Max

I think it's a mistake to personalise the this as Lou's responsibility when he
has understanding of the cycling potential and experience from cities in Europe.
And to attack Nicks'motives and editorship of the cycle cardiff website. The
group offers more positive messages and the website is part of that.

By all means challenge the Council's performance in liaison meetings though.

Ken


--- On Fri, 3/10/08, Max Wallis <wallismk@...> wrote:

> From: Max Wallis <wallismk@...>
> Subject: [cyclecardiff] Re: 'Cardiff Crap cycle lanes'
> To: cyclecardiff@...
> Date: Friday, 3 October, 2008, 5:50 PM
> Nick - your reasons for not progressing this plan were
> a) abuse is possible and
> b) it's fair to consult Lou as Cycling Officer first.
>
> Now you've consulted him, do share with us how you were
> dissuaded from the
> whole project to simply depict what we see ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Posted by: "ndcanham" ndcanham@...
> Thu Oct 2, 2008 5:37 pm
> 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.
> >
>
> Back to top
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
> Messages in this topic (4)
>
> Recent Activity
> 1
> New Members
> Visit Your Group
> Yahoo! 360
> Share what matters
> Share your photos, blog.
> Control who sees what.
> Yahoo! Toolbar
> Get it Free!
> easy 1-click access
> to your groups.
> Yahoo! Groups
> Start a group
> in 3 easy steps.
> Connect with others.
> Need to Reply?
> Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a
> specific message in the
> Daily Digest.
> Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls | Members |
> Calendar
>
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual |
> Switch format
> to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe