Nuxx:36894722-1ef5-4201-bb6d-b762791395cd@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <36894722-1ef5-4201-bb6d-b762791395cd@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Forced to use the primary position. Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 05:25:11 -0700 (PDT) References:  <1b6a5ec6-1701-44de-a684-07a07473a88a@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 28 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243427111 6654 127.0.0.1 (27 May 2009 12:25:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2676 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:704581

On May 26, 10:23 pm, Martin  wrote: > Nuxx Bar wrote: > > On May 25, 1:14 pm, "Simon Mason"  > > wrote: > >> Our local Council, unlike nearby Kingston upon Hull, is not known for its > >> pro-cycling measures, so I was stunned to see this conversion of one of the > >> main roads from the city to the Humber Bridge converted to a primary > >> position cycle lane, with the previous inside lane barred for car use. > > > Well, there's your answer: it's not a pro-cycling measure, it's an > > anti-car measure. "How do we cause congestion by removing roadspace > > for cars? I know, let's put in a cycle lane/bus lane/hatchings/ > > pavement buildout/etc." > > I actually agree with that comment. > > I think the use of cycle lanes as traffic calming measures has been > discussed here before, with at least on example where the council > admitted the main purpose of the lane was not to benefit cyclists.

Do you know what that example was, please?

And thank you for having the courage to say the above, unlike so many. Mind you, I'm afraid that may not do you too many favours when it comes to the moderation vote: "they" want moderators who will ban people who defend motorists out of hand, rather than evaluating whether their comments are true and maybe even (gasp) agreeing with them.