Max
If 'not being robustly applied' is doublespeak for 'flagrantly
flouted', then it's equally true to say that 'flagrantly flouted' is
an undiplomatic way of saying 'not being robustly applied'.
There really is no benefit in deliberately trying to get up Lou's
nose. I may occasionally get up Lou's nose, but that's not
intentional. Neither will I be taking 'Cardiff Crap Cycle lanes'
forward for the reasons I gave, at least not while I'm editing the
website.
Cheers.
Nick

--- In cyclecardiff@..., Max Wallis <wallismk@...> wrote:
>
> Cardiff's sub-standard cyclelanes were condemned by the Planning
Inspector
> at the St Davids 2 Inquiry, particularly the 1.2 metres width for
on-road
> lanes. the Council claimed to follow the London standard of 1.5
metres.
> And the London standards were formally adoped by the Council in
their new
> Cycling strategy.
>
> But to what effect? The St Davids 2 contractors still put in a narrow
> cyclelane past Queen St station (including drain hazards and other
bumps).
> And even where there is abundant space in the multi-lane highway
from the
> Leckwith junction, the narrow 1.2 metres width has been put in.
>
> So Nick, is "not being robustly applied" doublespeak for "flagrantly
> flouted"?
> And now Lou has had chance to respond, will you go back to the 'crap
cycle
> lanes' proposal?
>
> Max Wallis
>
> Posted by: "Nicholas Canham" ndcanham@...
> Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:03 am
> ..... I thought it would be wrong to start mocking the various poor
> facilities without giving Lou Lusardi a chance to respond first.
> ..... ideally what counts as a poor cycle facility should be determined
> against the DfT infrastructure guidelines, London Cycle Design
Standards,
> and wider advice on cycling practice such as the National Standards for
> Cycle Training.
>
> .... I've had several discussions with Lou about certain facilities,
and
> what is clear is that London Cycle Design Standards are not being
robustly
> applied.
>