In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:01:02PM -0500,
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but
I'm all in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a
real danger to cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without
them motorists drive all over the pavements. We learnt that in
Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up with a load of bollards.

Railings are a damned inconvenience to pedestrians too. Bollards are
fine.

Bollards are a major problem for people with impaired sight. The County
Council learnt a lot about disability at the time. A pity they didn't find
it out before planning the pedestrianisation.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:48:10 -0500
wrote:
Bollards are a major problem for people with impaired sight. The County

Why? Unless they left their white stick at home or have a particularly stupid
guide dog why should bollards be any more of an impediment than anything else
potentially in their way?

B2003

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:18:03PM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:48:10 -0500
wrote:
Bollards are a major problem for people with impaired sight. The County
Why? Unless they left their white stick at home or have a particularly stupid
guide dog why should bollards be any more of an impediment than anything else
potentially in their way?

Quite. There's plenty of other street furniture - bus stops, signs, lamp
posts, pavement cafes, most of which seem to be in shades of grey and
brown designed specifically to be invisible during both daylight and
under artificial light - not to mention all those pesky pedestrians
moving around and tourists stopping abruptly for no good reason.

Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them
more visible if necessary.

Argh! I agreed with Boltar!

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Compromise: n: lowering my standards so you can meet them

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:27:54 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Exhibition Road has had the pavements and kerbs removed to turn it
into a place where pedestrians and vehicles don't quite know who is
supposed to be where. Apparently that's a good thing. Anyway, blind
groups have complained, so the former pavement area is now going to
be covered in ... wait for it... corduroy so that the blind will
know when they are on the former pavement area and when they are in
the former road area. Since the presence of the corduroy will also
alert everyone else to the location of the former pavement area, I
can't help thinking that leaving the original road, pavement and
kerbs intact would have achieved similar results with zero cost or
disruption. No wonder the country's bankrupt.

This is just the largest and most ludicrous example of "highway
engineering fashion" that has been implemented in London. You only
have to experience the smaller scale version on High Street Kensington
and nearly be run over about 10 times in a 100 yards to know it is a
preposterous idea.

I'm also not entirely convinced with the new obsession of removing
fencing and street furniture either. In some places you do need to
some obstructions if only to protect people from their own stupidity
of stepping on the highway when vehicles are driving past. I'd love
to know how many millions of pounds have been spent on this in recent
years. It could then be compared with the millions spent under Ken to
install it all and all the extra traffic lights. Neither policy has
achieved the optimum position and I fear we will forever lurch back
and forth between two policy extremes.

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:27:54 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Exhibition Road has had the pavements and kerbs removed to turn it
into a place where pedestrians and vehicles don't quite know who is
supposed to be where. Apparently that's a good thing. Anyway, blind
groups have complained, so the former pavement area is now going to
be covered in ... wait for it... corduroy so that the blind will know
when they are on the former pavement area and when they are in the
former road area. Since the presence of the corduroy will also alert
everyone else to the location of the former pavement area, I can't
help thinking that leaving the original road, pavement and kerbs
intact would have achieved similar results with zero cost or
disruption. No wonder the country's bankrupt.

This is just the largest and most ludicrous example of "highway
engineering fashion" that has been implemented in London. You only
have to experience the smaller scale version on High Street Kensington
and nearly be run over about 10 times in a 100 yards to know it is a
preposterous idea.

I'm also not entirely convinced with the new obsession of removing
fencing and street furniture either. In some places you do need to
some obstructions if only to protect people from their own stupidity
of stepping on the highway when vehicles are driving past. I'd ove
to know how many millions of pounds have been spent on this in recent
years. It could then be compared with the millions spent under Ken to
install it all and all the extra traffic lights. Neither policy has
achieved the optimum position and I fear we will forever lurch back
and forth between two policy extremes.

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm
all in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger
to cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists
drive all over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago
and ended up with a load of bollards.

Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

As the bollards are in primarily pedestrian areas the rate of demolition
isn't too great. It's mostly delivery lorries which others can more easily
avoid.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 2011\09\27 21:39, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but
I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists
drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and
ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.

You're talking bollards.

You're talking bollards.

Or for some drivers "up yours" - eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyihogeiyH0?

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2011\09\27 21:39, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm
all in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real
danger to cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them
motorists drive all over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20
years ago and ended up with a load of bollards.

Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.

You're talking bollards.

Now there's an idea! Perhaps they would tell motorists they're about to hit
them?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.


We have some of those in Aylesbury. An installation in Manchester is
the subject of several YouTube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyihogeiyH0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpkGvr2q3xw&NR=1