Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

New Ross bypass bridge

1246

Comments

  • #92
    Osamabindipper
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 110 ✭✭Osamabindipper


    loyatemu wrote: »
    In France they use this sign for roads that are not motorways but are still restricted to motor traffic (i.e. no cyclists, pedestrian, horses etc). Generally they're dual-carriageways ("Voie Express" or Expressways) but not always:

    France-Information-Sign-Begin-of-an-expressway.png

    Irish would still find a reason to moan... Surely have a hobbyneutral roadway.


  • #93
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    It's the same in the Netherlands where roads not worth making Autosnelweg are made Autoweg. Kinda like our 2+2s (although it varies) except they're controlled access instead of with roundabouts. The UK is looking at doing something similar with a definition for Expressway.

    Ireland has almost nothing similar. The only exceptions to date that I know of are the Jack Lynch tunnel, the N18 Limerick tunnel and the New Ross bridge, which have special regulations to that effect.

    Surely it would make more sense for the cyclists to look for better cycling facilities, more street space for cycle lanes etc in New Ross town itself? All this shrieking about no cycling on an Irish (sort of) Expressway doesn't make sense now that there are opportunities in the town now bypassed.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #94
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Discussion thread on the future identity of the 2+2 network here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058036368

    Given there's presently circa 50km of open 2+2 on the network, but 60km+ under construction, the size of the 2+2 network is to double over the next few years, meaning the identity of the road type will become very prevalent.


  • #95
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,152 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Was cycling big in the 1960s?

    People used bikes for shopping, going to work and getting from a to b, not as a leisure activity so much and certainly not as almost a religious following. I think you'll find most of today's "leisure" cyclists are also car owners.


  • #96
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    People used bikes for shopping, going to work and getting from a to b, not as a leisure activity so much and certainly not as almost a religious following. I think you'll find most of today's "leisure" cyclists are also car owners.
    So the participants in Ras Tailteann from the 1950s onward were just going shopping or going from a to b?



    I think you'll find most of today's cyclists of all shapes, types and sizes are also car owners, though I'm not sure what that has got to do with this discussion.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Correct. Traffic level did not warrant motorway. Still enough though to warrant a dedicated setup prioritising fast travel.


    How exactly does having cyclists sharing road space with motorists prioritise fast travel?

    Osamabindipper wrote: »
    This isn't a road for cycle lanes either.
    Why not?

    Osamabindipper wrote: »
    Road is a success for the every day commuter and people coming off the boat that's what it was built for.




    So definitely not for anyone doing a cycling commute or any cycling tourists coming off the boat then?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,059 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Honestly only an tourist idiot would want to cycle along a main road like the N25 - from Rosslare you'd take the road through south Wexford and the ferry across the Estuary - the R736 and 733


  • #98
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,845 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    Honestly only an tourist idiot would want to cycle along a main road like the N25 - from Rosslare you'd take the road through south Wexford and the ferry across the Estuary - the R736 and 733
    Will the ferry survive now that the bridge is open?


  • #99
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,059 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    That's a good question, clearly the sheer horror of New Ross at 8 AM - 9 AM was part of the ferry's appeal, I've not heard anything to suggest the operators are concerned but you'd have to suppose there will be a notable % drop off esp outside the tourist season.

    I see they are now taking CC payments on board - every little helps.


  • #100
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I think you'll find most of today's cyclists of all shapes, types and sizes are also car owners, though I'm not sure what that has got to do with this discussion.
    And yet most of them talk about motorists and cars like they are the emissaries of Satan ...
    How exactly does having cyclists sharing road space with motorists prioritise fast travel?
    :confused: Fairly sure I stated the exact opposite - that cyclists are AFAIK and should be banned from the new bridge because it is intended for fast traffic and regulated accordingly.

    I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from what appears to be in practice a remote expressway.
    So definitely not for anyone doing a cycling commute or any cycling tourists coming off the boat then?
    Not sure what you're getting at here. What kind of "cycling commute" - other than a 10+ mile commute into Waterford from a point East of New Ross, would this bridge be useful for? :confused:

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #101
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    SeanW wrote: »

    :confused: Fairly sure I stated the exact opposite - that cyclists are AFAIK and should be banned from the new bridge because it is intended for fast traffic and regulated accordingly.

    I feel exactly the same about my commute: the cars stuck in traffic should be banned to make way for the fast traffic cycling past them.

    Edit, I actually don't think that cyclists are banned from the new bridge at all. I'm open to correction here.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    SeanW wrote: »

    I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from a remote expressway.

    If you engage with any of the advocacy groups, you find that a major complaint is that roads designs are predominantly dismissive of their existence and need to be retrofitted - usually badly - afterwards.

    So while it makes sense from your perspective (and I agree!) that it would be great to have dedicated infrastructure and priority measures along the old road alignments, it normally either doesn't happen, happens very poorly or happens way after all of the other road infrastructure has been funded.

    The net effect of this approach is to prevent modal shift. So if we're to say that the correct approach is to ban cyclists and pedestrians from the RFK bridge, then it would also be the correct modern approach to simultaneously provide for them elsewhere, preferably on the most direct route rather than a circuitous detour route.

    I hope this makes sense: it's hard to explain.
    Basically, it's OK to create new "motorist only" roads, but only when the alternate routes are inviting/forgiving of vulnerable users. Otherwise, you should include the vulnerable users in the new scheme. It's doesn't make sense to plague everybody with the "you should be using sustainable transport" message while omitting them from your new infrastructure designs!


  • #103
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 44,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    SeanW wrote: »
    I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from a remote expressway.
    Speaking for muself, the problem is that the bridge is reflective of the general spend on sustainable travel - none (or next to none).
    Much of the money spent these days is either on painting a line on a footpath or road for a cycle path which is a waste of time. Most infrastructure projects that include any kind of cycling aspect does not appear to be discussed with people who actually cycle.
    Most capital spend these days is on tourist routes and greenways which again is good for tourism but not much use to the person who wants to commute.

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • #104
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,199 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Was a piece about the bridge on Nationwide but only just caught the very end of it.


  • #105
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    We also seem to have an extremely negative public discourse and attitude towards sustainable transport infrastructure.
    On this thread alone, there's talk of "shrieking" "near religious" "tour de France wannabes". This perception (maybe it's the reality also!) probably isn't helpful when it comes to designing for them, but I'm certain that it's the perception that my local council shares.

    But it's worth bearing in mind that most cyclists drive (80% according to the RSA) and most cycling advocates already cycle.
    So when they're complaining about substandard transport infrastructure, they're typically complaining:
    1: On behalf of those who are currently afraid to cycle.
    2: Coming from a position of understanding motorists needs.

    Even at a minimum, if you can't accept the previous two points, perhaps think of it as "another car out of my way"!

    They're not the enemy of motorists, no matter how the media hams it up.


  • #106
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    And yet most of them talk about motorists and cars like they are the emissaries of Satan ...
    Really? Have you spoke to most cyclists about motorists and cars?


    SeanW wrote: »
    confused.png Fairly sure I stated the exact opposite - that cyclists are AFAIK and should be banned from the new bridge because it is intended for fast traffic and regulated accordingly.

    I would have thought it would have made more sense for cycling advocates to look for cycle lanes and bike priority measures along the old roads and in New Ross town itself, instead of bickering about being restricted from a remote expressway.
    What exactly is a 'remote expressway' in Irish traffic law? It sounds a bit like you've just make things up.


  • #107
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Really? Have you spoke to most cyclists about motorists and cars?
    A lot of them are like you ... I'll say no more.
    What exactly is a 'remote expressway' in Irish traffic law? It sounds a bit like you've just make things up.
    Where exactly did I claim that it was? I merely pointed to the Autoweg designation of road in the Netherlands, similar in France and in the UK they're introducing expressways. It looked to me like this bridge is similar to those and that's why I used the term.

    As to the "remote" part, I got that by looking at a map:
    https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3701495,-6.977562,6698m/data=!3m1!1e3
    There's nothing around most of the new N25/N30 section but green fields. Where are the hordes of cyclists that would find it so useful if only it had a cycle lane? :confused:
    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    We also seem to have an extremely negative public discourse and attitude towards sustainable transport infrastructure.
    On this thread alone, there's talk of "shrieking" "near religious" "tour de France wannabes". This perception (maybe it's the reality also!) probably isn't helpful when it comes to designing for them, but I'm certain that it's the perception that my local council shares.

    But it's worth bearing in mind that most cyclists drive (80% according to the RSA) and most cycling advocates already cycle.
    So when they're complaining about substandard transport infrastructure, they're typically complaining:
    1: On behalf of those who are currently afraid to cycle.
    2: Coming from a position of understanding motorists needs.

    Even at a minimum, if you can't accept the previous two points, perhaps think of it as "another car out of my way"!

    They're not the enemy of motorists, no matter how the media hams it up.
    It's not just the media ...
    For my part, I've only ever used public transport to commute to work, so I tend to care most about that. I also have no problem in theory with the bicycle, my general negative view is of the cyclist.
    I hope this makes sense: it's hard to explain.
    Basically, it's OK to create new "motorist only" roads, but only when the alternate routes are inviting/forgiving of vulnerable users.
    I'd be fine with that, but you tend to have a lot of people whose view is "don't build anything for motorists, ever" and they seem to respond "induced demand" to just about anything along those lines. To many advocates of sustainable transport - not all, to be sure, but it is common - it would not make any difference whatsoever what is done with the old road, providing something for motorists is in and of itself a bad thing. To them, the chance to "crowbar people out of their nice comfy cars" is the only thing that matters. Even though you have no shortage of Irish people trying to crowbar themselves into insanely overcrowded Commuter/DART trains, Luas and buses.

    For my part, I would consider myself to be an advocate for sustainable transport - I was a small part of the old Platform 11 campaign for the Dart Underground, back then called the Interconnector, in or around 2005. I had taken the view that public transport in Ireland and Dublin specifically was a joke and did what little I could to rectify it, alas to no avail. But I may be in the minority in taking the view that sustainable transport should be complimentary to - not a replacement for - a full and appropriate road network.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #108
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    SeanW wrote: »
    It's not just the media ...
    For my part, I've only ever used public transport to commute to work, so I tend to care most about that. I also have no problem in theory with the bicycle, my general negative view is of the cyclist.
    Yes, this is very common. Again though, 80% of cyclists are motorists and they are not the enemies of "themselves". This "negative view of the cyclist" you describe is very normal in Ireland. I don't think it's unusual at all. We do not think of "person on a bicycle", we think of "cyclist". It's an important distinction and an effective dehumanisation which maps over to reticence towards "providing for cyclists", rather than "providing for people with bicycles".
    Treating a minority as a homogenous group to be resisted is something we're pretty good at as a species. We do it instinctively with members of the travelling community, members of the settled community, people from other countries, people with different skin colour etc etc. We think of "us and them". This isn't something you personally came up with and it's a very normal human trait. Which the media hams up all day long to try to sell things.
    Sadly for cycling advocates, roads design teams are very much still designing for "them" instead of "us" and until that changes, we won't get modal shift.
    SeanW wrote: »
    I'd be fine with that, but you tend to have a lot of people whose view is "don't build anything for motorists, ever" and they seem to respond "induced demand" to just about anything along those lines. To many advocates of sustainable transport - not all, to be sure, but it is common - it would not make any difference whatsoever what is done with the old road, providing something for motorists is in and of itself a bad thing. To them, the chance to "crowbar people out of their nice comfy cars" is the only thing that matters
    Yes those people definitely exist. But cycling does not have the monopoly on extremists, we're just lucky that they rarely have the opportunity to harm other road users!
    SeanW wrote: »
    I may be in the minority in taking the view that sustainable transport should be complimentary to - not a replacement for - a full and appropriate road network.
    I don't think you're in the minority.
    But many people are now looking at the Sustainability Mobility Policy as a complete and utter failure/farce. We've completed ten more years of pursuing unsustainable transport approaches and avoiding sustainable approaches. This is causing many people to want to overthrow the whole regime and stop roads development until we "catch up" with sustainable transport. I think that mindset is understandable enough. Until there's some meaningful reform and meaningful provision of Sustainable Transport options these people will increase in number.

    I mean we still need to complete connection of the major cities by motorway. But it's getting more and more urgent to start thinking of walking and cycling first.


  • #109
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,273 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    donvito99 wrote: »
    If there was space why not? The M50/M8 doesn't offer an incredible view and an interesting route for people to walk or cycle.

    Not the nicest route but I would love if there was a parallel cycling route between junctions J6 and J7 (Blanchardstown and Lucan) at least. At the moment, it's a 5km detour if I want to take the bike instead of the car.


  • #110
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Stark wrote: »
    Not the nicest route but I would love if there was a parallel cycling route between junctions J6 and J7 (Blanchardstown and Lucan) at least. At the moment, it's a 5km detour if I want to take the bike instead of the car.

    This is extremely common in Ireland.
    In the upcoming Dunkettle Interchange design, pedestrians and cyclists take a 2km uphill detour to get past the junction where motorists go direct on the flat.

    This is the kind of thing advocates are complaining about. Yes there's an "alternative route" available but there's little to no effort to make that alternative route desirable. It's just a check-box rather than a primary concern. The direct route is for motorists only (who could easily afford to drive uphill or an extra km here and there) and the alternative route is circuitous, discontinuous, illegible, dangerous, etc.

    It costs way more to re-engineer solutions retrospectively after schemes have been completed.

    Again, I'm generalising here rather than specifically talking about the RFK bridge. And maybe a Great Island crossing could become a greenway or something in years to come, which would be a reversal of fortunes, so to speak.


  • #111
    Last Stop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    Stark wrote: »
    Not the nicest route but I would love if there was a parallel cycling route between junctions J6 and J7 (Blanchardstown and Lucan) at least. At the moment, it's a 5km detour if I want to take the bike instead of the car.

    The ideal situation to that would be a public transport (with cycling facilities obviously) only bridge following the Metro West alignment between Porterstown and the N4...


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Last Stop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    This is extremely common in Ireland.
    In the upcoming Dunkettle Interchange design, pedestrians and cyclists take a 2km uphill detour to get past the junction where motorists go direct on the flat.

    Well when you’re tasked with designing a junction with the requirement to make the movements between essentially 3 motorways freeflow, cyclists tend to take a back seat...


  • #113
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Last Stop wrote: »
    Well when you’re tasked with designing a junction with the requirement to make the movements between essentially 3 motorways freeflow, cyclists tend to take a back seat...

    It's the only route between the city centre and one of it's biggest employment areas. "Cyclists" were amongst the highest of primary concerns listed in the design documents. Sustainable transport didn't take a back seat as a strategy, it's just the default position of shoddy Irish design teams.

    Edit: and cyclists currently enjoy freeflow East to West, so this design will actively restrict them.

    The awful thing is that some extremely simple cheap designs were available, highlighted to the designers and subsequently ignored.


  • #114
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,111 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Lets be real here, what makes cyclist think that every piece of infrastructure has to include them? Is there really "commuting cyclists" as mentioned above cycling from Slieverue to Wexford or where?
    I am both a commuting and leisure cyclist, why wouldn't you want to go cycle through New Ross, look at the Dunbrody, stop for a coffee, etc, rather than being deafened by noise on a motorway?
    Seriously, get over yourselves lads, imagine the outcry if the proposed railway greenway in Wexford was widened to incorporate lorries!


  • #115
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    Lets be real here, what makes cyclist think that every piece of infrastructure has to include them?
    Probably DMURS?
    Or was that a rhetorical question?
    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    Is there really "commuting cyclists" as mentioned above cycling from Slieverue to Wexford or where?
    No idea. Presumably there were traffic studies carried out...oh wait...did you just prove the point I'm making?
    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    why wouldn't you want to go cycle through New Ross, look at the Dunbrody, stop for a coffee, etc, rather than being deafened by noise on a motorway?
    Not a motorway. What you're proposing is a much longer route.
    Why wouldn't you want to sit in traffic for a couple of hours in New Ross and enjoy the radio in the car? Um...because that wasn't where you were planning on going.
    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    I am both a commuting and leisure cyclist,
    Yeah, I think your above quote kinda puts this one to bed.
    PhilOssophy wrote: »
    imagine the outcry if the proposed railway greenway in Wexford was widened to incorporate lorries!

    Presumably the greenway won't be widened to incorporate lorries because the existing road has instead been widened to incorporate lorries loads of times?


    If the above is the best argument against adhering to DMURS and the NTA's Smarter Travel Plan, we're basically sorted.


  • #116
    Last Stop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    Probably DMURS?
    Or was that a rhetorical question?


    No idea. Presumably there were traffic studies carried out...oh wait...did you just prove the point I'm making?


    Not a motorway. What you're proposing is a much longer route.
    Why wouldn't you want to sit in traffic for a couple of hours in New Ross and enjoy the radio in the car? Um...because that wasn't where you were planning on going.


    Yeah, I think your above quote kinda puts this one to bed.



    Presumably the greenway won't be widened to incorporate lorries because the existing road has instead been widened to incorporate lorries loads of times?


    If the above is the best argument against adhering to DMURS and the NTA's Smarter Travel Plan, we're basically sorted.

    The fact you’ve made several reference to DMURS.. the design manual for URBAN roads and streets completely undermines your argument


  • #117
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,845 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13
    Roads Act, 1993 wrote:
    Responsibility of road authorities for the maintenance and construction of public roads.

    13.—(1) Subject to Part III , the maintenance and construction of all national and regional roads in an administrative county shall be a function of the council or county borough corporation of that county.

    ...

    (5) In the performance of their functions under subsections (1) and (2), a road authority shall consider the needs of all road users.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17
    Roads Act, 1993 wrote:
    Functions generally of the Authority.

    17.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part and, in particular, to such directions and guidelines as may be given by the Minister under section 41 , it shall be the general duty of the Authority to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads and for that purpose it shall have—

    ...

    (2) In the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority shall consider the needs of all road users.


  • #118
    Last Stop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    Victor wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/13/enacted/en/html#sec13

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/45/enacted/en/html
    A protected road means a public road or proposed public road specified to be a protected road in a protected road scheme approved by the Minister under section 49 .

    (2) A protected road scheme approved by the Minister may provide for the prohibition, closure, stopping up, removal, alteration, diversion or restriction of any specified or all means of direct access to the protected road from specified land or from specified land used for a specified purpose or to such land from the protected road.

    (3) (a) A protected road scheme approved by the Minister may prohibit or restrict the use of the protected road or a particular part thereof by—

    (i) specified types of traffic,

    (ii) specified classes of vehicles,

    but shall not prohibit or restrict such use—

    (I) by ambulances or fire brigade vehicles,

    (II) by vehicles used by members of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in the performance of their duties as such members,

    (III) for the purpose of maintaining such protected road.

    (b) A person who contravenes a prohibition or restriction under paragraph (a) shall be guilty of an offence.


  • #119
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,845 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Has it been designated a protected road by the minister?


  • #120
    Last Stop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    Victor wrote: »
    Has it been designated a protected road by the minister?

    Read it again... it is not designated by the minister but approved. Given it was approved to go to construction by the minister... yes

    I really don’t know why this is even being discussed. The time to raise this was during the 2 publication consultations or the planning process... not 20 years later when the road has been built and opened.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,111 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    Yeah, I think your above quote kinda puts this one to bed.

    What, do you want me to post a video of my cycle home today, or to work tomorrow, or my possible cycle at the weekend (although the weather forecast is bad).

    But tut tut, I also own a car, which I use < a tank full of petrol every month. But I also know that certain infrastructure isn't compatible with me cycling. I would include motorways in this.

    Just because I don't agree with the general attitude/behaviour of cyclists, doesn't mean I must not be one! But anyway, you have a good day hans!


Advertisement