Isn't it great to see how this has degenerated into the usual 'slanging' match between the pro-motorist and pro-cyclist lobbies... very childish, but what did you really expect?I would like to make my point on this from a completely different standpoint - the pedestrians.It was made clear by the government when they made funding available to councils for temporary (potentially becoming permanent) so-called 'sustainable transport' improvements that they should be to the benefit of both cyclists and pedestrians ("wider pavements" were explicitly mentioned).Whilst there can be little doubt that this particular change is of great benefit to cyclists (once the drivers stop passing through against the signage, that is...), there can be little doubt that it is of no benefit whatsoever to the far greater number of pedestrians who use this route.The available pavement on one single side of the road is incredibly narrow - way narrower in places, in fact, than the footbridge route over the tube tracks a little further along - so much for social distancing. I note the many pedestrians, when faced with a continuous stream of people coming from the other direction, have simply taken to walking in the road in order to appropriately maintain their 'social distancing' (for which they cannot, of course, be prosecuted) - it is surely crazy that they feel the need to do this!Another aspect of any planned works is that they have to take account of the needs of disabled users - so how exactly has that been done in this case? Clearly, there has been no thought whatsoever given to their needs.A really simple solution, to my opinion, would be for the two councils involved to build a temporary structure (kind of akin to those temporary stands put up for concerts / sporting events etc.) on the other side of the road and to direct pedestrians to use the existing footpath for passage in one direction and the temporary structure for passage in the other direction - social distancing issues (eventually...) solved.The road as it stands is not wide enough for two buses to pass one another anyway - one always has to wait to let the other through, so no change there and with no other motorists anymore (in theory at least),the narrowing of the road would not be an issue anymore - it would still be wide enough for a single bus to go through anyway.If this was done and, along with the measures to ban most forms of motor transport, the whole scheme was deemed a success after a suitable period, then a more permanent walkway could be built to the Eastern side of the bridge and the mini-roundabout in South Parade (just to the North of the bridges) could then be removed.Any thoughts?
David Noades ● 2277d