If the user of a quite narrow manual chair were scraping their knuckles off the wall, perhaps. In most other cases, no.

Looking at the likely weight of that thing, a manual wheelchair wouldn't be able to do that.

It stops when someone walks directly at it, but where is the person supposed to go who, for example because of using a wheelchair, can't fit into the narrow pavement space it leaves? Not actually ramming someone doesn't stop it preventing them using the pavement for the purpose of getting somewhere.

No EIA then. (I wish they wouldn't call it a cycleway, it's a shared use path with more walkers and wheelers than cyclists.)

I'm wanting the Roseburn Path people who are so concerned about wildlife corridors to get involved in this wildlife-impenetrable fence cutting off habitats from the path. Was an EIA even done?

These sorts of discussions have happened for pretty much every queer person I've ever met, no matter where they're from.

Oh and by the way there are also roadworks on Crewe Road North at the moment, meaning delays and even more disgruntled and careless drivers on the section they want you to divert onto by bike, and a closed pavement for anyone diverting on foot/ wheeling.

Why has the council rolled over for this restriction and, judging by the location of the trench they're digging, seizure of public land by a company profiting from genocide? Fuck Leonardo's and fuck the people enabling them to crush protest in this and other ways.

It's my commute to and from work by bike - in the dark both ways - and the visibility past the heavy equipment blocking the light and sightlines is zero. There's going to be an accident and then they'll close it again.

I'm pretty sure they don't own the land about 50cm off the paved section which is where they're digging the trench. I live *right* next to the section they've occupied, we got no notification that, for example, my route to work was being initially completely closed.

Well, they couldn't protect themselves against a van in Morrison's car park, they're not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

It's just sort of about open in the sense that you can get one bike OR one walker down it, mostly no passing and certainly no wheelchair access (more people walk and wheel that cycle on this path).

The pinch points got worse (fence bulged out and more equipment brought in) over the course of Wednesday and at one point it's so narrow you couldn't get a wheelchair past, for sure, and the equipment and fencing gives zero visibility. Actively dangerous.

He didn't get far
bsky.app/profile/zena...

We've already got someone suing a bank because he's got a phobia of Pride flags.

Honestly, having worked for years for a walking charity, the evidence shows that the real answer to moving people from dangerously low activity levels to massive reductions in diabetes, stroke and heart disease is really a daily walk to the shops, but cycling matters too.

Sure. But balanced against the straight fact that helmet laws reduce cycling which increases immobility-related morbidity, and potential finding that odds of being dragged under a vehicle and crushed increases because of increased close passes, does make it a two sided debate.

Simply falling off a horse is both more likely (horses have unpredictable behaviour because they're animals) and further to fall than just falling off a bike. So there are definitely two sides - at a population level, the health gains of activity vs collision risk are huge.

When cyclists are killed by vehicles, it's generally internal injuries from being dragged under wheels that kill them, not head injuries. Head injuries happen and are awful, but saying a helmet will help much against a lorry is nonsense.