porter]

"PK" > wrote in message
...
>
> The whole tone has switched from "anti cyclist" to "walkers and cyclists
> together against the car"
>

Is that any better? Can't everyone be sensible and say "responsible
reasonable walkers, cyclists, motorists et al against irresponsible
unreasonable road users"?