And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.

Alex Potter

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:52:09 +0100, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> Letter in the local paper calls all cyclists terrorists and criminals.
>>
> snips
>
> well the CTC aren't exackly helping with this
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7478823.stm>
>
> roger

<quote>Chris Peck, of CTC, said: "Most cyclists obey the rules of the
road, there is only a minority that cycle anti-socially, like breaking
red lights and cycle on pavements but we have to realise why they are
doing this.</quote>

The fact remains that such behaviour is illegal and, in my view, should
remain so. Cyclists are part of the traffic, and must behave as vehicles.
Perhaps there should be a series of public information films of the
"cyclist gets squashed" kind

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

Paul Boyd

Neil Williams said the following on 28/06/2008 08:35:

> That's not quite true, it's only the case on a single-carriageway
> road. I have a feeling it's 50 on a dual for a lorry.

Yup - you're right.

> There is an exemption to this for car-derived vans, but as this is
> actually more of a van-derived car the van version doesn't get this
> exemption, AIUI.

You should try the toll on the Severn Bridge! A dinky little Fiesta
pays the car rate. Block out the rear side windows and the rate nearly
doubles to van rate. A bloody great 2.5tonne 4x4 goes though at the car
rate. Now, I understood that the reason for the different bands is that
the heavier vehicles cause more damage so they pay more, but that
obviously isn't the case.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 10:17, Alex Potter wrote:
> <quote>Chris Peck, of CTC, said: "Most cyclists obey the rules of the
> road, there is only a minority that cycle anti-socially, like breaking
> red lights and cycle on pavements but we have to realise why they are
> doing this.</quote>
>
> The fact remains that such behaviour is illegal and, in my view, should
> remain so.

Can you explain why you think that? I'll explain why I think otherwise.

I won't condone red light jumping by cyclists as long as it's illegal,
but I don't believe that it /should/ be illegal. I believe that a red
light should be equivalent to a "Give Way" sign for cyclists (and that
includes giving way to pedestrians).

AIUI the purpose of traffic lights is to control traffic flow in areas
where motorists cause congestion. Cyclists, with their much narrower
vehicles, tend not to cause congestion and don't need to be controlled
in the same way. It seems to me rather unlikely that requiring cyclists
to stop at red lights will do much to benefit traffic flow - rather the
reverse, in fact.

(The safety benefits of allowing cyclists to get away from the lights
before motor vehicles are well known, so I won't go into them).

Traffic lights also serve the purpose of creating a break in traffic
flow in order to allow pedestrians to cross. I have two thoughts on
this. First, I don't like light-controlled crossings (they give too
much priority to motor vehicles over pedestrians) and would like to see
the vast majority replaced with zebra crossings, which give absolute
priority to pedestrians at all times. Second is to refer to the last
sentence of my second paragraph, particularly the bit about giving way
to pedestrians.

> Cyclists are part of the traffic, and must behave as vehicles.

There's no reason why there shouldn't be different rules for different
classes of vehicle. Indeed there already are, in areas as diverse as
speed limits, training/testing requirements and types of road/RoW where
they can be used.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 08:35, Neil Williams wrote:
> Vans are an odd one. My Citroen Berlingo is a car (it's got seats and
> windows in the back) and thus gets the car limits. An otherwise
> identical version without the seats or windows gets the lower van
> limits. This doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense any more -
> the only difference between the two is seats and back windows, neither
> of which make any real difference to the safe speed of forward
> progress.

I suspect the real difference is in the weight of cargo that each is
likely to be carrying, which is also likely to be the reason for cargo
vehicles having lower speeds. You might then argue that unladen vans
should be allowed to go as fast as cars, but that would be a nightmare
to enforce.

I'd like to get a couple of speed limit stickers to go on the back of my
trailer, as it's all too common to be tailgated by people who seem
unaware that cars towing trailers have lower speed limits than those
without. I haven't seen any in the shops for years, though.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

JNugent

Paul Boyd wrote:

> Rob Morley said the following on 27/06/2008 13:04:

>> In the UK they could be charged with obstruction, but that's only
>> likely if it was causing a significant problem (e.g. long tailback
>> leading to dangerous overtaking, dangerous difference between their
>> speed and the normal speed on that road).

> There was a case in Bristol recently where a woman was driving down the
> M32 at a ludicrously slow speed (for a motorway). I *think* she got a
> short ban, but ICBA to look up the story now!

There is no minimum speed limit for motorways, and certainly none on the
M32.

If there was a charge, it's likely to have been "driving without due
consideration".

JNugent

Neil Williams wrote:

> Paul Boyd <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>> ...and how many people actually know that when they're grumbling about
>> being behind a slow lorry. Or the fact that a van can only travel at
>> 50mph in a 60 limit.

> That's not quite true, it's only the case on a single-carriageway
> road. I have a feeling it's 50 on a dual for a lorry.

> Vans are an odd one. My Citroen Berlingo is a car (it's got seats and
> windows in the back) and thus gets the car limits. An otherwise
> identical version without the seats or windows gets the lower van
> limits. This doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense any more -
> the only difference between the two is seats and back windows, neither
> of which make any real difference to the safe speed of forward
> progress.

Especially since Purchase Tax and its successor Special Car Tax, which
used to make vans "cheaper" than the equivalent car, were abolished.

Having a window behind the B post (ie, rearward of the front doors) used
to re-classify the vehicle as a car rather than a van (making PT payable
if not already paid).

Certain van models now take advantage of the tax abolition by having a
small window just behind the B post, placed specifically to assist the
driver in looking over his "offside" shoulder. That wouldn't have been
possible at one time without bringing the van within the Purchase Tax
regime.

> There is an exemption to this for car-derived vans, but as this is
> actually more of a van-derived car the van version doesn't get this
> exemption, AIUI.

There are other considerations, such as the possibility/probability of
unsecured loads.

JNugent

Danny Colyer wrote:

> AIUI the purpose of traffic lights is to control traffic flow in areas
> where motorists cause congestion.

You understand wrong.

Think about it (as difficult as such a request may initially seem).

JNugent

Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 28/06/2008 08:35, Neil Williams wrote:
>> Vans are an odd one. My Citroen Berlingo is a car (it's got seats and
>> windows in the back) and thus gets the car limits. An otherwise
>> identical version without the seats or windows gets the lower van
>> limits. This doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense any more -
>> the only difference between the two is seats and back windows, neither
>> of which make any real difference to the safe speed of forward
>> progress.
>
> I suspect the real difference is in the weight of cargo that each is
> likely to be carrying, which is also likely to be the reason for cargo
> vehicles having lower speeds. You might then argue that unladen vans
> should be allowed to go as fast as cars, but that would be a nightmare
> to enforce.
>
> I'd like to get a couple of speed limit stickers to go on the back of my
> trailer, as it's all too common to be tailgated by people who seem
> unaware that cars towing trailers have lower speed limits than those
> without. I haven't seen any in the shops for years, though.

You can still get them, even if you have to go to Calais.

Geoff Lane

Paul Boyd <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:g45508$5sb$1$8300dec7
@news.demon.co.uk:

> You should try the toll on the Severn Bridge! A dinky little Fiesta
> pays the car rate. Block out the rear side windows and the rate nearly
> doubles to van rate. A bloody great 2.5tonne 4x4 goes though at the car
> rate. Now, I understood that the reason for the different bands is that
> the heavier vehicles cause more damage so they pay more, but that
> obviously isn't the case.

For that, a Fiest van pays the £10.60 van rate while a motorhome toyhauler
like http://tinyurl.com/69h3st (which has a garage big enough for a Fiesta)
gets charged the £5.30 car rate.

Also, stonking great HGV-based horse boxes get charged the car rate if they
include living accommodation (http://tinyurl.com/6y3uh3), and I suspect
that other "living vans" should be charged similarly.

Dan Gregory

Geoff Lane wrote:
> Paul Boyd <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:g45508$5sb$1$8300dec7
> @news.demon.co.uk:
>
>> You should try the toll on the Severn Bridge! A dinky little Fiesta
>> pays the car rate. Block out the rear side windows and the rate nearly
>> doubles to van rate. A bloody great 2.5tonne 4x4 goes though at the car
>> rate. Now, I understood that the reason for the different bands is that
>> the heavier vehicles cause more damage so they pay more, but that
>> obviously isn't the case.
>
> For that, a Fiest van pays the £10.60 van rate while a motorhome toyhauler
> like http://tinyurl.com/69h3st (which has a garage big enough for a Fiesta)
> gets charged the £5.30 car rate.
>
> Also, stonking great HGV-based horse boxes get charged the car rate if they
> include living accommodation (http://tinyurl.com/6y3uh3), and I suspect
> that other "living vans" should be charged similarly.
Even a 2cv fourgonette gets charged the van rate.

Alex Potter

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:07:50 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:

> On 28/06/2008 10:17, Alex Potter wrote:
>> <quote>Chris Peck, of CTC, said: "Most cyclists obey the rules of the
>> road, there is only a minority that cycle anti-socially, like breaking
>> red lights and cycle on pavements but we have to realise why they are
>> doing this.</quote>
>>
>> The fact remains that such behaviour is illegal and, in my view, should
>> remain so.
>
> Can you explain why you think that? I'll explain why I think otherwise.

I'll try.

> I won't condone red light jumping by cyclists as long as it's illegal,
> but I don't believe that it /should/ be illegal. I believe that a red
> light should be equivalent to a "Give Way" sign for cyclists (and that
> includes giving way to pedestrians).

Let's begin by my stating my position: When I am riding my bike, I'm part
of the traffic.

That being so, I would prefer to know that if a traffic light is red
against a given lane then no traffic will /legally/ emerge from thence.

> (The safety benefits of allowing cyclists to get away from the lights
> before motor vehicles are well known, so I won't go into them).

ASLs are useful in this respect.

>
> Traffic lights also serve the purpose of creating a break in traffic
> flow in order to allow pedestrians to cross. I have two thoughts on
> this. First, I don't like light-controlled crossings (they give too
> much priority to motor vehicles over pedestrians) and would like to see
> the vast majority replaced with zebra crossings, which give absolute
> priority to pedestrians at all times. Second is to refer to the last
> sentence of my second paragraph, particularly the bit about giving way
> to pedestrians.

see above.

>> Cyclists are part of the traffic, and must behave as vehicles.
>
> There's no reason why there shouldn't be different rules for different
> classes of vehicle. Indeed there already are, in areas as diverse as
> speed limits, training/testing requirements and types of road/RoW where
> they can be used.

However, we all should observe the same "Rules of The Road", as set out
in the Highway Code and decreed by Acts of Parliament. Where we feel that
there are valid reasons for change then we have appropriate, if slow,
lines of communication with the legislature.

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 12:49, JNugent wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>> AIUI the purpose of traffic lights is to control traffic flow in areas
>> where motorists cause congestion.
>
> You understand wrong.
>
> Think about it (as difficult as such a request may initially seem).

I've thought about it a great deal.

You evidently have your own thoughts on the matter that you are either
unwilling to share or unable to articulate.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

JNugent

Danny Colyer wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Danny Colyer wrote:

>>> AIUI the purpose of traffic lights is to control traffic flow in
>>> areas where motorists cause congestion.

>> You understand wrong.
>> Think about it (as difficult as such a request may initially seem).

> I've thought about it a great deal.
> You evidently have your own thoughts on the matter that you are either
> unwilling to share or unable to articulate.

Have you never seen a set of traffic lights in a location where there is
never (or, at worst, rarely) any "congestion"?

Were you unaware that traffic lights date from a time when the
"motorist" hardly existed?

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 13:50, Alex Potter wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:07:50 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:
>> Can you explain why you think that? I'll explain why I think otherwise.
>
> I'll try.

Thanks. I expect I'll snip heavily now.

> Let's begin by my stating my position: When I am riding my bike, I'm part
> of the traffic.
>
> That being so, I would prefer to know that if a traffic light is red
> against a given lane then no traffic will /legally/ emerge from thence.

If the red light had a legal meaning of "Give Way" then that would still
be the case. And there would be no change to the current situation
where you can't know that no traffic will /illegally/ emerge. It would
be necessary to proceed with caution when you have a green light, as at
present.

> However, we all should observe the same "Rules of The Road", as set out
> in the Highway Code and decreed by Acts of Parliament.

But we don't have to observe the same rules of the road. Each class of
the road user has to observe the rules that apply to them, not the rules
that apply to other classes of road user.

> Where we feel that
> there are valid reasons for change then we have appropriate, if slow,
> lines of communication with the legislature.

Agreed. I don't feel strongly enough about this to bother trying to get
the law changed, but if CTC started a campaign to change the law then it
would have my approval.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis