Hoax Farcility.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1430
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Hoax Farcility.

Postby Pete Owens » 17 Nov 2018, 2:40am

mjr wrote:3 posts in 6 years is hardly obsessive. I'm sure you've posted more often than that on many topics.

Three posts on this thread.

I have started to notice cryptic and hostile reference to Warrington Cycle Campaign on several occasions on different and completely unrelated threads - for example in his advocacy of narrow painted cycle lanes here:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=115384&p=1139542&hilit=warrington#p1139542.
Given the hostile and aggressive tone I simply let it wash over, rather than work out what he was going on about.
Note that the accusations of fakery are particularly offensive in that case since the report is about a cycle lane outside my daughters school; indeed it is my daughter in the photographs - I do care passionately about her safety so the red mist tends to descend whenever anyone suggests that I would actively misrepresent the findings of my reasearch. When I first produced the report there was a poster from Oxford by the name of Richard Mann (who I notice contributed to this thread back then) who was a passionate advocate of the even thinner cycle lanes that plague Oxford who made similarly offensive claims.

I hadn't noticed this thread until it was revived this week so that photo has now been removed. It would have been removed six years ago had the OP contacted me directly and pointed it out, rather than hoping I picked up this thread.

As I've noted "obsessively" ;-) that site seems to achieve almost nothing except sell some books. It doesn't get stuff fixed.


Actually it does (unfortunately so IMO). My preferred style more nerdy; writing long serious letters pointing out things, going to consultation meetings, reading standards, doing research. I would much prefer serious dialogue.

The very first facility, back in March 2001
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/March2001.htm
was in frustration at getting patronising brush off in response to a four page letter I had written listing the very many inadequacies of a recently built cycle path - and back then I held what I think is your position - that cycle paths were a good idea in theory if only they could build them properly - indeed I had campaign FOR that particular path to be built. It wasn't intended to be a regular feature, but a one-off way of letting off steam. The bin was far from the worst aspect of it - but made a good photo due to its obvious absurdity.

However, while they were happy to ignore serious comments, subjecting them to ridicule stung so the bin was removed fairly soon:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/March2002.htm
It was also at the time the national cycle strategy had degenerated to local authorities reporting how many miles of cycle path were built so a lot of similar things were popping up all over the country, which other campaigners sent in. Many of these things have indeed been removed, while I can't recall any success in serious campaigning getting a facility removed, rather than installed.

A case in point is the cycle lane in the report mentioned above.
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
Apparently it was too expensive to remove and couldn't possibly be made wider - until they wanted to mark some wider car parking spaces on part of it!:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.361871,-2.5777249,3a,33.9y,148.39h,80.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHkH5_5a_-3TH4LUi2s4EFQ!2e0!5s20090301T000000!7i13312!8i6656

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8870
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Hoax Farcility.

Postby Cunobelin » 17 Nov 2018, 10:55am

pwa wrote:I mean that the Warrington group is lingering on this mistakenly identified "farcility", not you Meic. I should have made that clear.

We have enough real problem areas to focus on. That daft gate at Margam comes to mind.


Remember that one......


Image


Getting a pannier through was OK, shame about the recumbent trike!


Image

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8870
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Hoax Farcility.

Postby Cunobelin » 17 Nov 2018, 11:05am

It is effective though.

I was October 2013 with the shared use Super market

Image

After several months pointing out the signage and stupidity of a route across the supermarket entrance nothing was done.

Within weeks of the appearance, the signs and route were changed

pwa
Posts: 9020
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Hoax Farcility.

Postby pwa » 17 Nov 2018, 11:07am

One really tragic point about that Margam gate is that it is made of such good materials. That galv steel gate must have cost a fortune, and the stonework is really quite good. If only someone had spent a bit longer at the drawing board stage, thinking what it is for.

pwa
Posts: 9020
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Hoax Farcility.

Postby pwa » 17 Nov 2018, 11:12am

Thanks to Pete O for removing the mis-identified farcility so people can focus on genuine issues.