In Shoreham-by-Sea / Lancing area next Sunday?

[squeaker]

If a-wheel, afoot or a-horse then you might care to spend 1/2hr supporting this action which is protesting against the potential loss of a well used crossing of the A27. The Adur - Worthing District planning meeting is on 18 July.

[MikeF]

What happened at the meeting? If that’s the crossing I think it is on theA27, then I wrote to the local council a little while ago even though it’s a considerable distance from me. It appears just a case of couldn’t care less about any user except motorised ones.

[squeaker]

What happened at the meeting? If that’s the crossing I think it is on theA27, then I wrote to the local council a little while ago even though it’s a considerable distance from me. It appears just a case of couldn’t care less about any user except motorised ones.

Application deferred ie kicked down the road for a while, but not for any reason to do with non-motorised user provision Quite why both Highways England and WSCC Highways didn't object the sub-standard NMU provision is beyond me

[Cyril Haearn]

Do nothing and talk about it
I clicked the link but did not go further (farcebook conditions)

[MikeF]

What happened at the meeting? If that’s the crossing I think it is on theA27, then I wrote to the local council a little while ago even though it’s a considerable distance from me. It appears just a case of couldn’t care less about any user except motorised ones.

Application deferred ie kicked down the road for a while, but not for any reason to do with non-motorised user provision Quite why both Highways England and WSCC Highways didn't object the sub-standard NMU provision is beyond me

The term “NMU” is another thing I object to. It lumps cyclists,pedestrians and equestrians as one group. Each group has separate needs, but it now seems convenient for “councils” to lump them all together.

[squeaker]

The term “NMU” is another thing I object to. It lumps cyclists,pedestrians and equestrians as one group. Each group has separate needs, but it now seems convenient for “councils” to lump them all together.

I disagree: we all tend to want the same thing ie travel routes free of motor traffic (dangerous, smelly, noisy - pick your objection) where on road is not a sensible option for many eg the pseudo motorway dual carriageways with national speed limits. Campaigning on a united front has generally seemed the sensible option, provided we're not expected to share the same 1 to 2m wide gravel / mud track

[MikeF]

No. We don't all want the same thing. That's how we end up with shared use pavements etc. I need to cycle along roads and I need to walk along roads, but not on the same part, and not with the same provision.