> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > David Mann
> > I must say, I don't agree with many of the opinions expressed - I > hate cycle > > lanes which have kerbs or fences or whatever separating them from the > road. > > There's one street in our city where they tried a new idea. They built > an extension on the footpath and turned that into a cycle lane. Now > the cyclists who ride down there are at risk of passenger doors instead > of drivers doors and passengers will be far less attentive. whenever they do similar stuff here the pedestrians just start using it, so you get slowed down by them. Here in Greenwich there is a walkway along the river in front of the Royal Naval College. It's meant for pedestrians, and far too narrow to be shared with cyclists, but plenty of cyclist do use it to the frequent annoyance of walkers. There is also a proper wide avenue through the Naval College which is more or less closed to traffic (guards on the gates, and just a very few delivery & service vehicles occasionally at slower than walking pace), so pedestrians stroll along it - it's very pleasant - and the proper road running behind the college, which I use for my commute because it's fast. Leisure cyclists, including me, who did not want to annoy pedestrians by using the walkway, would from time to time cycle past the guards on the gate to use the 'closed' road running through the college. This would be the occasion for out-of-breath guards to chase you through the grounds, and quite amusing. When I questioned the appropriate authorities about why cyclists could not use this road, they told me it was because they went too fast and crashed into pedestrians. Further investigation revealed that this had happened precisely once. In the meantime, Sustrans, which promotes cycle routes all over the country, were in negotiation with the college over putting NCN Route 1 through the college. They were successful in this, but implemented it by tarmacing over some of the lawns by the side of the river to built a shared path. So cyclists can officially go through now, but they still have to mix with pedestrians, which neither the pedestrians nor the cyclists like, they dug up much needed grass at significant cost in money and aesthetics to built a track 2 metres wide, when there was already a perfectly good, broad avenue all the way through which was already used (lightly) for motor traffic, would have meant less contention between cyclists and real people, and would have cost nothing. It's unbelievable how wrong-headed people can get about this sort of thing. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
