Cambridge Guided Busway Path on a Trike?

In article , Brian Morrison wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
M Wicks wrote:

(Some of the cam.transport lot have a bit of a "thing" about
uk.rec.cycling

Isn't that what uk.rec.cycling.moderated is for?

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.re...37c45d19e9bd8e
might explain some of M Wick's rather unusual views on the cycling groups.
But in this particular case, the cross-post is entirely reasonable.
(uk.rec.cycling.moderated, like most moderated groups, doesn't allow
cross-posts for technical reasons.)

The only (short) bit of the busway path I've been on was certainly wide
enough for a trike, and since it's also a service access I'd expect that
to be generally true.

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/tra...aycycleway.htm
says "generally 3 to 4 metre wide path" and "blacktopped over its entire
length".

http://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/ might help.

On Oct 26, 2:12Â*pm, Artemisia wrote:

I've been looking at various blogs about the new cycleway. Some describe
a smooth narrow concrete ribbon on the busway where bikes can roll - but
it looks too skinny for my trike. Others talk about a gravel path that
runs alongside the Busway, but which is frequently flooded and
impassable. Apparently though, this was to be entirely tarmac between
Cambridge and Longstanton, so I wondered if this problem was still
current.

Most of this is out of date... the 'smooth concrete ribbon' is the actual
rails - where the buses go - which people were using in the (looooong)
period before the buses started running. Don't use it now unless you wish
to be squished by a bus at 55mph.

The 'gravel path' is the maintenance track, which was previously unsurfaced,
then was planned to be surfaced until Northstowe (I think), and now it's
tarmac all the way to St Ives. The flooding was one of those problems that
prevented the busway opening - remedial work happened. I don't know if it
completely solved the problem, but ISTR someone say it solved it for
everything but one day a year, or something like that. Should be fine for a
trike, though access points are bollarded to prevent unauthorised cars using
the track. Depends how wide the trike is.

Is there traffic? Are there Traffic lights? Dangerous intersections?

Traffic = other bikes, joggers, pedestrians, horses, the occasional busway
maintenance vehicle.

Traffic lights: there are lights for cars and buses at intersections but not
sure about cycles - I don't know who has right of way there.

Theo

Brian Morrison writes:


... all moderation is yet more censorship.

IMO moderation is not really about censorship. Moderation does nothing
to prevent you publishing your words. Complaining that the moderators
won't let you post to a moderated newsgroup is like complaining that the
Times won't publish your word on their front page (for example). Nothing
is stopping you posting elsewhere, or setting up your own moderated
group (or publishing your own newspaper).

There's a difference between the right to free speech, and the right to
have any old drivel cirulated via every medium.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:06:52 +0000
Paul Rudin wrote:

Brian Morrison writes:


... all moderation is yet more censorship.

IMO moderation is not really about censorship.

I beg to differ, from my perspective it's about having a nice cosy place
to discuss your thoughts with like-minded people without having to
respond to valid points that you don't like (and of course the rampantly
irritating people that disagree just to provoke you).

Moderation does nothing
to prevent you publishing your words. Complaining that the moderators
won't let you post to a moderated newsgroup is like complaining that
the Times won't publish your word on their front page (for example).

Fine, just don't call the resulting forum a newsgroup, it isn't, it is
a censored mailing list. I have no problem with those existing, I
simply feel that similar forums should play little part in Usenet
discussion other than for announcements of various types.

Nothing is stopping you posting elsewhere, or setting up your own
moderated group (or publishing your own newspaper).

My experience over many many years is that moderated groups appear when
people appear unable to use the tools at their disposal to read what is
useful to them in a group. I often read all posts in groups with high
levels of idiocy, but I ignore the idiocy that is irrelevant in the
main, often by automatic means.

With u.r.c.m it seems that the problem is that some people want to
ignore relevant and intelligent comments because they don't fit in with
their world view.

If this stuff did not get cross-posted to cam.transport I would never
have bothered posting a response, but as it has I have done so.

I'm always happy to see cyclists on the road and do my level best to
coexist with them when driving or walking, I have no axe to grind in
that respect.

--

Brian Morrison

Brian Morrison writes:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:06:52 +0000
Paul Rudin wrote:

Brian Morrison writes:


... all moderation is yet more censorship.

IMO moderation is not really about censorship.

I beg to differ, from my perspective it's about having a nice cosy place
to discuss your thoughts with like-minded people without having to
respond to valid points that you don't like (and of course the rampantly
irritating people that disagree just to provoke you).

That paragraph might be true, but that doesn't make it censorship. You
might say that there's no point arguing about definitions, but
"censorship" has obvious negative connatations. Censorship is about
supressing free speech, usually by a government. Whatever a moderated
newsgroup is, it is not censorship. It interferes with no rights of free
speech and no arm of government is involved.

A group of people deciding they want to have a discussion with some
rules relating to what can be said is not censorship.


Moderation does nothing
to prevent you publishing your words. Complaining that the moderators
won't let you post to a moderated newsgroup is like complaining that
the Times won't publish your word on their front page (for example).

Fine, just don't call the resulting forum a newsgroup, it isn't, it is
a censored mailing list.

"newsgroup" means it gets propogated via NNTP, surely? There have been
moderated newgroups for very many years. RFC 1036 mentions them -
they've been around since before then.

And a private mailing list is also not "censorship" - it's private,
they're not the same thing.


I have no problem with those existing, I simply feel that similar
forums should play little part in Usenet discussion other than for
announcements of various types.

Nothing is stopping you posting elsewhere, or setting up your own
moderated group (or publishing your own newspaper).

My experience over many many years is that moderated groups appear when
people appear unable to use the tools at their disposal to read what is
useful to them in a group. I often read all posts in groups with high
levels of idiocy, but I ignore the idiocy that is irrelevant in the
main, often by automatic means.

With u.r.c.m it seems that the problem is that some people want to
ignore relevant and intelligent comments because they don't fit in with
their world view.


Whatever the motivations are some moderated newsgroups have a much
better signal to noise ratio than some of their unmoderated couterparts.

If this stuff did not get cross-posted to cam.transport I would never
have bothered posting a response, but as it has I have done so.


Well, me too. I used to read uk.rec.cycling, but it became rather too
tedious.

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:06:52 +0000
Paul Rudin wrote:

Brian Morrison writes:


... all moderation is yet more censorship.

IMO moderation is not really about censorship.

I beg to differ, from my perspective it's about having a nice cosy place
to discuss your thoughts with like-minded people without having to
respond to valid points that you don't like (and of course the rampantly
irritating people that disagree just to provoke you).

Yes, that's how I see it too and if that were the only medium in which to be
heard I'd agree with you to the fullest extent.

Fortunately, it isn't (in this case).

You have every right to **** or poo in a pond but I reserve the right to
prevent you doing it in mine.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:08:21 -0000, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

snip


You have every right to **** or poo in a pond but I reserve the right to
prevent you doing it in mine.


Which reminds me of a comment made by Ian Smith about Guy (Porky) Chapman:

What you do is like going to a public swimming
pool, crapping in it, then protest that it's pretty much your business
and no-one elses where you crap.
18 September 2010

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:08:21 -0000
Brian Watson wrote:

You have every right to **** or poo in a pond but I reserve the right
to prevent you doing it in mine.

However if I swim in the pool without fouling it but do so in a way
that other swimmers don't approve of, then it seems I would be deemed to
be fouling it anyway.

At least that's how the u.r.c* situation seems to have gone.

--

Brian Morrison

On 31/10/2012 18:18, Brian Morrison wrote:

However if I swim in the pool without fouling it but do so in a way
that other swimmers don't approve of, then it seems I would be deemed to
be fouling it anyway.

What, like insisting on swimming widths when everybody else wants to do
lengths? Yes, I would think so; some swimming pools even have quite
complex rules about how you are allowed to swim in them at what times of
day.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

In article ,
Tim Ward wrote:
On 31/10/2012 18:18, Brian Morrison wrote:

However if I swim in the pool without fouling it but do so in a way
that other swimmers don't approve of, then it seems I would be deemed to
be fouling it anyway.

What, like insisting on swimming widths when everybody else wants to do
lengths? Yes, I would think so; some swimming pools even have quite
complex rules about how you are allowed to swim in them at what times of
day.

Synchronised swimming?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.