Sh*r*d use bridge.

Colin McKenzie

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <t2s3149sohcf525o6fso7iht36nf1vudce@4ax.com>,
> David Hansen <> wrote:
>>I hope you have fed this back to Sustrans.
>
> No, I don't have any respect for Sustrans.
>
> If there is someone who does have such respect or thinks at the very
> least that they might be susceptible to constructive critical input,
> they're welcome to pass it on to. Feel free to CC me, give them my
> email address, etc., or to hack my text about (provided you then take
> my name off it).

I suggest Roger Stocker, cycling officer at Southwark council.

Colin Mckenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:35:32 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<news@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:

>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In article <t2s3149sohcf525o6fso7iht36nf1vudce@4ax.com>,
>> David Hansen <> wrote:
>>>I hope you have fed this back to Sustrans.
>>
>> No, I don't have any respect for Sustrans.
>>
>> If there is someone who does have such respect or thinks at the very
>> least that they might be susceptible to constructive critical input,
>> they're welcome to pass it on to. Feel free to CC me, give them my
>> email address, etc., or to hack my text about (provided you then take
>> my name off it).
>
>I suggest Roger Stocker, cycling officer at Southwark council.

Is he? He's also chair of Lewisham Cyclists.

Tim Hall

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:

>On 25 Apr, 09:28, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>

>
>> > Cycling in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
>> > is prohibited, the lifts are only open 7am - 7pm and the lifts are
>> > frequently closed.
>>
>> The stairs aren't that bad. Running up the stairs carrying a bike is
>> still easier than cycling up the hill by Greenwich park.
>
>True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>
Or if it's a tandem.



--

Tim

I understand very little of what's being discussed
but for some reason it's fascinating.

(Jon Thompson, urs)

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:

>True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.

Plans are at an advanced stage to have 'rails' fitted so that bikes
can be rolled up and down the stairs. I'm not quite sure what the
protocol will be when an unhill pusher meets a downhill pusher. The
design of the rails, I am told, is quite complex because at every 12
steps there is a landing.

Clive George

"Tim Hall" <timhall@nospamtoday.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nkj4149lrhbbnkhronkrfp30tiubu7pdrc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On 25 Apr, 09:28, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> > Cycling in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
>>> > is prohibited, the lifts are only open 7am - 7pm and the lifts are
>>> > frequently closed.
>>>
>>> The stairs aren't that bad. Running up the stairs carrying a bike is
>>> still easier than cycling up the hill by Greenwich park.
>>
>>True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>>
> Or if it's a tandem.

Whereas escalators are great - stairs are fine on foot, but escalators make
getting a bike, even laden, up and down really easy. Contrary to the
opinions of the security people in Las Vegas airport. "but I just bought it
up there" - and they're not actually listed in the banned items (nor are
bikes). Fortunately the people in Liverpool are rather more sensible, coz at
least there's decent sized lifts at the airport. And Liverpool trains still
take tandems, hoorah - though catching the eye of the guard is probably a
poor thing to do - get on at the other end.

cheers,
clive

Rob Morley

In article <coo41496rdjb9lkgr8phhrbf35df7cseii@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>
> Plans are at an advanced stage to have 'rails' fitted so that bikes
> can be rolled up and down the stairs. I'm not quite sure what the
> protocol will be when an unhill pusher meets a downhill pusher.

This will never happen, because you don't push downhill. :-)

Nick

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>
> Plans are at an advanced stage to have 'rails' fitted so that bikes
> can be rolled up and down the stairs. I'm not quite sure what the
> protocol will be when an unhill pusher meets a downhill pusher. The
> design of the rails, I am told, is quite complex because at every 12
> steps there is a landing.

I'll believe that when I see it. Pushing a bike sounds dangerous.

Why not just make the lifts user operated.

Nick

john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:
in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel

>> The stairs aren't that bad. Running up the stairs carrying a bike is
>> still easier than cycling up the hill by Greenwich park.
>
> True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>
I knew there had to be a reason I always use a ruck sack.

_

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:05:43 +0100, Nick wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), john.sabine@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>>
>> Plans are at an advanced stage to have 'rails' fitted so that bikes
>> can be rolled up and down the stairs. I'm not quite sure what the
>> protocol will be when an unhill pusher meets a downhill pusher. The
>> design of the rails, I am told, is quite complex because at every 12
>> steps there is a landing.
>
> I'll believe that when I see it. Pushing a bike sounds dangerous.
>

If they are like those in the Netherlands, they work quite well.

Paul Boyd

Nick said the following on 26/04/2008 10:05:

> I'll believe that when I see it. Pushing a bike sounds dangerous.

There used to be something like that on the bridge at the end of Five
Mile Lane a few miles east of Lincoln. It worked quite well. The whole
bridge works even better now that it's been completely rebuilt!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

john.sabine@gmail.com

On 26 Apr, 10:07, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> john.sab...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
>
> >> The stairs aren't that bad. Running up the stairs carrying a bike is
> >> still easier than cycling up the hill by Greenwich park.
>
> > True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.
>
> I knew there had to be a reason I always use a ruck sack.

That rather depends what you're carrying. With me it's often two full
panniers and a toolbag (or alternatively four panniers) - don't fancy
that
lot on my back.

John

john.sabine@gmail.com

On 26 Apr, 10:05, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Why not just make the lifts user operated.

That would address the issue of staff shortage leading to unplanned
closures, but do nothing about the lifts' unreliability. South lift
closed
again at 5ish this evening - inevitably, I was going North-South,
so got the lift down but had the length of the tunnel to resign myself
to carrying bike and bags up.

It's a funny business how the original lifts can last until the early
'90s
from installation at the turn of the century, but their replacements
are
already tired. Guess they don't make 'em like they used to ...

John