Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
…., with the unforgiving bollards added about 10 years ago.“
That would be the necessary protecting of people on the footway
I think bollards at 7’6″ would also protect people on the footway, unless they were walking along the kerbstones
Except the original bollards were apparently forgiving. So they may have looked the other way while people were run over.
Looks like it had a few big
Looks like it had a few big nights out while it was in Wales.
Yeah – I always have to stop
Yeah – I always have to stop and think about it. It’s not the most helpful nomenclature – near to who? Maybe it made more sense in an era of carriages, or something?
Even your avatar looks tired.
Even your avatar looks tired.
Do you mean on the nearside?
Do you mean on the nearside?
There’s some suggestion that this is because people are running up the dropped kerb in front of the nearside bollard. Whereas it doesn’t happen on the other side of the road because they get guided into the gap by bouncing off the kerb. Which kind of says it all, really.
Fair enough – it does look
Fair enough – it does look like the story’s been mangled. The restriction is and always has been 7′, but the bollards were moved from 7’6″ to 7′ in 2011.
https://watford.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s625/Appendix%20A-%20Woodmere%20Avenue.pdf
Side note: apparently the bollards were reduced in height, because ‘several vehicles sustained damage to their wing mirrors’…
Most bollards are now
Most bollards are now dressing in hoodies to avoid the danger of being caught on camera.
The latest Streetview imagery
The latest Streetview imagery is from March. The BBC report says it was reduced ‘in recent months’, which suggests after that point. And by only 6 inches, so it wouldn’t necessarily be very evident comparing the side camera footage with Streetview.
Garage at Large wrote:
In any case who mentioned the man was on planet Earth?It’s a fair point, given that the person answering the questions doesn’t spend any time there.
1. He doesn’t. TTs are so
1. He doesn’t. TTs are so phenomenally dangerous that the whole thing is called off due to it causing a massive accident before he has the opportunity.
2. Trick question. He’s a fatty, so he would be riding large tyres at lower pressures.
3. Only so long as there isn’t a Very Important Driver who requires me to pull over out of their way.
4. c) I ride slowly and cautiously and pull over and stop every time I encounter a Very Important Driver, cheerfully accepting the drenching as they speed through the puddles with a courteous wave in response.
[I may have collaborated with another regular poster on my answers – I hope that’s OK?]
ParcelForce has, for some reason, sent it to Wales.It’s gone looking for some of those views from G’s twitter.
No gold starsSupply chain issues?
never pick up a used leaf in the woods, unless you are sure what it has been used forReminds me of the story of a man who presented himself at A&E complaining of severe abdominal pain. They examined him and found a lettuce leaf sticking out of his anus.
“This will only take a second to remove” says the nurse.
“That’s just the tip of the iceberg” explains the man
Could have been worse – he could have had a rocket up there.
On that basis the override idea doesn’t work (I imagine the argument runs) because it’s exactly when people are stressed / under immediate threat that you’d need it, so that will delay them / they’ll just keep stamping vainly on the pedals because they won’t remember.It always seemed to work fine for Michael Knight.
And meanwhile, there’s been
And meanwhile, there’s been no notable change in slight or serious injuries, so relative to cycle traffic those were down a lot.