Segregated paths

In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I


So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?


Mike

Mike Causer wrote:
In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I


So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?


Mike

It appears more to be a good old fashioned cock-up to me than deviation
from guidance and legislation. Suggest you point it out to the Council.

Not Responding wrote:

Mike Causer wrote:
In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

It appears more to be a good old fashioned cock-up to me than deviation
from guidance and legislation. Suggest you point it out to the Council.

*After* photos and a report to the local press of course.

John B

"Not Responding" wrote in message
. co.uk...
Mike Causer wrote:
In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path.
At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right.
So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I


So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?


Mike

It appears more to be a good old fashioned cock-up to me than deviation
from guidance and legislation. Suggest you point it out to the Council.

yes, they've used the same sign at each end. I assume this is viewed from
the LHS of the road, all these abominations seem to put the bike on the
offside so to speak.
I don't particularly mind them; during the day, use the road, at nignt
especially during chucking out time when no peds about use the path (using
night vision goggles for broken bottles of course) works for me.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:53:15 +0000, MartinM wrote:

yes, they've used the same sign at each end.

In fact it's worse than that, there are painted signs on the surface
matching the blue signs on posts. Indeed, it could be said to be even
sillier, because the next section has the usual cycle left, ped right at
one end, but is non-segregated at the other. So the full thing looks like
this:

(blue sign)

\ /
\|/
O
_ _
(_)/ (_)
,\(`
--O


I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I
(paint + blue sign)
=====================
Minor Road
=====================
(paint + blue sign)
I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I
(blue sign)




Mike

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:25:24 +0000, Mike Causer
wrote in message
pan.2005.03.20.18.23.53.823234@firstnamelastname. com.invalid:

it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other.

A clear case for Hanlon's Razor, methinks...


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Mike Causer" wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.20.19.07.15.45149@firstnamelastna me.com.invalid...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:53:15 +0000, MartinM wrote:

yes, they've used the same sign at each end.

In fact it's worse than that, there are painted signs on the surface
matching the blue signs on posts. Indeed, it could be said to be even
sillier, because the next section has the usual cycle left, ped right at
one end, but is non-segregated at the other. So the full thing looks like
this:

And they wonder why we don't use them ? it's a good thing they are not
compulsory,can you imagine trying to bring a case to court with all this
confusion.

Mike Causer wrote:
(Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)


Maybe its because they are not segregated, only bikes are. Bikes are
restricted to one side by law (although which side in this case is
dubious) whereas pedestrians have the right to walk on any part of the
pavement with only courtesy to keep them out of the bike bit.

The equivalent is that we as cyclists do not have to stick to a
mandatory cycle lanes although motorists are not allowed by law to drive
in them.

Tony

"Mike Causer" wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.20.18.23.53.823234@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
In Newmarket there is a section of segregated cycle & pedestrian path. At
one end the sign shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. At the
other end the sign also shows cycles to the left and peds to the right. So
the resulting "segregated" lanes look like this (ASCII art follows)

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I


So it would seem that cycles are allowed on both sides *and* peds are
allowed on both sides but cycles are banned. Or Forest Heath D.C. are
complete fools for deliberately putting cycles and peds into direct
conflict with each other. (Not that the peds or their dogs take a blind
bit of notice of any segregation of course.)

The governing legislation seems to be The Highways Act 1980, which isn't
available on-line :-( Has anyone got a copy and does it mention
direction of travel?

Cycle on the road. Forget the crap farcilities and be safer and quicker.

T

Mike Causer wrote:

I _ _
\ / I (_)/ (_)
\|/ I ,\(`
O I --O
I
I
I
I
__O I O
_`\(,_ I /|\
(_)/ (_) I / \
I



I have nothing worthy to add to this discussion, but that's the
best bit of ASCII art I've seen on usenet in a while. Gold star :-)


--
jc

Remove the -not from email