Ban on cycling through Woking town centre at certain times to be reviewed

On 07/03/2020 12:55, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2020 10:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds people,
school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are under 14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along.

So what? The ban is aimed at protecting pedestrians, not the users of
motor vehicles or bicycles.

They used to mix there until the number of motor vehicles blocked the
road for more motor vehicles.

During my time at school motorists were given a shiny new dual
carriageway bypass.

And?

D'n me time at schewl motorists wuz givun a shiny nicked dual
carriageway bypass. (http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp)

Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at university. The
town centre has been messed around again since then and don't know how
provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it
seems historical accees applies. The other poster's idea that cyclists
should use a longer, less safe alternative, or get off and push, is
ridiculous when the original route still exists.

The location is for the use of pedestrians. Cyclists and operators of
other vehicles (presumably save for emergency vehicles) may not use it.

It's so easy to understand if you just apply your mind for a few
seconds. Does that cause you a problem?

It is easy to understand. You should try.

On 10:14 7 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:

On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds people,
school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are under 14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along. During my time at
school motorists were given a shiny new dual carriageway bypass.
Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at university. The
town centre has been messed around again since then and don't know how
provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it seems
historical accees applies.

Is the right to "historical access" a product of your imagination or is it
codifed in law somewhere? Just asking.

The other poster's idea that cyclists should
use a longer, less safe alternative, or get off and push, is ridiculous
when the original route still exists.

Motorists could say the same when asked to take ring road around a town
centre. Your argument suggests they should take the short more direct route.

On 08/03/2020 20:41, Pamela wrote:
On 10:14 7 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds people,
school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are under 14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along. During my time at
school motorists were given a shiny new dual carriageway bypass.
Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at university. The
town centre has been messed around again since then and don't know how
provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it seems
historical accees applies.

Is the right to "historical access" a product of your imagination or is it
codifed in law somewhere? Just asking.

Plucked from thin air. Do I need know and should I care?

The other poster's idea that cyclists should
use a longer, less safe alternative, or get off and push, is ridiculous
when the original route still exists.

Motorists could say the same when asked to take ring road around a town
centre. Your argument suggests they should take the short more direct route.

If they don't have business in town, motorists can usually still find a
way through town if they really want to. When they are given a ring road
it usually doesn't take long for them to discover that it is the easier
option.

It's nothing like forcing cyclists onto a worse option.

On 14:56 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:

On 08/03/2020 20:41, Pamela wrote:
On 10:14 7 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds
people, school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are under
14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along. During my time
at school motorists were given a shiny new dual carriageway bypass.
Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at university. The
town centre has been messed around again since then and don't know how
provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it
seems historical accees applies.

Is the right to "historical access" a product of your imagination or is
it codifed in law somewhere? Just asking.

Plucked from thin air. Do I need know and should I care?

"Historical accees applies" sounded like nonsense. Thank you for
confirming it.

The other poster's idea that cyclists should
use a longer, less safe alternative, or get off and push, is
ridiculous when the original route still exists.

Motorists could say the same when asked to take ring road around a town
centre. Your argument suggests they should take the short more direct
route.

If they don't have business in town, motorists can usually still find a
way through town if they really want to. When they are given a ring road
it usually doesn't take long for them to discover that it is the easier
option.

It's nothing like forcing cyclists onto a worse option.

Cyclists too might find it easier to take the ring road but, even if they
don't like it, it might benefit all road users for them use it whether or
not it is "equal or better".

On 09/03/2020 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 14:56 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 08/03/2020 20:41, Pamela wrote:
On 10:14 7 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds
people, school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are under
14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along. During my time
at school motorists were given a shiny new dual carriageway bypass.
Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at university. The
town centre has been messed around again since then and don't know how
provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it
seems historical accees applies.

Is the right to "historical access" a product of your imagination or is
it codifed in law somewhere? Just asking.

Plucked from thin air. Do I need know and should I care?

"Historical accees applies" sounded like nonsense. Thank you for
confirming it.

So what? If I decided to cycle there is someone with proper Queen given
authority going to spank my bottom?

The other poster's idea that cyclists should
use a longer, less safe alternative, or get off and push, is
ridiculous when the original route still exists.

Motorists could say the same when asked to take ring road around a town
centre. Your argument suggests they should take the short more direct
route.

If they don't have business in town, motorists can usually still find a
way through town if they really want to. When they are given a ring road
it usually doesn't take long for them to discover that it is the easier
option.

It's nothing like forcing cyclists onto a worse option.

Cyclists too might find it easier to take the ring road

Perhaps there are some. If so, cyclists will be using them.

but, even if they
don't like it, it might benefit all road users for them use it whether or
not it is "equal or better".

Road modifications rarely have anything to do with making things better
for pedestrians. Usually it's only the by product of improvements
provided to drivers. There is no requirement for cyclists to be more
altruistic than drivers.

On 19:17 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:

On 09/03/2020 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 14:56 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 08/03/2020 20:41, Pamela wrote:
On 10:14 7 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds
people, school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are
under 14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along. During my
time at school motorists were given a shiny new dual carriageway
bypass. Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at
university. The town centre has been messed around again since then
and don't know how provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it
seems historical accees applies.

Is the right to "historical access" a product of your imagination or
is it codifed in law somewhere? Just asking.

Plucked from thin air. Do I need know and should I care?

"Historical access applies" sounded like nonsense. Thank you for
confirming it.

So what? If I decided to cycle there is someone with proper Queen given
authority going to spank my bottom?

It would be sufficient to use the Queen's English when making your
assertions. "Historical access applies" is nonsense as you have admitted.

The other poster's idea that cyclists should use a longer, less safe
alternative, or get off and push, is ridiculous when the original
route still exists.

Motorists could say the same when asked to take ring road around a
town centre. Your argument suggests they should take the short more
direct route.

If they don't have business in town, motorists can usually still find
a way through town if they really want to. When they are given a ring
road it usually doesn't take long for them to discover that it is the
easier option.

It's nothing like forcing cyclists onto a worse option.

Cyclists too might find it easier to take the ring road

Perhaps there are some. If so, cyclists will be using them.

but, even if they don't like it, it might benefit all road users for
them use it whether or not it is "equal or better".

Road modifications rarely have anything to do with making things better
for pedestrians. Usually it's only the by product of improvements
provided to drivers. There is no requirement for cyclists to be more
altruistic than drivers.

Co-operation rather than self-interest goes a long way on the roads.

On 09/03/2020 21:46, Pamela wrote:
On 19:17 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:

On 09/03/2020 16:42, Pamela wrote:
On 14:56 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 08/03/2020 20:41, Pamela wrote:
On 10:14 7 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 06/03/2020 19:42, colwyn wrote:

You mean teachers, assistants,dinner ladies, cleaners, grounds
people, school nurses ,what have you, don't ride bikes? Or are
under 14?

I cycled along Commercial Way to/from school. People would have been
using it on bicycles before motor vehicles came along. During my
time at school motorists were given a shiny new dual carriageway
bypass. Commercial Way was partly pedestrianised when I was at
university. The town centre has been messed around again since then
and don't know how provision has changed through the years.

Unless there an alternative, equal or better, is provided then it
seems historical accees applies.

Is the right to "historical access" a product of your imagination or
is it codifed in law somewhere? Just asking.

Plucked from thin air. Do I need know and should I care?

"Historical access applies" sounded like nonsense. Thank you for
confirming it.

So what? If I decided to cycle there is someone with proper Queen given
authority going to spank my bottom?

It would be sufficient to use the Queen's English when making your
assertions. "Historical access applies" is nonsense as you have admitted.

You are Nugent's sister.

The other poster's idea that cyclists should use a longer, less safe
alternative, or get off and push, is ridiculous when the original
route still exists.

Motorists could say the same when asked to take ring road around a
town centre. Your argument suggests they should take the short more
direct route.

If they don't have business in town, motorists can usually still find
a way through town if they really want to. When they are given a ring
road it usually doesn't take long for them to discover that it is the
easier option.

It's nothing like forcing cyclists onto a worse option.

Cyclists too might find it easier to take the ring road

Perhaps there are some. If so, cyclists will be using them.

but, even if they don't like it, it might benefit all road users for
them use it whether or not it is "equal or better".

Road modifications rarely have anything to do with making things better
for pedestrians. Usually it's only the by product of improvements
provided to drivers. There is no requirement for cyclists to be more
altruistic than drivers.

Co-operation rather than self-interest goes a long way on the roads.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be less selfish than drivers.

On 22:07 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 09/03/2020 21:46, Pamela wrote:
On 19:17 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:



Road modifications rarely have anything to do with making things
better for pedestrians. Usually it's only the by product of
improvements provided to drivers. There is no requirement for cyclists
to be more altruistic than drivers.

Co-operation rather than self-interest goes a long way on the roads.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be less selfish than
drivers.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be more selfish than drivers.

On 09/03/2020 22:51, Pamela wrote:
On 22:07 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 09/03/2020 21:46, Pamela wrote:
On 19:17 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:

Road modifications rarely have anything to do with making things
better for pedestrians. Usually it's only the by product of
improvements provided to drivers. There is no requirement for cyclists
to be more altruistic than drivers.

Co-operation rather than self-interest goes a long way on the roads.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be less selfish than
drivers.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be more selfish than drivers.

Indeed. But it's difficult for them to be so.

On 09/03/2020 23:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/03/2020 22:51, Pamela wrote:
On 22:07Â* 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:
On 09/03/2020 21:46, Pamela wrote:
On 19:17Â* 9 Mar 2020, TMS320 said:

Road modifications rarely have anything to do with making things
better for pedestrians. Usually it's only the by product of
improvements provided to drivers. There is no requirement for cyclists
to be more altruistic than drivers.

Co-operation rather than self-interest goes a long way on the roads.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be less selfish than
drivers.

There is also no requirement for cyclists to be more selfish than
drivers.

Indeed. But it's difficult for them to be so.

TRANSLATION:

Indeed. But it's difficult for them not to be so. It comes with the Lycra.

[No charge for the amendment. There's no need to thank me for making
your meaning clearer.]