Nuxx:1a0b8934-613e-42f3-8a9e-cde6f8b21ea4@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com

Path: number6.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1a0b8934-613e-42f3-8a9e-cde6f8b21ea4@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Those dreadful railings! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:50:21 -0700 (PDT) References: <8c533a38-ede8-4175-b70a-62dfb920c47c@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>    <7100a812-93af-4c1b-9079-3e6f98200a07@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> Lines: 56 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.248.79 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1239443421 7893 127.0.0.1 (11 Apr 2009 09:50:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:50:21 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.248.79; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4310 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:694571

On Apr 10, 1:34=A0pm, squas...@gmail.com wrote: > On 10 Apr, 12:55, "Paul - xxx"  wrote: > > > squas...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 10 Apr, 09:04, "Graham Harrison" > > >  wrote: > > > > "Doug"  wrote > > > > > I wonder how many cyclist deaths are directly attributable to > > > > > these railings. > > > > > I guess you are saying that if the railings had not been there the > > > > cyclist would have been able to escape to the pavement. =A0 Might i= t > > > > have been better if the cyclist had not been in a position where > > > > the truck could crush her? > > > > And where realistically would that be in such an artificial > > > environment? > > > She could have stayed behind the truck instead of 'undertaking' it ... > > As I said elsewhere :- > where "she would have been on the inside of some other lorry. Or a > bus." All turning. > > In order to make things easier for motorised traffic, we have created > extremely hostile environments.

Have you been to Elephant & Castle? I have plenty of times, both as a motorist and a pedestrian. The railings aren't "to make things easier for motorised traffic", they're to stop idiot pedestrians from killing themselves (and possibly motorists as well by making them swerve). There's a whole network of subways under the junction which pedestrians (and possibly cyclists as well, I can't remember) can easily use. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having railings at such a busy junction, and if cyclists gave large vehicles the room that every road user should give them, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately some cyclists get into the habit of going up the inside of vehicles all the time, believing that if it hasn't killed them the first few times then it won't ever. Your avatar suggests that you may be one of them.

I have to wonder if you've been to London in the last 10 years or so to make a comment like "to make things easier for motorised traffic". Pretty much everything is designed with the exact opposite in mind. It's got better under Boris, but it's going to take him a long time to stop the onslaught of anti-motorist measures to any significant extent, and of course most of the borough councils are still dreadful car-haters. They've just put in a completely unnecessary 24/7 bus lane on the A23 through Brixton, thus turning a useful dual carriageway into a road that's worse than a single carriageway (since you can't even overtake) in one fell swoop. AFAICT the only Londoners who claim that there aren't any anti-motorist measures in London are the likes of Spindrift (i.e. car-haters who think they'll get their anti-motorist measures more easily by "playing dumb" and pretending that they don't want such measures, and that they don't even exist).