Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Although I doubt if they would remove a parking permit for one (reported) offense, I would hope that if they found that an employee was driving in a dangerous manner whilst on their property, and/or acting aggressively to another employee whilst on their property (whether in their car or not), that they would take some sort of disciplinary action.
I’d like a cycle path along the A417. I no longer commute to the Harwell cite, but to Culham. Using the Wantage-Harwell back-route for the first part of the journey adds miles to my journey. It is a beautiful route, but impractical for daily commuting. If I were working at Milton or Didcot I’d have the same problem. I agree that cycle paths tend to be rubbish, so that cyclists get the choice of using a substandard route and trashing their bike/interrupting their journey for needless road crossings, or using the road and getting aggro from drivers. However, I suspect that the A417 is a no-go route for most cyclists anyway (esp. during rush hour); adding a cycle path adds options.
And, of course, because of the ‘interesting’ way cycle provision is designed, I’d guess that the path will just dump cyclists at some random place (I quite like the superb Didcot-Milton interchange cycle route, for all those cyclists who want to go to the A34). But if the route is there, at least there is something to connect to when further road works are planned.
I’m not too hopeful though. Earlier this year I went to a public meeting where the public were to make suggestions for the transport plan from 2020, or some such distant time. We were encouraged to think big – examples raised were a light railway alongside the main rail track, an overhead railway, tramways, driverless cars, but the idea of a cycleway alongside the A417 was dismissed as too expensive to even consider.
I use the Featherbed Lane route daily, and am not delighted at the proposals. By smoothing it for cars they will be encouraging more of them, making it more frightening than it already is for cyclists. I doubt if a 40mph speed limit will do much – I expect that if the road is made open most cars will ignore the speed limit. Currently speed is kept down by the twists and turns that are to be removed.
There is no reasonable alternative route for cyclists, so I think that these changes should not be made without including quality provision for cyclists. By making this road faster for cars, and encouraging more cars onto it, they will be making an unattractive cycling route even less attractive – ie, they will be removing cycling provision. At their transport consultation they said that one of the four things the council had to do was to encourage ‘active transport’. I think that the proposed changes in Featherbed Lane will directly discourage active transport.
I was once part of a group of cyclists which was overtaken recklessly by a car in Long Wittenham. One cyclist rang the police giving a description of the car and the direction it was going, and the police said they’d try to intercept it and have a word. I was very impressed with their reaction, so I’d also suggest that option 3) – call the police – is the best option. They have experience of making sure that things don’t get confrontational, and the driver will better realise the seriousness of their actions if the reprimand comes from the police.
If you are being silly, then I am absolutely bonkers. These rubbish, unthought-out, child’s-version of cycle paths REALLY wind me up. A Wantage cycle path, I’m proud to say, features in that excellent publication, ‘crap cycle lanes’ (see http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/). I did write to Ed Vaizey when I first came across it, so that he could share my pride.
I agree with Justin that councils get ‘brownie points’ for installing n miles of cyle path (I believe, but can’t back up, that they are compelled to install a certain length of cycle path for each mile of new road built. Note that the length of cycle path is important, not quality or usefulness).
My sister has a friend in London who works with cycle facility planners. She was asked to show a group of 30 planners – who’d been doing the job for YEARS – examples of good and bad practice. Her initial idea was to cycle round with the planners showing them good and bad cycle paths, but this plan had to be shelved because about 8 of them COULDN’T CYCLE and another 10 hadn’t cycled since they were 10. Perhaps herein lies the clue to the quality of cycle paths.