Parking - cyclists are different

jds_1981

Could have gone in the rants thread but decided it needed a thread of its' own.

So, email just came around at work updating terms and conditions for underground parking. We are now expected to dismount and walk down the two storey entrance ramp...

elbowloh

jds_1981 wrote:

Could have gone in the rants thread but decided it needed a thread of its' own.

So, email just came around at work updating terms and conditions for underground parking. We are now expected to dismount and walk down the two storey entrance ramp...

If this is about safety, then it's far more dangerous to be walking down a ramp if you have cleats on!

jds_1981

elbowloh wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Could have gone in the rants thread but decided it needed a thread of its' own.

So, email just came around at work updating terms and conditions for underground parking. We are now expected to dismount and walk down the two storey entrance ramp...

If this is about safety, then it's far more dangerous to be walking down a ramp if you have cleats on!

My thoughts.. actually it's three storeys down, not two.

slowbike

Well - as rants go it's a bit short and not very ... er ranty ...

On the face of it, it's a silly condition .. however, you have to ask what's behind it ..

Are you aware of any cycle incidents on the ramp? Probably someone with lack of effective brakes?
Are there any dangerous parts of the ramp? Metal surface - slippery when wet ...

That might indicate why there's the "walk" directive.

Then you have to ask if it's sensible to walk - is there an appropriate footpath - wide enough for rider and bike to walk side-by-side?

At a rough guess - someone high up in the company has been held up by a wobbly so has decided that all cyclists are wobblies - therefore they can all blumminwell walk and think themselves lucky they can park their bikes underground because other companies make them park their bikes in the street....

tgotb

LOL

We've recently had a 3-foot-wide cycle lane painted down the left-hand side of our entrance ramp. This is despite:
1. If you're riding down the lane (uncomfortably close to the wall) there's still insufficient space on the right for anyone to pass you.
2. By the time the vehicle behind you gets through the pass-activated barrier at the top of the ramp, you've already reached the bottom...

They've painted a lane up the exit ramp too. My observation is that:
1. Riders capable of making it up the ramp without straying out of the 3-foot-wide lane are normally going fast enough not to be a problem for any vehicle behind
2. Riders slow enough that someone might want to overtake them also appear to need to lurch back and forth across the full width of the ramp

Just thinking back to the OP - we did once have a rider who was fast-ish but seemed to need the whole lane; even then he occasionally fell off. He's now working for a different organisation. Maybe your rules have been specifically designed with someone like him in mind?

cooldad

Real manly men MTBers would just bunny hop the barrier, wheelie down the ramp, and give HR the finger.

But cleats....

jds_1981

Slowbike wrote:

Well - as rants go it's a bit short and not very ... er ranty ...

On the face of it, it's a silly condition .. however, you have to ask what's behind it ..

Are you aware of any cycle incidents on the ramp? Probably someone with lack of effective brakes?
Are there any dangerous parts of the ramp? Metal surface - slippery when wet ...

That might indicate why there's the "walk" directive.

Then you have to ask if it's sensible to walk - is there an appropriate footpath - wide enough for rider and bike to walk side-by-side?

At a rough guess - someone high up in the company has been held up by a wobbly so has decided that all cyclists are wobblies - therefore they can all blumminwell walk and think themselves lucky they can park their bikes underground because other companies make them park their bikes in the street....

No cycle incidents that I'm aware of, I suspect unlikely someone would launch themselves into the wall at the bottom of the ramp and then composing to security either..

Concrete all the way down.

No footpath, indeed, there's a no pedestrians sign.

For being held up, probably better to make people walk up, not down as requested?

jds_1981

TGOTB wrote:

LOL


Just thinking back to the OP - we did once have a rider who was fast-ish but seemed to need the whole lane; even then he occasionally fell off. He's now working for a different organisation. Maybe your rules have been specifically designed with someone like him in mind?

I thought this might be brought up

More than occasionally fell off, I believe the only time he fell off on work premises was after you launched a sneak attack?

thistle_

Is it just the ramp, or is the whole car park? (and you have to get off at the ramp because that's the start of the car park).

I've been "banned" from cycling through a multistorey car park. The reason given was that bikes are too quiet and people might walk out in front of you :roll: This was a car park where you went in at the bottom, and the bike parking was on the top floor and the only other way to get to it was via 3 flights of stairs or a lift (from the car park). Presumably they've now banned hybrids and electric cars.

The landlord/FM company for the building may have had an incident at another site which has prompted the ban at the OP's place. If everyone ignores it, what will they do? Sack you?

philcubed

We had something similarly silly here.
In one incident a car racing across the carpark, not in the marked lanes, above the site speed limit nearly took a bike rider out.
Also the speed humps at the entrance to the access road were changed from ones with a gap in the middle (that you could cycle through), to ones that are continuous across the road (that you have to weave around). Cyclist came off on the hump.
Response to these was not to enforce the existing on-site driving rules for cars, or replace the speed humps with cycle friendly ones, but to try to ban cyclists - cue a fairly big response from the cyclists which got the ban suspended for a time (which now seems to be indefinite).

fat daddy

what do you do when life give you lemons ???

you improve your cyclocross skills, jump of the bike, sling it over your back and run down you gert Jessie !

hopkinb

We have lifts don't you know...

slowbike

jds_1981 wrote:

No footpath, indeed, there's a no pedestrians sign.

Er.... no footpath but they want you to walk ...

I suppose you have to weigh up the chances of being caught with the punishment to see if it's worth even bothering to adhere to the request ...

Just to make you rant a bit more - I can cycle to the office door - and if that's open, I can cycle to my own office door - I get to keep my bike in the office next to my desk ...

I do have to ensure I've got a clean bike though

jgsi

Dont you have a valet to park it for you?

AlSee

We have to go in through the pedestrian entrance. Luckily although it's multistorey the bike shed is just inside the door.

Equally silly is that we're not allowed to use the top floor when its cold in case it's icy and we slip but we are allowed to use the (equally likely to be icy) pavement to enter the building.

The Rookie

Have you asked for the risk assessment? If they haven't got one they shouldn't be changing the status quo.

It will no doubt be littered with errors and assumptions that are wrong, time to rip it to shreds so they have to start again.

tgotb

AlSee wrote:

Equally silly is that we're not allowed to use the top floor when its cold in case it's icy and we slip but we are allowed to use the (equally likely to be icy) pavement to enter the building.

Top floor of a multi-storey is more likely to be icy than the pavement, because it doesn't have the thermal mass of the ground to stop it cooling down; same reason bridges and flyovers are more prone to ice than other roads.

Of course, the real reason is more likely that they don't own the pavement outside, so they can't be liable if you fall over on it...