Nuxx:56c500f5-426d-48ce-a094-c7a3a476e915@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <56c500f5-426d-48ce-a094-c7a3a476e915@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: To Those who Don't Want Cycle Lanes Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:48:49 -0800 (PST) References: <4153e463-3366-4752-9618-8986398976df@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>    Lines: 43 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.173 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1234216129 28709 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2009 21:48:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.173; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3418 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:685473

On Feb 8, 9:45=A0pm, Paul Luton  wrote: > Simon Mason wrote: > > > "AndyC"  wrote in message > >news:gmn6kt$jc$1@news.motzarella.org... > > >> Nice idea! What do you propose is done to achieve that? Close a lane > >> on every road (which has more than one) so that cyclists can have a > >> lane too? I think that would be a bit radical for the UK *and* it > >> would have the cagers whinging... > > > They already are. We have many roads in Hull like this: > > >http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/images/hull.jpg > > > Which the website describes thus in an "anti car measures" gallery: > > > "This major radial dual-carriageway in Hull has been reduced from two > > lanes to one by turning the left lane into parking bays and a cycle > > lane. This is a widespread trend on four-lane urban main roads, and > > inevitably reduces capacity and increases congestion." > > Cunning - to argue for a return to 2 lanes would involve loss of parking > spaces. Cagers squeal even louder about parking spaces than they do > about road space.

Why not just write "I'm anti-motorist"?

We could quite easily have 2 lanes *and* enough parking spaces, if some of the unnecessary yellow lines were removed from the roads around the dual carriageway (no, I don't know the area, but I do know that >75% of yellow lines are completely unnecessary (and put there by anti-motorist councils which often also make money from "enforcing" them), and I doubt that that particular area of Hull is any exception). The fact that you and your ilk constantly pretend not to realise things like that just so that you can have a go at "cagers" shows your true motives.

It is entirely obvious to anyone who uses the roads with any form of transport that the authorities are going out of their way to make things hard for motorists. If they wanted to, they could quite easily make things pleasant for driving motorists, parking motorists, cyclists, bus users, etc all at the same time. But they don't.