Nuxx:4e3447b0$0$2496$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!txtfeed2.tudelft.nl!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e3447b0$0$2496$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Crackdown on drivers ignoring no entry signs. Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:04:31 +0100 References: <2HOYp.29238$js7.12243@newsfe01.iad> <4e3412b3$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  Lines: 56 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 1909edc9.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=YeYmH8ZGZ_3[eT;U8b?ch:0g@SS;SF6n7R9OH0:RnEN4Z?2j:BGS9Y2`:ITG5aA:c7j14eK0D5ja8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 4093 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:819583

On 30/07/2011 15:45, Simon Mason wrote: > > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > news:4e3412b3$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... >> On 30/07/2011 08:47, Doug wrote: >>> On 30-Jul-2011, "Simon Mason"  wrote: >>> >>>> Local drivers are putting walkers and cyclists in danger by ignoring >>>> a no >>>> entry sign and will face a crackdown. >> >> I just hope that cyclists who ignore the sign will also be fined. > > You obviously did not see the exemption for cyclists. It is more visible > here. > > http://qurl.com/jkmqk

There's no exemption to the restriction itself, there's merely an alternative route without a "no entry" sign which cyclists can take. I'm sure you'd agree with me that cyclists who still go through the "no entry" bit itself, because they can't be bothered to use the narrow entrance (or they're obstructive psycholists who refuse to use cycle lanes on "principle"), should be fined, because that's "the law". Yes?

I note that if you go to the other side of the bridge ( http://tinyurl.com/42rdrbh ), it becomes apparent that the two-way bit (which in theory is actually two-way for all traffic...cars are only breaking the law when they go through the "no entry" sign itself) only lasts until there, and then the cycle lane ends and it becomes one-way towards the bridge. How many cyclists do you think actually bother to get off and push at that point? It seems to me that the "exemption" above is more-or-less encouraging them to break the law, otherwise there doesn't seem much point in having it. Regardless, I'm sure that once again, you'd be keen to see cyclists being fined if they do carry on cycling against the one-way restriction...it's "the law" after all!

(I like the grade-separated road above the bridge BTW (not often that you see a grade-separated single carriageway...did it perhaps use to be a railway?), except it's a shame about the silly hatching and the 30mph limit on a primary route without pedestrians...unfortunately such anti-motorist nonsense is par for the course in this country now. Every time there's a clearly stupid 30mph limit like that, proper 30mph limits become less respected.  You'd think that was obvious to anyone who had even the slightest clue about human nature, but thereagain, car-haters don't really consider motorists to be valid human beings at all, at least while they're driving, so maybe that's the explanation.

You'd think that anyone who really cared about safety would want to encourage drivers to use roads like that in preference to the alternatives by not plastering petty, spiteful restrictions all over them. The fact that they do is just another indication that these "safety" measures are actually about discouraging driving altogether, even on segregated routes where vulnerable road users are unlikely to be...why not just live and let live, and leave motorists alone on those roads?)