Dutch rail operator pledges more space for bikes; Huge anti-pollution bicycle wheel artwork stolen in Bath but no-one knows when or how; Roglic wins world’s biggest yacht race; Merckx in hospital; CX rider v mud; Nico Roche Xmas pud tip +more on live blog

hirsute wrote:

Perhaps it was the council's street scene graffiti squad that removed the wheels. Seems more likely to be error than theft. It's not a gold toilet.

My thoughts exactly. The right hands of many councils often don't seem to know what their left hands are doing, so...

hirsute wrote:

Perhaps it was the council's street scene graffiti squad that removed the wheels.
Seems more likely to be error than theft. It's not a gold toilet.

She probably missed the sign warning that cycles attached to the railings will be removed.

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Perhaps it was the council's street scene graffiti squad that removed the wheels. Seems more likely to be error than theft. It's not a gold toilet.

She probably missed the sign warning that cycles attached to the railings will be removed.

  OK, you win!

Sriracha wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Perhaps it was the council's street scene graffiti squad that removed the wheels.
Seems more likely to be error than theft. It's not a gold toilet.

She probably missed the sign warning that cycles attached to the railings will be removed.

Could be !
Once the public sector can be involved, it's nearly always cockuo rather than conspiracy.

Kendalred wrote:

I don't think we should be complaining that the sign is there - but should be complaining that there is a need for it in the first place.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, in a parallel universe, there was a land where everybody was perfect. And they all lived happily ever after.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

FrankH wrote:

Kendalred wrote:

I don't think we should be complaining that the sign is there - but should be complaining that there is a need for it in the first place.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, in a parallel universe, there was a land where everybody was perfect. And they all lived happily ever after.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Meanwhile in the real world, there are other options other than complete moral perfection of everyone, and everything being exactly as it is forever with no change or alternative ever possible.

It's funny though that the meaning of that sign depends on whether 'opening' is meant as an adjective or a verb. Bloody English language, constantly introducing ambiguities.

FrankH wrote:

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, in a parallel universe, there was a land where everybody was perfect. And they all lived happily ever after.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

It's not about perfection though, it's about recognising that driving standards are pretty low and something needs to occur to improve them. As an example, I've just got home after a close pass in a 30 where the driver was speeding and there was no one coming the other way.

hirsute wrote:

FrankH wrote:

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, in a parallel universe, there was a land where everybody was perfect. And they all lived happily ever after.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

It's not about perfection though, it's about recognising that driving standards are pretty low and something needs to occur to improve them. As an example, I've just got home after a close pass in a 30 where the driver was speeding and there was no one coming the other way.

It we could recognise that a car has 4 doors, one of which is used by the driver and others are used predominantly by children. But sure make children responsible for your safety because they have a legal obligation.

P3t3 wrote:

Looks very pragmatic dual use of the sign post, deter cycling in the door zone by putting a post in the way, then pop a sign on the post to say why they did it...

A much nicer approach could have been to put a lightly textured strip along the part of the pat next to the cars so that bike rides unconsciously chose to ride on the smooth tarmac away from the cars.

Oh, and some signs at car occupant eye height facing the cars would also help. It'd generate discussion and increase awareness of the problem of dooring. They could even suggest the opposite hand technique for opening doors.

Glasgow City Council have done the lightly textured strip approach. But they did it on a road with double yellows that never has any parked cars.
They've used exactly the same material on the new bike lane on Sauchiehall At. It seems to imply that cyclists are supposed to cycle on the narrow textured strip beside the road. Either that or they've deliberately chosen a bike unfriendly surface for their new bike lane. Weird.

To me the sign suggests there's been an incident with a cyclist getting doored and the council have put up a warning sign so nobody can claim compensation because of poor infrastructure if it happens again.
Maybe I'm cynical.

Sriracha wrote:

Well, at least they have come up with an arrangement where the cars must park in the road traffic lane and not in the cycle/shared use lane. That's worth some praise. It does present a door-opening hazard, which they have done their best to mitigate with the dashed line. Given that car passengers exiting on the pavement side are far less likely to be as circumspect as when they exit road side, children especially, is it wrong to highlight this residual risk to vulnerable cyclists and pushchair pushers?

They haven't really mitigated it, though, have they? They've introduced it, by putting the parking on that side of the road rather than the other. Alternatively, by putting the 'shared use' on that side. 

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Well, at least they have come up with an arrangement where the cars must park in the road traffic lane and not in the cycle/shared use lane. That's worth some praise. It does present a door-opening hazard, which they have done their best to mitigate with the dashed line. Given that car passengers exiting on the pavement side are far less likely to be as circumspect as when they exit road side, children especially, is it wrong to highlight this residual risk to vulnerable cyclists and pushchair pushers?

They haven't really mitigated it, though, have they? They've introduced it, by putting the parking on that side of the road rather than the other. Alternatively, by putting the 'shared use' on that side. 

You missed a bit. I've highlighted it in bold for you. By the way, cars have doors both sides.

Sriracha wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Well, at least they have come up with an arrangement where the cars must park in the road traffic lane and not in the cycle/shared use lane. That's worth some praise. It does present a door-opening hazard, which they have done their best to mitigate with the dashed line. Given that car passengers exiting on the pavement side are far less likely to be as circumspect as when they exit road side, children especially, is it wrong to highlight this residual risk to vulnerable cyclists and pushchair pushers?

They haven't really mitigated it, though, have they? They've introduced it, by putting the parking on that side of the road rather than the other. Alternatively, by putting the 'shared use' on that side. 

You missed a bit. I've highlighted it in bold for you. By the way, cars have doors both sides.

I think the point that was trying to be made was that if the shared use path was on one side of the road and the parking was only allowed on the other side, then it wouldn't matter how many doors the cars had, they wouldn't be able to car door a cyclist at least.

Sriracha wrote:

Well, at least they have come up with an arrangement where the cars must park in the road traffic lane and not in the cycle/shared use lane. That's worth some praise. It does present a door-opening hazard, which they have done their best to mitigate with the dashed line. Given that car passengers exiting on the pavement side are far less likely to be as circumspect as when they exit road side, children especially, is it wrong to highlight this residual risk to vulnerable cyclists and pushchair pushers?

You know what, I hadn't even noticed the dashed line until you mentioned it.

It seems to me that line marks out an area a lot less than the width of a car door, and I would venture that the occupants of a car are more likely, not less, to just fling the door open to its full width if they're exiting onto - as they see it - a pavement (ie. not the roadway).