Richmond Park - proposal to exclude cyclists from Tamsin Trail

"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 ....

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

"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 ...

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

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

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" 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"?

"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"?