Author Topic: Vertical discrepancies  (Read 3536 times)


  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Vertical discrepancies
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2011, 05:45:17 pm »
I don't think boards would work there as a) it is only the train-wheel space that is sunk below surface level, so you'd need something like a very long rubber snakey thing - boards would end up moving, b) I think the whole area is some kind of industrial heritage conservation area. What might work would be to paint lines and designate one section as cycles only - but we know how well that kind of idea usually works. So I don't have a solution, except that I think the problem only really appears in a group or when there are loads of people wandering about.

For the speeds and amount of traffic the rubber hose solution might work. It was used on the OMNI rubber panels in 1990's but heavy traffic chews up the hose.  Also a poured polymer infill from Szarka Rubber - fills gap but compresses under the point load of a rail wheel.  Both far from perfect.  best solution to date that appears to work (eg Kattwyck rail & road bridge in Hamburg) is VeloStrail crossing panel unit with renewable panel that compresses under rail wheels - estimated to last 1m to 2m axle passes.  Not passed in UK for most main line railway speeds. 
In this particular case the easiest and best thing might be to realign the cycle path so that it runs behind M-Shed museum rather than between it and the dockside. This would avoid almost all the rails and the foot traffic. The other solutions sound interesting for other places though.
An ungovernable laughter, a joyous agitation which makes the summer stretching before you seem like an unrolling canvas on which you might draw those first rude pure strokes that are free. (Capote)


  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Vertical discrepancies
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2011, 11:31:09 pm »

Just to update the Garve crossing bit - here is one of the signs.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

A V Lowe

Re: Vertical discrepancies
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2011, 02:44:27 am »
This technically acts contra to Roads (Scotland) Act as the roads authority has a statutory duty to provide a general purpose road for the use of all traffic, in the way it should expect to use that road - and thus a route over which you can cycle should be provided.  This stupid arrangement makes no allowance for those who are riding cycles because they cannot walk as well as they can ride - I know of one monoped who would have immense difficulty if he was touring without his prosthesis, and forced to walk and push a bike (basically he couldn't).