Safety First : make cyclists walk

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/


it was ‘dangerous’ to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

New Forest Nation Park Authority.

The Members’ Task and Finish Group recommends that the National Park Authority
does not proceed with the New Forest Public Bike System at this time


I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the paths
recently.

Sounds a good plan.

On 17/08/2014 06:25, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/


it was ‘dangerous’ to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

New Forest Nation Park Authority.

The Members’ Task and Finish Group recommends that the National Park Authority
does not proceed with the New Forest Public Bike System at this time


I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the paths
recently.

Sounds a good plan.

Only to brain dead people. I'm sure any dog owners will appreciate
tacks in their pets paws.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 06:25, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/


it was ‘dangerous’ to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

New Forest Nation Park Authority.

The Members’ Task and Finish Group recommends that the National Park
Authority
does not proceed with the New Forest Public Bike System at this time


I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the paths
recently.

Sounds a good plan.

Only to brain dead people. I'm sure any dog owners will appreciate tacks
in their pets paws.

This method would not be considered if the ignorant, self righteous
cyclopaths were to obey the law.
But we all know that this is not going to happen.

Judith in England considered Sun, 17 Aug 2014
18:06:41
-0300 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/


it was dangerous to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.

Strange - it works very well in Cambridge.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

Actually the opposite is true - more and more Public Footpaths are being
upgraded and surfaced in order to be designated as cycle routes.

I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the paths
recently.

Sounds a good plan.

You would approve of assault and criminal damage if it's against cyclists,
of course.

On 18/08/2014 22:08, Phil W Lee wrote:

Judith in England considered Sun, 17 Aug 2014
18:06:41
-0300 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/


it was dangerous to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.

Strange - it works very well in Cambridge.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

Actually the opposite is true - more and more Public Footpaths are being
upgraded and surfaced in order to be designated as cycle routes.

I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the paths
recently.

Sounds a good plan.

You would approve of assault and criminal damage if it's against cyclists,
of course.

*if* it were done (which seems unlikely in a generally law-abiding
country like the UK), it would be self-defence.

You, of all people, should appreciate that, given your past (and
presumably still-current) advice to cyclists to commit assault and GBH
just in case the victim might ever prove a "danger" to a cyclist.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

Judith in England considered Sun, 17 Aug 2014
18:06:41
-0300 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....council_rules/


it was dangerous to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.

Strange - it works very well in Cambridge.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

Actually the opposite is true - more and more Public Footpaths are being
upgraded and surfaced in order to be designated as cycle routes.

I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the paths
recently.

Sounds a good plan.

You would approve of assault and criminal damage if it's against cyclists,
of course.

Well, it's probably much less violent than smashing them in the face with a
"D" lock, which some lunatic on here is fond of recommending.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:08:21 -0300, Phil W Lee wrote:

Judith in England considered Sun, 17 Aug
2014 18:06:41 -0300 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:37:52 +0100, Mrcheerful

wrote:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/
NEWS/11407410.Cyclists_must_dismount_on_new_park_pathwa y_to_avoid_pedestrians__council_rules/


it was dangerous to allow cyclists to ride along the same routes as
pedestrians, especially where children walk and play.

Strange - it works very well in Cambridge.


Quite right - it looks like this idea is catching on.

Actually the opposite is true - more and more Public Footpaths are being
upgraded and surfaced in order to be designated as cycle routes.

I recall the locals discouraged cyclists by the use of tacks on the
paths recently.

Sounds a good plan.

You would approve of assault and criminal damage if it's against
cyclists,
of course.

I find "shared paths" are the pits. Pedestrians and bicyclists seem to
go out of their way to get in each other's way rather than "sharing"
which would imply considerate avoiding of each other.
A solution is to paint a line down the path; pedestrians one side,
bicyclists the other.
In Slovakia this does not work. Nobody takes any notice. But in Germany
it works fine. Perhaps the Germans are more used to following rules and
being considerate of each other?

In article , Peter Keller
writes

I find "shared paths" are the pits. Pedestrians and bicyclists seem to
go out of their way to get in each other's way rather than "sharing"
which would imply considerate avoiding of each other.
A solution is to paint a line down the path; pedestrians one side,
bicyclists the other.
In Slovakia this does not work. Nobody takes any notice. But in Germany
it works fine. Perhaps the Germans are more used to following rules and
being considerate of each other?

It certainly doesn't work in Britain, where clueless design by non-
cycling highwaymen forces everyone to just do whatever works best.

My personal favourite has little bicycles painted on the tarmac to show
you which side to use: as you approach a bend and motorcycle barrier,
you'll find the little bicycle on the left, no matter which way you're
going. There is only one path through the barrier for all types of user
in both directions.
--
Sue ]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:28:28 +0100, Darkside wrote:
In article , Peter Keller
writes

A solution is to paint a line down the path; pedestrians one side,
bicyclists the other.

It certainly doesn't work in Britain, where clueless design by non-
cycling highwaymen forces everyone to just do whatever works best.

In Britain the line divides the path into pedestrians one side and
pedestrians plus cyclists the other. Pedestrians have free reign to
use any part of the path, cyclists are constrained to the side marked.

This obviously doesn't help when both sides are marked.

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