I see Yu Lai Fan is making a campaign issue about her proposed "Cycle Parking Platform"

According to her, the people's aspirations for this wonderful project are being frustrated.

Behind all the rhetoric, the issue is simply that she wants to spend $18 million to construct a platform next to the library, where 360 bicycles will be crammed into a neat little grid that resembles no public bicycle parking area in any city that actually takes cycling seriously as a mode of transport. This indeed is a fantasy island solution.

A similar parking area was erected in Mui Wo some years ago, and it demonstrated the problems with this idea.

People will not queue up in an orderly fashion and put their bikes in place. It only takes two or three to dump and lock their bikes carelessly and access is blocked for everyone. When the bell is ringing and the gate is about to close, patience is not to be expected.

So the result of this plan if implemented is, a few months later, a pile of rusty bikes on the expensive platform, and everyone else parking along the railings as usual.

What's the alternative?

The present ad hoc parking along the railings basically works. But clearly there are some problems. A few very simple and cheap actions could make this work much better and be more convenient for everyone.

To work, it has to be simple and convenient for everyone, and not require a permanent traffic cop making everyone park correctly as the CPA would.

The problems are due to the small number (generally 2 or 4) of bikes "double parked" that stick out on the pier, and are prone to fall over, not being attached to the railings, as the 1st photo. The people that do this are the same ones that would gridlock the CPA.

http://lulzimg.com/i24/20dae5.jpg

Most of the 300 or so bikes on the pier are hooked over the railing and project less than a metre on the pier.

http://lulzimg.com/i24/811422.jpg

http://lulzimg.com/i24/019e44.jpg

The pier is 6 metres wide, that leaves over 4 metres clearance: Main Street is about 3 metres wide at the best, 1.6 at the narrowest.
The path below the hotel where the hundreds of pedestrians are jammed coming off the pier is 2.2 metres wide: that is where the bottleneck is, not on the pier even with all the bikes parked on it now.

So my modest proposal was to put racks along the railings, put up a notice saying all bikes must be locked to the rack. Cost: a few tens of thousands. Much less than they've already spent on "site investigations" already. If it didn't actually work, it's a rounding error. The government, and YLF aren't interested in even discussing this (I've tried).

---

Even simpler: one bucket of paint, draw a line 1 metre from each railing and put up signs stating that bikes must be attached to the railings and parked within that area. That would give pedestrians at least 4 metres clearance, wider than any part of Main Street.
A few enforcement operations, sticking official notes on offending bikes, and "pier pressure" from pedestrians would make people keep behind the line. Telling people to "park legally" is impossible now. Currently ALL bike parking on Lamma is technically "illegal", because despite most residents having a bike, there are zero facilities for them. The government simply declares that you are a lawbreaker if you park your bike anywhere at all.

So why is YLF so hot for this CPA? Does she care about providing facilities for her constituents who use the pier?
Or is it perhaps more about the jobs for the boys for pouring $18 million in concrete into the harbour? (Technically, it's "over" the harbour", but the result is the same.)

Instead of "struggling for 10 years" to build this idiotic platform, she could have solved this "problem," immediately, for basically nothing, by getting proper racks. But the concrete contractors wouldn't get their piece of the action then.

Instead of the silly platform the budget should be allocated to upgrading the pier itself. It's about 50 years old and needs regular maintenance anyway. Next time around, widen it by say a metre, put racks, and perhaps even a roof, on it. Then we would get something that was useful and not yet another white elephant concrete excrescence. Remember: this plan came from the same great minds that brought us the wonderful and beautiful digital clock landmark in the middle of the sitting out area opposite The Island Bar.

Just think for a moment: $18 million to park 300 bikes. Cost: $60,000 per bike. Most bikes are worth $3-400.

And as the problem is just down to three or four bikes parked out of place, really that amounts to $6 million to deal with each of those bikes.

It's completely insane and is not just a waste of money, it will actually make the situation worse and create conflict as they try to force people to use the CPA, and those that do will be bumping their shins and tripping over getting through the jumble of bikes in the "official" CPA.

Thanks for this comprehensive summary of this long-time, contentious project, Alan.

I've just linked your informative post from my Bike Park Lamma-zine story today, to give some balance to the powerful forces who've been pushing for this project for over ten years now.
It also demonstrates how little actual power District Councilors have in pushing the govt. to actually build these projects, beyond just planning them, for decades sometimes.

Well, at least the govt. has given up on the original idea from 1993 on building that platform for exclusive use of Village Vehicles.

Personally, I've stopped using my mountain bike to go to the ferry pier anymore, using it mostly for recreational riding in the hills, to the beaches and to South Lamma.

For a little saving of 2-3 minutes to get to the ferry, I'd have to put up with all the dangers and inconveniences of riding through very narrow back alleys and narrow Main Street past all the constructions-in-progress, bike-averse pedestrians, randomly meandering crowds of visitors who are not used at all to share the path with bikes, locating an increasingly rare free space on the pier railings, locking/unlocking of the bike, stuff not permanently fixed on the bike getting stolen, etc.

_________________
Click here for Lamma-zine stories and recent Lamma Spotlights of the Week:
Photo, Video, Person, Wildlife, Bird, Artwork.

However, they are pressuring Home Affairs hard and HAD are going along with them.

We had some meetings with HAD in which they tried to humour us and pretended they were listening, while all the time proceeding with the original plan. More recently HAD just declared they're going through with it regardless, ignoring any objections or alternatives. They see it simply as a political problem, make the DAB happy, give them their turn at sucking on the money spigot. None of the people involved actually gives a flying fuck whether it will actually work or not.

Despite my asking them for the last three years, they've never explained just what the problem that justifies the enormous expenditure. (we're just guessing it's congestion, they never say) and have never consulted any of the voluminous research on real-world bicycle parking, they just drew a square and worked out how closely they could stack bikes in it, as if it was a shipping pallet.

For those of us further away it's a different equation. Especially if you're carrying loads of shopping or other stuff.

Looks fine for me (except economics). The access to the lot is wide so many bikers can go to there at the same time, unless there is something on other detailed drawings like e.g. narrow gate with toll booth . Also, still there is a need of a transverse marking on the pier NO BIKES BEYOND THIS LINE!!!, and a policeman with Allan’s rottweiler to enforce the discipline.

It's amazing what a TOTALLY SCOFFLAW place Lamma really is in regards to biking!

I picked up this leaflet below at the Burglary Prevention talk this morning. It seems that so much of what we do as bikers almost every day is actually officially forbidden and could be heavily fined IF there'd be any enforcement of these govt. guidelines and fines, specifically addressing our "Islands District":
<ul COMPACT><LI>Don't let a child under 11 years to ride a bicycle unaccompanied by an adult!
<li>Cycling on the pavement is liable to a maximum fine of $500.
<li>Carrying passengers is liable to a maximum fine of $2,000.
<li>Not turning on a white light at the front and a red light at the rear when riding in the dark is liable to a maximum fine of $2,000.
<li>Parking of bicycles at public places and causing nuisance is liable to a maximum fine of $5,000 or three-month imprisonment.</ul>
Enforcing all these laws strictly on Lamma could generate enough income to finance the entire local police force, I'd guess ... but it would diminish their local popularity to an all-time low.
Every time you'd park a bike at the ferry pier - a "public place" - or leave it sprawled on the ferry pier, "causing a nuisance", you're theoretically liable to a maximum fine of $5,000 or three-month imprisonment.

_________________
Click here for Lamma-zine stories and recent Lamma Spotlights of the Week:
Photo, Video, Person, Wildlife, Bird, Artwork.

The access isn't wide, from later diagrams (I'll see if I can find a copy) there are maybe three lanes in/out. Dozens of people will be trying to use this simultaneously, getting on/off the ferry, this is not going to be decorous.

Currently along the pier you have "random access". Everyone can get to their bike, regardless of what others are doing.

The CPA requires all users to be very disciplined and considerate. If everyone was, we wouldn't have a problem to begin with. Bikes are cheap and many people treat them as disposable and will park them carelessly, and leave them indefinitely.

I could think of a dozen ways to spend $18 million to improve YSW. This would not even be on the list.

This project was designed to do two things: to spend the maximum amount of money available, and to give it to the construction companies who have political connections. Any impact on the rest of us, positive or negative, is incidental and unimportant.

It is hard to say how efficient it would be without some scientific research on traffic. On the layout plan there are 6 isles in between 4 double and 1 single parking lanes. When taking on and off my ferries morning and night I usually can hear three or four bells behind me to make me give way to bikers. So, not so many as to/from one ferry. May be there are some peak ferries. Never mind, I agree this thing could be solved much cheaper and the money spend better for modernizing or increasing collection frequency at my favorite garbage collection point at Beer Garden. I am still waiting for the grand opening of the “sitting out area” in Tai Peng so far hidden behind high corrugated plate fence. I am sure this investment will enhance greatly the comfort and standard of “sitting out” especially because there is another overfilled garbage spot just next to it. I am hesitating now about ranking of Lo Tik Wan Rain Shelter, Tai Peng Sitting Out Area and Bicycles Parking Lot.

There hasn't been any such research here (except by me). I've been to meetings with the people who are "designing" this, and they have spent probably half a million already doing surverys of the sea floor, with divers. They haven't spent one minute or one cent looking at how people ride or park bikes.

I've given them research on that from places like Bicycle Victoria but they refuse to even look at it. For all concerned with the construction, the job is to build a concrete block, no interest in how it's used. They could be building a pyramid for all they care and for all the good it will do us.

Apologies for seemingly only giving contrarian views to Alan's postings.
Can see a lot of time & effort has been spent with his detailed investigation & attendance of meetings etc.
However I do feel an alternate view should be voiced.

The concrete filling aspect & jobs for the boys is a little redundant....... the money will be garnered from central government & money will be given to the bosses who will give some of it to the workers.
HKSAR has a bucketful of cash.
It is an allocation of funds that would otherwise go on other projects around HKSAR.... why not have it come in our direction?....... the US currently dream of having money pumped into local projects to give work to the local population.
Why the aversion to jobs for the boys? More money in the local economy means more money spent which in turn means more jobs for others. Similarly if the "boys" are occupied full time, there will be work available for "non-boys" ie, painting. decoration etc.

Yes it is political stance for our local councillors...... so what? That is what they do. Is it likely we will ever get a local politician that will not use local projects to garner support? I doubt it. So why not get them to push for something that may create a better living environment for us all. We all use the ferry pier.

Regarding the available width already on the pier with or without correct parking versus available width in Main street etc. Is a separate argument as there is an obvious need for a wider route to the ferry pier.
Doubt there is much they can do about available width along the route to the ferry pier for the time being... but then with the plans for the harbour reclamation, perhaps this will addressed (I haven't studied the plans from this perspective). This does not detract from a need for better pier access, & it does not mean we shouldn’t proceed with a general need on a piecemeal basis. Is how most rural projects are managed.

The argument for "correct" parking in either the parking area or along the ferry pier (with or without cycle racks) are both are served by the same argument. Both areas will be abused. But with an allocated parking area, the reason for moving the obstructions from an access route will be achieved. Dealing with the abuse is a separate issue.

So why would anybody want the ferry pier to be bicycle free?
To allow easier access to & from the ferry.
It is all very well to assume the current width is suitable for pedestrian use is a very limited.
One is not taking into consideration special situations or special needs, nor the continued growth of the Lamma population, or its increasing tourist attraction & usage.

Everybody has seen the congestion at the weekends when tourists disembark & the pier becomes a huge bottleneck, even with fewer weekend bicycles being parked.
As soon as a tourist stops for a photo or a special pose the ppl mass comes to a grinding halt to look or seeking an avenue past the obstruction. Cycles parked correctly or incorrectly makes little or no difference.
The argument that bottle necks appear as soon as we get off the pier. Is a separate argument. However the wider "start" area will work as a filter in the same way as "wide area" starts for city marathons. The faster travellers will have the opportunity to avoid an initial bottleneck creating a smother flow at further potential bottlenecks.

I assume everybody has been on the pier when an ambulance has been on the pier... at such times there is very little room for ambulance, bicycles & pedestrians.
As it is VV's are restricted from being on the pier at certain times, & I suspect ambulances are forced to time their trips to avoid congested periods.
I doubt the situations are "life & death", otherwise a helicopter would be used..., however it does not detract from the fact that a wider than pedestrian object is using the pier.
That does not mean a “life or death” situation will not arise on the ferry pier itself. The greater access area could save seconds or even minutes in the current pier environment for ambulances or other “rescuers” to arrive at the scene. Where you have greater density of ppl, the likelihood of such incidents increases.

Similarly, cyclists need a lot greater "travel area" than pedestrians.
I am sure many of us have been forced to move into a parked cycle gap coz a cyclist is assuming he has right of way. It is very often the young cyclists who have the least regard for others. They have less maneuverability & a greater accident incidence.

We have a number of wheelchair users or less noticeably disabled persons or elderly on Lamma who need a greater "travel area" than a pedestrian & are at the mercy of all other pier users. Yet by most of us are given consideration second to our own personal requirements, and because of their minority status are not even noticed or even ridiculed by many because of their frailty.
These ppl should be given the greatest attention of all.

This project has been 10 years in the making & is all but approved.
It has been held up in most part coz of objectors.
Central Government has sought any excuse to delay construction & will continue to do so.
They also like to give jobs to “their boys”, & Lamma is not a part of their immediate family… Lamma is a distant relative they chose to ignore unless pressured.
Suggestions have been made to allocate a parking area further away from the pier. This halted construction for a few years. Do we really want to wait another 10 years for surveys & objections to an alternate spot?

With the creation of a parking area, it would make it a lot easier to police the pier with the exclusion of all cycles at all times from the pier with appropriate fines & penalties. There is no need to have any cycles at all parked & cause an obstruction in an access area. It should have been outlawed a long time ago.
Cyclists are not sufficiently disabled that they can cycle & not walk the last minute to & from the ferry as to need special consideration.

Alan’s suggestion of cycle racks can just as easily be accommodated in a specified parking area.

So….. do I believe the construction of a cycle park in the proposed location is a good idea. Yes?
Do I believe it will be the “finished product” when construction is completed? No. In the same way 2 lane highways become 6 lane motorways as requirements change.
Do I think the library will survive. No. But I believe it will be re-situated.
Do I think we should have change. Yes, but not simply for the sake of change.
20 years ago, there was no cycle or tourist congestion issues, Lamma was relatively sleepy town away from city pressure where the only beer you could buy was Carlsburg.
But Lamma is morphing day by day with construction of new buildings & the current trend of refurbishments. All to support a growing & different population. Admittedly, Lamma was far more attractive 20 years ago, but those days are gone, and even the most adamant objectors are grateful for totally reliable water, electricity, internet, choice of beer, etc.
Do I object to Baroque on Lamma, an MTR, a housing complex in SoKwu Wan or any other grand hair-brained schemes that want to irrevocably change the personality of Lamma for personal gain or otherwise ? Yes
However, I don’t believe, projects such as the cycle park, waste treatment area, helicopter pad, refurbished sports area etc will cause too radical a change to the Lamma personality. I see them as projects to accommodate a new as well as an ageing Lamma population. Even if their initial concepts are not the finished product.

Nuff said.

You apologise, but you keep doing it.



Because that justifies any project, the bigger and more wasteful the better.

The stated aim of a project is irrelevant and they don't want to discuss that at all. I've tried, over and over, and they just see it as horse trading.

The largesse is not spread out amongst the community. The costs of these projects is though, is borne by the community, witness the clocktower, the nullah.

It skews projects towards big concrete pours rather than ones that require more thought, or solving problems of land rights -- so they will always prefer to do a path to nowhere in the countryside, or fill in the harbour, rather than try to buy back land in the urban area and widen roads where they're actually needed, for instance.

The ideal project is a big slab of concrete in the harbour -- no money to anyone but contractors. Simple job, simple profit.
Meanwhile, where people live, there are mud tracks between houses, Main Street is choked to 1.6 metres wide, no trees are ever planted in the urban area, no landscaping is done.




The population seems stable, not increasing.
In any case, back in the 90s, with the less frequent and larger HYF ferries, carrying more passengers per trip (over 400 I think as opposed to about 300 for the current ones) there were greater surges of traffic then.

Yet still, in 10 years of daily commuting by bike and ferry, I never saw or heard of any of the dire consequences of "special situations" you imagine.

You can always imagine some rare event, but thousands of people use the pier every day, for 30 or 40 years. You'd expect any problems to have manifested by now.



Wouldn't bother me. Though you'll be happy to hear that such delays are unlikely. I don't really see the need for an alternate spot at all. Though it would be more sensible to widen the path below the hotel and add a parking area there as well. But that would save money and use less concrete, so it's a non-starter.

I gave several suggestions that could be implemented in a weekend, cost negligible.
They don't care about bike parking or pedestrians, they want to get the money.

I agree that $18 million and dropping tonnes of cement into the sea are both far from ideal but the bikes on the pier are a pain in the ass too although i agree that it is a minority of users that cause said pain in ass. If a simpler remedy, a number of which you have mentioned, was adopted I wonder if riders would be enforced to keep their bikes on the rails or within the designated parking area. From what I have see their are clearly a few bikes parked up against the railings right by the pier gates where there are clear signs stating `any bikes here will be removed' or something to that effect. I have neveer seen this enforced and often see police standing right next to the offending bikes.

I also can't understand why riders insist on riding their bikes right up to the point where they park or begin riding right from where they have picked up their bikes, especially when the pier is crowded. Cycling on the pier should not be allowed full stop. It is easy enough to disembark and push your bikes the last 20 or 30 metres.

Referring to the jobs for the boys has anyone ever been able to look into how contracts are allocated on lamma? I believe that it is government policy that at least three quotations must be submitted before making a decision. Now of course this policy is open for abuse as you can receive 100 quotations and still pick the one you want! However if there is any evidence of local councellors giving work to the same contractors time and time again, especially if they have any personal connection to them, then perhaps a call to the ICAC is in order as this is blatant corruption and should be investigated.

If they build the CPA they'll have to enforce it, or no one will use it.

Of course, if they legalised parking in some way now and then enforced rules, as I suggested, that would remove the need for the platform. So they don't want to do that.



Hopeless to try to prove this. They're not stupid about it, and the government doesn't want to ruffle any feathers.

For once I completely agree with everything Alan has said.

Is coz you make supposedly authority based, yet simplistic comments that are generally easy to criticise & are are driven by your own self based motives, rather than taking a view for the wider community.
Besides is easy to take a potshot at Alan standing naked on a soapbox (hows THAT for a scary image)




I agree that some projects are probably a waste of taxpayers money, & in some cases gimmicky....... & perhaps there are those that demand a greater attention.
With the "clocktower", I don't know whether this is some sort of territory wide beautification project that was dreamed up by some councillor somewhere or a local community project. So not really able to comment. I don't know either if it was a government or local funded project.
Although the bulk of the financial benefit was probably earned by the clock designer & manufacturer rather than the concrete pourer or "one of the local boys".



Probably lands rights issues that would put considerably more money into the pockets of the "local big boys".
But wouldn't some of the congestion & "beautification/landscaping" you yearn for be dealt with by the harbour reclamation that would have less lands rights issues to be dealt with?


Perhaps, but can you imagine the public outcry at a concrete slab being placed in the middle of the harbour, regardless of the surveying, pilings, additional cost, etc. As well as access to the platform which would probably create its own new bottleneck & greater non-participatory abuse especially during inclement weather & standing out on a wholly exposed platform.
This is clearly seen in the difference when walking the pier & reaching the relatively sheltered path after the pier ends on rainy windswept days.



There are as far as I am aware concrete paths to all houses on Lamma & the mud paths are impromptu walkways created by residents using shorter routes & creating dirt paths. If all the dirt paths were concreted there would be little or no flora or fauna in or around Yung Shu Wan, which is declining rapidly anyway, & that does not include the difficulty of lands rights being resolved & bought for the sake of a short cut.


So to deal with this would require a project on the scale of "Baroque on Lamma " (exaggeration).... but can you image the lands rights issues involved, let alone the upheavel to residents...., regardless of the quantum personality change it would bring to Main Street.


Different issue. I don't believe Lamma actually has a grand scheme of things as per DB which was virtually built from scratch with a vision in mind.
I think the Lamma path is being built on an adhoc basis to accommodate local needs in a gradual progression from a third world community.
I would not like to see a DB or "baroque of Lamma" project implemented anywhere on Lamma.
We will gradually be overtaken by an urbanisation of the whole of Lamma, but if it can be fended off for 20-30 years & a realistic approach taken, then it will probably be better for us diehards who will probably be on the slippery slope by then & a totally new modern generation will be in our place.



So we get to the crux of it all.
You don't really care either way & is just an excuse to stand on your soap box & appear knowledgeable.
At no point in yr replies have you referred to the elderly or disabled & their needs, nor about the easing of specific congestion on the pier or the potential hazards to pier users, apart from a very simplistic solution that will be subject to as much parking abuse as already exists....... is all about you.
And frankly none of yr replies have really had a point of focus beyond you & a desire to move away from the issue on which you first embarked.

You could hardly have made a more personal attack than that.

You malign my intelligence, my motives, my morality and my appearance.

I could take the high road and tr y to find and address any logical arguments amongst the rest of your post, but it seem to be 95% mudslinging, so I'll just leave it to fester.

Ha ha.... the image thing was a joke & metaphorically spoken..... and if you can't see that it seems I made a big mistake in grossly overestimating your intelligence.

You morality & motives appear fairly obvious from your comments which I have already mentioned.

Is not meant as a personal attack on you....... is meant to highlight the inadequacies in your explanation & argument.
If you feel it is something that should be left to fester...... all well & good.
I am pretty sure there are others that will want to disagree with my comment as they were made in relative haste & dealing with damnfangled quotes & unquote thingys..... that being the case, I suppose I have bared myself on a similar soapbox & am open to criticism, alternate views, and persuasion that I may or may not have considered.........C'est la guerre

Now you're just being a hypocrite.

I suppose was a simplistic answer from me...... but as I haven't spoken to you personally in about 7/8 years, & i don't think seen you in person for 2 maybe 3 years....
I should have said it was not meant as a personal attack on you the living being, but more you the internet personality & yr comments [that I divorce from the real living you] which I quite often find to be on the verge of ludicrous.
If you were using a pseudonym, your "personal attack" argument would hold less substance...... however, I don't think I should temper my comment coz you link the real to the internet personality in such a way that any harsh comment can be deemed a personal attack on you the person.

The rest of yr quote read "is meant to highlight the inadequacies in your explanation & argument".

You need to understand that if you put yrself up in front of everybody, you are inviting criticism, good or bad... & if you don't like it then you shouldn't post.

In this particular thread as I initially pointed out it seems you have gone to great length to substantiate your argument, which I commend you for..... however, your answers to my criticism I find for the most part to be ill thought out & ill-founded...... Quite frankly, I am not surprised your arguments are dismissed by whatever authority you are addressing.

If you perhaps put a little more thought into your argument it would be harder for ppl like me to take potshots (bad intentioned toward you or the subject matter) at you.

You seem to be well intentioned, and your crusading attitude commendable, and if adopted by more ppl on Lamma we would perhaps be able to keep the Lamma the majority seek....... is just that it needs a little refining.

You don't have a licence to make vicious personal attacks on anyone's character just because you disagree with them about an issue of public policy.

Which, by the way, I've been working on for three years more or less, which you think you can negate by just making up another fairy tale about imaginary wheelchair bound people that I'm oppressing.

My mother-in-law uses a wheelchair. She visited us here last year and I was pushing her around the village for a few days.

Had no problems on the pier, as it's THE WIDEST PEDESTRIAN THOROUGHFARE ON LAMMA, even with the bikes parked there. Had a lot of problems getting her through Back Street though.

Perhaps not a full license to make vicious personal attacks as you put it........., but certainly license to criticise their comment.
However, the way in which a person makes those comments & the content of their comment is a portrayal of their online character & as such I believe I have license to comment on that also..... is all a part of the whole. If the online personality is a reflection of a real live personality.... how am I supposed to determine that with the so many alter egos being aired in forums. So, as previously stated is not meant as a personal attack on the real you.

A few days wheeling yr mother-in-law around doesn't really constitute a real life experience.
On Lamma we have wheel chair users who wheel themselves, or without able-bodied pushers, also motorised wheelchairs which use a larger "pedestrian space".
Did you do the pier bit during rush period on a regular basis, or while a rescue vehicle was rushing to the ferry pier, or when there was an emergency situation?
Where would you wheel yr mother-in law if an ambulance came thru when the pier was stacked solid with bikes, and there was a wall of dogshit spread across half the width of the pier, in pouring rain & on the late stages of a typhoon # 3 signal, and having just disembarked with 300 others rushing to get home before the # 8 hits ?.... or any other number of variables all experienced farly regularly individually, but could all just as easily condense into a single situation. (not suggesting you would, but think I know what some would do with their mother-in-laws )

Once again, this is not a personal attack on you, is a criticism of yr comment which I find to be once again focused around your personal self without a consideration for other ppl.
Have I wheeled myself off the ferry in the rush hour & in the rain? Yes
Have I been wheeled off the ferry when it was serious enough for me to have been helicoptered off the island a few days earlier? unable to stand & with double vision? Yes
Was I obstructed on both occasions by the ppl dodging me & the parked bicycles? Yes
On either occasion was I physically harmed by the experience? Yes
Have I witnessed disabled persons having difficulties along the pier? Yes

There is no need for me to fabricate oppressed wheel chair users..... was not specifically directed at you, but us a whole.

If you have been working on or opposing this for 3 years, then perhaps you should be castigated........ I was talking just yesterday with a childhood polio victim, a life-long Lamma resident resident, now in their 50's, with whom I discussed this very topic. A component of the conversation was the difficulty for the disabled along the ferry pier, and how project had been held up the last few years due entirely to a couple of local objectors, and Central Government using any excuse to delay spending money on Lamma.

Issues regarding Back Street & other amenities or services, or lack of consideration for disabled persons is a separate issue and should be dealt with separately.
If the cycle park is a step in the right direction, albeit for a specifically small yet needy portion of our community, then I feel we should take that step, & not oppose it.