Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

I take it you agree that there should be no VED (maybe a £10 admin fee
for a disc which guarentees you have MOT etc)

 

Surely they'll just clamp it?

 

£1000 for a bike? Wow.

I guess that in that case a £50k mercedes is exempt from VED for life?

 

I am quite happy to pay VED. I think the level is about right, though it's
effect on me with my meagre mileage is probably greater than on you in terms
of overall cost per mile.

VED is part of general taxation, just as income tax, tobacco duty and
alcohol duties are (amongst others). Cars are both a benefit and a plague so
financial methods to manage the sociology of the motor car appear to be a
sensible thing.

SO no, your jumping to conclusions, in common with most of your arguments,
is incorrect.

...d

 

Indeed it was the actions of cyclist groups - the League of American
Wheelmen in the USA and the Bicyclists (later Cyclists) Touring Club in
the UK - in getting the highways improved that provided the original
tarmac road network that made the car feasible.

Not a lotta people know that

Tony

 

If you work in Hammersmith and walk a half hour away you really should
as you're missing out on a superb piece of what makes London London.

Who's talking about riding in packs on pavements? Your opening statement
was a disjunction, not a conjunction (i.e. an OR not an AND). Please do
try to stop moving those goalposts for a little while. Just enough time
to allow some of us at least a tiny attempt to hit the target.

"51.3 You should not ride more than two abreast." You seem to be
confused. I was talking about riding in a group, you're imposing some
sort of style and strategy. Not all groups are like the peleton in road
racing, indeed a well formed chain would no sooner ride more than two
abreast than you would adovocate it.

So you're wrong. Riding in packs does not go against the Highway Code 51.3.

Riding in packs *could* do this, but does not in and of itself do this.

And, I'm sorry, but merely being annoying to you is not against the
Highway Code, and merely being annoying leading you to treat them badly
is probably against the HC. Ooops for you, I think.

Is you treating with disdain better or worse than your perception of 53.3?

There's all sorts of issues relating to careless driving and speed
differentials, but if you passed cyclists at 3 inches you'll be just the
kind a f-wit driver that makes using the roads such a 'pleasure'.

Your interpretation of the HC, based on strange readings of others'
comment.

...... ?

Finally. Something I might actually partially agree with you on. If only
to stop whingers harping on.

 

Slander, or libel, I forget which. Either way you have commited a
criminal, or civil, I forget which, offence.

As well he should be. Lets paint a picutre. As you approach a green light
you check both ways anyway. You see patient cars waiting at their red
lights, you continue at 30mph (speed limit 40), then a bike darts out at
20mph (30 foot per second) from 10 foot from your left. You have no chance
to even register it, let alone swerve before it hits you.

Had the bike somehow got away with it, and you have somehow swereved out of the
way, crashing into a lamppost or perhaps another vehicle, or god forbid, a
bike riding legally, your insurance would be the one paying up, the bike
would get off scot free in his blissful arogant universe.

Real cyclists would condemn this dead wanker.

 

Ah.

I can't see any mention of "riding in a pack" in that rule, only
something about not riding more than two abreast. For the sake of
clarity, it would help if you said what you actually meant, rather than
what you did say, which is pretty vague, and I think then you'll find
that Chris actually agrees with you.

When I go out with the club on Sunday mornings we never ride more than
two abreast (well, only on very rare occasions and never when there's
other traffic about). In fact, when there's a car that wants to get
past, we even get into single file.

Again, I think you need to clarify your point.

No. Nor is there a law that says cyclists are not entitled to take up
their fair space on the road, and sometimes this unfortunately means it
is difficult for cars to get past. But speaking for myself, while I will
always hold my rightful position on the road, I have no desire to delay
cars if possible - I don't want to give motorists any reason to resent
my presence on the road any more than they do already.

I'm glad to hear that you make an effort to give cyclists room when
overtaking - it really is very much appreciated on the part of the
cyclist, so thank you.

As above, I think you'll find that as long as you make your point
clearly, Chris is On Your Side with this one.

d.

 

Even more slowly, the roads (at least in Cambridge where I live) are
paid for not by the VED or any other form of taxation on the motorist,
but by the City Council out of the money I as a resident pay in
Council Tax. So I could have a thousand cars and not a penny of that
would go on my city road improvements, where the vast majority of my
cycling takes place. However I DO pay the full whack for my property
and therefore feel completely in my rights (along with the legal
rights as put down in the Highway Code) of riding my bike legally
along any of the highways avaiable to me.

So, if you want me to put it any more slowly, just let me know.

G - owns cars and bikes. All legal and legit.

 

Scandalous. I guess that means the highway code "You MUST NOT exceed the
maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle". is wrong. I
wonder what else is wrong about it?

 

I'd be very suprised if a bike could get to 15-20mph on a *crowded*
pavement. An empty pavement maybe.

 

<snip>

I'm not so sure. Within 100 yards of my house there is a crossroads
that has toucan crossings (green bike plus green man) to cross the road
in all directions which implies to me that the pavements that approach
this crossing are shared use pavements (or at least some of them).
However NONE of them have either the magic white stripe/green paint
or the magic blue signs. Infact the only blue sign there is is a
"No parking on the grass verges" which clearly only applies to
cyclists as bicycles are the only vehicles that aren't parked on
the grass verge.

Tim.

 

I'm sure you'll find lots of people who'd agree there should be no VED,
no duty on cigarettes and alcohol, no VAT etc etc. Unfortunately like
all taxes what we might want and what we get are not necessarily the same.

Tony

 

If you bothered to read the HC you would realise that vehicle in that
context is specifically designated as a MOTOR vehicle.

 

The exceptions are Royal Parks <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/97163901.htm>
amended this year to make Richmond Park 20mph

 

The Highway Code is a simplified summary and so is not always strictly
correct. OTOH the speed limit for the road and vehicle is, in the case
of a bicycle, infinite unless you are riding in a Royal Park. Tough but
that's the way it is

Tony

 

This has got to be the most boring thread I've ever seen. Congrats to all
involved.

 

I take its different to hyde park then? A surface of white flab every
sunday as far as the eye can see? I prefer real green areas like the top
of a fell thankyouverymuch

Sorry, never been good at the english, I was picturing the gangs of yoofs
on bikes that generally intimidate people whether they ride on the
pavement or road.

I was talking in riding in a pack, approximatly 3 or 4 abreast, very close
together. Obviously I have no problems with long strings of bikes riding
infront of each other.

I'm not talking about a well formed chain (although I'm sure that a long
enough chain - longer then a lorry for example, would be illegal as its
uncourteous)

Depends on your definition of "pack". A Pack of wolves do not walk into
the ark two-by-two do they?

Being annoying isn't illegal, being uncourteous is.

For the same reason.

Obviously (on the occasionans I do drive) I dont pass with 3" to spare, I
was pointing out that if you say "it's legal" because it's only a SHOULD
in the code, then so is passing within 3".

(This was assuming our definition of a "pack" were the same)

Again, in my vocab, a pack is a bunch of riders riding as one that are
several abrest. Bit like the packs in the Tour de France. Not a "well
formed chain"

Perhaps if you re-read my post with that in mind you'll agree some more
that, while not strictly illegal for the "2 abreast" rule, is very bad
form, and probalby illegal elsewhere (same as the passing with 3")

Whinging drivers (for the most part) only whinge about the bad riders. Whinging cyclists (for the most
part) only whinge about the bad drivers.

I was going to mention the "YOU MUSTS" which I see broken every time I
walk home (light, pavement, signs, etc)

 

That could help guarantee a seat on the train tho' )

 

Go to the train station in the opposite direction - assuming you are not
where the train starts

AJM