BBC Radio 4 discussion on campaign to force cyclists to use cycle lanes.

Paulmouk said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

on now!

they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
idea how to add to this?

MartinM said:

they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
idea how to add to this?

Have you got access to the internet? Put your postcode in the box here...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

MartinM said:

they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
idea how to add to this?

Have you got access to the internet? Put your postcode in the box here...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)

"Paulmouk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

Paul

Was only three minutes long and didn't say a lot. (I made a mp3 copy of it).
They invited responses by text and email or for full roundup on Friday's
prog.
Paul.

Paulmouk said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
Today's reporter definitely got the message:-)

--
Nick Kew

Paulmouk said:

"Paulmouk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

Paul

Was only three minutes long and didn't say a lot. (I made a mp3 copy of it).
They invited responses by text and email or for full roundup on Friday's
prog.
Paul.

There was more on PM tonight, I caught bits of an interview with a cyclist or
two, and a cycling MP. Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/

Phil

Nick Kew said:

Paulmouk said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
Today's reporter definitely got the message:-)

But IMHO, the message (cyclists need better facilities) was wrong.

Simon Bennett said:

Nick Kew said:

Paulmouk said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
Today's reporter definitely got the message:-)

But IMHO, the message (cyclists need better facilities) was wrong.

The message I heard, loud and clear, is cyclists should not be
put under pressure to use facilities that are, in the cyclist's
judgement, inadequate.

I emailed the following:

"To get another perspective on cycle lanes, focus on the journey
as a whole.

Consider a typical commuting journey of six miles (which I understand
is an average). In favourable conditions, that's about 15-20 minutes.

Now take the same journey on a typical cycle lane (assuming one
exists). Even without illegally parked cars, you have to slow right
down, or even stop, for perhaps every driveway you pass, just in
case it's the one a car, child or dog is about to shoot out of.
Your 15-20 minutes rises to over an hour.

Car drivers should consider how they would react to a proposal
to close roads to them, and restrict them to farm tracks."

--
Nick Kew

Quoted message said:

There was more on PM tonight, I caught bits of an interview with a cyclist
or two, and a cycling MP. Available from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/

Found it at about 00:50 minutes in. Couldn't get the previous one coz the
listen again service was a bit broken yesterday. Seems like they got plenty
of responses from cyclists, quite encouraging really.

On 7 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)

Yes, I thought that was a bit weak too, so I am beefing it up with
another one which came to my notice recently where the parents of a
boy hit by a speeding out-of-control lorry with defective brakes are
also being told that it was his own fault for not wearing a helmet. I
will also be asking DfT where to get these lorry-proof helmets of
which they speak.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:45:54 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 7 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)

Yes, I thought that was a bit weak too, so I am beefing it up with
another one which came to my notice recently where the parents of a
boy hit by a speeding out-of-control lorry with defective brakes are
also being told that it was his own fault for not wearing a helmet.

Feck's sake.

These helmets must be *amazingly* powerful if they can control lorries with
defective brakes.

I wonder I could get one to help me with my DTT reception.

On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?

The police: Very bad.
A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
[censored] lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:31 GMT, [email hidden] (Paul) said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
The police: Very bad.
A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
[censored] lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.

The last. But you guessed, didn't you?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:31 GMT, [email hidden] (Paul) said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
The police: Very bad.
A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
[censored] lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.

The last. But you guessed, didn't you?

Name and shame the insurance company.

R.

"Paulmouk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Folks,

Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.

Is that a Time machine you are using? (your post is timed at 1716!)