Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Civil offence, surely?

 

Except today when the Strand was closed off e/b and nothing seemed to be
being allowed to run via Holborn. It took 20 minutes to go 1/4 mile on
the bus down Charing Cross Road - I had to bale out and catch the Tube.

Except that they are seriously considering making bikes pay because
there are now too many of them and people keep having accidents. Just
watch to see how this change gets sneaked in under the cover of the CC
extension to Kensington and Chelsea.

 

Streets in crisis...
http://www.sweller.dynalias.org/street/

 

We were actually talking about Richmond Park, hardly residential, unless
you're a deer.

And what's wrong with riding in packs? Precise problems please. And for
the sake of this argument you can assume that they are riding legally.
(There is nothing illegal with riding in a group.)

Fair enough to have a bash at people who are breaking laws, but don't
let's start bashing people who are obeying the rules, but who seem to be
offending some strange sensibility.

 

Why? Because they ended up blocking the road - because it turned a quiet
residential street into a rush hour each morning and evening - with people
who don't live here. Because it meant people who LIVE here could not park
their cars, or in fact get them out.

Would you like it if people parked all the way across your front garden,
driveway and road, or would you take the same "It's not my road so it's
okay" view?

Bear in mind they were also parking here (in the case of my area) SOLELY to
avoid paying the parking fee - as the station carpark is never full.

He should go earlier then.

 

But, assuming first that the car is somehow different from the
surrounding road (i.e. the only car parked in an otherwise empty road),
you'd be able to see it from a way away, signal appropriately, move out
and it would perfectly obvious from your signal and subsequent road
position to following drivers what you were doing.

And if it wasn't on its own in being parked on the road, you're probably
out to pass it anyway.

I fail to see what the problem is. Or are you just looking to find a
problem where there isn't one, just to try to make a point?

 

That's pretty much the conclusion I'd reached.

 

Let's take a step back here, shall we?

OP flamebaits with 'cyclists don't pay anything and they use *our* roads
for free' attitude. I point out this is incorrect.

You start trying to pick holes in this.

You and I both know that the VED is paid on cars and not on bikes,
however, this does NOT mean that cyclists do not contribute to road
maintenance etc, which is what the OP was stating - and it was this I
was responding to.

This thread is reminding me just why I don't subscribe to uk.tosspot -
it's full of self-important bigots with their heads up their own exhaust
pipes arguing in circles ad infinitum.

 

Sorry, I must be blind (perhaps those hideous pink pavement slabs?) but I
cant see a single car on a pavement

 

Might I point out that bicycles were around before cars, and the
increase in road maintenance costs has risen sharply after the
introduction of cars. I think it only right that cars and other
motorised and much heavier vehicles pay a sum of money with respect to that.

You will find that bicycles produce virtually no wear of a road surface,
ergo the percentage they should be expected to pay is so small as to
cost more to collect than the amount itself.

I would have thought this point was perfectly clear to most people able
to think logically, but obviously not.

I suggest you should correct the OP's statement, since you seem so hot
on every last detail being stated to the nth degree.

 

IT'S TERRIBLE ISN'T IT?

Blind you say?

 

Reminds me of a time in Manchester when my clutch cable broke going up a
hill. Managed to get some help from a riot squad in a police van behind me
(lucky!) to roll the car up enough to change into neutral, and then back
onto the pavement to wait 30 minutes for the RAC.

Bad, but not blocking anyone on the pavement

Aside from years ago (not so much nowadays) in the outskirts of
Warrington, where a car might drive 4 foot along a pavement as part of the
parking half-on half-off. Certainly not arorund Exeter or London though,
and definatly not when there are pedestrians on the pavement (unlike
bikes). Methinks this problem isn't as bad as you make out. Sure, we can
all come up with pictures of parking on pavements, or not parking on it,
but the fact is anywhere where theres a traffic warden will not have
pavement parking (or they will get a ticket)

 

A bike at 15-20mph along a crowded pavement is somehow more dangerous then
a (soon to be ticketted) car at 3mph half-on an empty stretch of pavement?

 

No, and cars do do that quite frequently (probably one in 20), but no
where near as frequently as bikes. However all this does is cause
congestion - as the other lights are still on red at this point and a
vehicle on the side road will obviously not enter a junction when some
maniac driver illegally passes through. It's not dangerous, just a
nuicense. After the other lights have changed to green, it becomes
dangerous.

But there is traffic arround - me for starters, attempting to use the
crossing.

Since when is that a defence? How about they stop at the red light with
motorbikes and cars?

The truth is they dont want to stop as they lose inertia. Either that or
they aren't paying attention.

Most serious riders in uk.rec.cycling agree that these redlight jumping
bike riders (and pavement riders) are one of the worst things to cycling
reputation ever.

If its safer to ride through a red light and hope the pedestrians on the
crossing get out of the way, instead of stopping and walking along the
pavement, then you agree that pedestrians are more vulnerable to traffic
then cyclists?

 

I was talking about situations where a car had already stopped and had the
handbrake on at a red light, and the bike just blissfully ignores the
light and carrys on almost knocking the pedestrians on the crossing over.
Why would it be dangerous for a bike to stop then? Incase the car
spontanwously combusts while you are waiting behind it?

 

It doesn't. But that's because the legislation setting speed limits is
applicable only to motorised vehicle ergo cyclists are exempt from speed
limits. The exception is Richmond Park where the speed limits are set
by different legislation that does include cyclists.

Tony

 

I think it's quite likely - however all the cameras at the moment are
set to pick up front numberplates (I believe) as the black on white is
easier to recognise by the OCR software.

MCN did a little article that mentioned the possibility of bikes being
included in the toll and the transprot minister was a bit vague, but
sis say that the govt still felt that bikes were part of the solution
to congestion...

Feck knows what that really means though.

 

I wouldn't know as I've never been to that area

On pavements? Nowhere for poor old granny to run away to. Intimidation
etc.

Riding in packs goes against the highway code, 51.3, hence is annoying and
leads me to treat them as I would if I knew they had no knowlege of the
highway code and are liable to be a danger to themselves and me. I
therefore treat them as any threat to my person and attempt to be
interacting with them for the minimum amount of time.

Lorrys in convoys annoy me too.

No, that's true, It's only a "you should" in the highway code. However it
is arguably conflicting with 53.3

Conversely, Car drivers dont need to give three foot when overtaking
bikes. It's polite, but when overtaking a pack of bikes I'll be sure to
give them 3", if they're lucky. Afterall there's no law saying I
shouldn't.

This "Strange sensibility" would be the highway code? Glad to know the kind
of rider you are.

By the way, I think all riders should not be allowed to ride on public
property until they have demonstraded full knowlege of all the "YOU MUST"s
in the appropiate section, Including

 

Your former boss should have been proceeding with caution, not speeding
headlong with gay abandon because a green light supposedly absolved him
of any duty of care and attention. I'm surprised s/he escaped a charge
of due care and attention, but then of course I'm sure there's a line
in your constitution that protects his/her rights under such
circumstances.

 

<Bear>

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

</Bear>