Now we know what cycle lanes are for

According to http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=620672005

Spokes member Ian Maxwell said the group had had more complaints
about parking near the ERI than anywhere else in the city.

He said that parking in cycling lanes was "dangerous" and
"completely destroys" their aim of stopping cyclists getting
in the way of vehicles.

Note the clever use of quotation marks. I suspect that Ian said
something very different.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote in
:

Note the clever use of quotation marks. I suspect that Ian said
something very different.

Never! Not the Scotsman we all know and love, twist somebody's words so
they say something completely different? That's not the fine upstanding
journalism we've come to expect from... oh hang on, as you were remembers
numerous incidences of misrepresentaion

Graeme wrote:
David Hansen wrote in
:
Note the clever use of quotation marks. I suspect that Ian said
something very different.
Never! Not the Scotsman we all know and love, twist somebody's words so
they say something completely different? That's not the fine upstanding
journalism we've come to expect from... oh hang on, as you were remembers
numerous incidences of misrepresentaion

The Scotsman (and their wierd owners) just lurve cars. Are there figures for
what % of their advertising revenue is from cars and planes? - dont bite the
hand that feeds you.

David Hansen wrote:
According to http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=620672005
Same article in the Herald and Post this week.

"stupot" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
According to http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=620672005
Same article in the Herald and Post this week.

So these cars are, apparently, parking perfectly legally with the Orders
currently in force for that road (which is, apparently, none).

Not a lot different, then, to cyclists legally using the road when a cycle
path is provided?

Both cases are legal, but demonstrate a lack of consideration for others.

--
IanH

ian henden wrote:

So these cars are, apparently, parking perfectly legally with the Orders
currently in force for that road (which is, apparently, none).

Not a lot different, then, to cyclists legally using the road when a cycle
path is provided?

Both cases are legal, but demonstrate a lack of consideration for others.

A lack of consideration by the local council for cyclists' safety,
probably. We don't ask for the bloody things.

"ian henden" wrote in message
...


Not a lot different, then, to cyclists legally using the road when a cycle
path is provided?

Both cases are legal, but demonstrate a lack of consideration for others.

Since travelling anywhere using cycle paths is normally the equivalent of
driving from London to Manchester using only B roads I will continue to show
what you describe as a lack of consideration for others.

T

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:04:42 GMT, "ian henden"
wrote:

[snip tale of typical PFI ripoff]

So these cars are, apparently, parking perfectly legally with the Orders
currently in force for that road (which is, apparently, none).

You think? That depends if they are mandatory or advisory cycle
lanes, I'd suggest. And whether the parked cars are causing an
obstruction. I'd be faintly surprised if it were "perfectly" legal,
but ICBW.

Not a lot different, then, to cyclists legally using the road when a cycle
path is provided?

LOL! Keep beating, there is still a bloody smear where that dead
horse was.

Both cases are legal, but demonstrate a lack of consideration for others.

Interestingly, though, the selfishness of the parked drivers allegedly
increases risk to others at no cost to themselves, whereas the
"selfishness" of cyclists appears to reduce risk to themselves and
impose no danger to others. So perhaps not quite as similar as you
make out.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"ian henden" wrote


Not a lot different, then, to cyclists legally using the road when
a cycle
path is provided?

Both cases are legal, but demonstrate a lack of consideration for
others.

It's a principle of mine to turn any problem created for cyclists
into a problem for motorists instead. Such things get more
attention, even though actually, when I am driving my car, they don't
cause me much real difficulty.

Given that bike paths are almost always something done to me, not
something done for me, designed by idiots, for idiots, I have not
only a right, but a duty not to accept them - if we accept them,
people will think that they are acceptable.

Nearly fifty years ago Professor Sir Colin Buchanan, one of Britain's
greatest ever town planners and traffic engineers, wrote, in his
book "Mixed Blessing, The Motor in Britain"
"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have
failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at
junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude
of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has
not been as helpful as it might have been."

Nothing changes, and I, at least, intend to maintain that tradition
of unhelpfulness



Jeremy Parker

Tony W wrote:

Since travelling anywhere using cycle paths is normally the equivalent
of driving from London to Manchester using only B roads I will
continue to show what you describe as a lack of consideration for
others.

That comparison flatters cycle paths. Driving on B roads may not be the
quickest or most direct route in many cases, but it can be very
pleasant.

--
Dave...