Here we go again

NM said:

Silk said:

Conor said:

In article <[email hidden]>, John says...

Quoted message said:

> And some lorry drivers are looking for a filling station so that they can
> ask for directions as they haven't a clue where they are going..
>
And the problem with that being?

Lorry Drivers should know where they're going. Also, with satnavs now
below 100 quid, there's no need to stop to ask directions.

Three times now the sat nav has tried to send me up country lanes, the
first time I fell for it, the address by postcode is mostly accurate but
on a couple of occasions was way out though that may be the postcode
peoples fault.

some companies seem to have fairly poor databases of the postcodes. not
sure how they managed that.

Quoted message said:

I think not only lorry drivers shoud know where they are going, anyone
on a new journey should.

upto a point which is a car or bike is lot easyer to turn etc than a
HGV.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
NM <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Silk said:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:

> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.
Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre
of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90
repmobiles, death wish IMO.

Would those be the 56 mph trucks which are forbidden by law from exceeding
50 mph on an A road?

Where do you get that idea?

And the repmobiles likewsie forbidden by law from

Quoted message said:

exceeding 70?

Of course and we all know that only criminals speed.

And the cyclist?

Trevor A Panther said:

[snip]

It seems to me that the real problem is your own positioning on road.

In traffic and approaching traffic lights I am very firmly in the middle
of my lane and nowhere near the gutter

I agree. This was one of the main points I made during the Highway Code
revision process. The unconditional encouragement to use advance stop
lines was extremely dangerous since most are fed by a short bike lane
down the left hand gutter. An inexperienced cyclist was therefore being
directly encouraged by the HC to put themselves in the most dangerous
place possible.

FWIW I find HGVs (with the possible exception of skip trucks) far easier
to share the road with than, say, 45 year old company car drivers :-)

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

In news:[email hidden],
NM <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
NM <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Silk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:
>
>> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.
> Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)
On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the
centre of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to
90 repmobiles, death wish IMO.

Would those be the 56 mph trucks which are forbidden by law from
exceeding 50 mph on an A road?

Where do you get that idea?

Try here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits

Page 9.

The polis will usually turn a blind eye to such vehicles travelling at 56
mph on dual carriageways, though some of the big supermarket chains insist
that their drivers stick to 50 on such roads. This I got from the driver of
a 56 mph-restricted[1] vehicle who gave me a lift from Newhaven to the Brook
Street roundabout last month.

1 - or was when the computer woke up, which took about ten miles. Before it
did he was hitting seventy on downhill stretches of the A27.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Dead journalists make excellent objets d'art.

MrBitsy said:

Anyone else just watched 'Inside Out' on the BBC? (Wednesday 3 Sep 19:30)

The story highlighted the problem of cyclists being knocked over when
lorries turn left. The problem was the way the programme focussed solely on
the lorry driver not seeing the cyclist - absolutely nothing at all on how
cyclists can ride defensivly.

I completely agree that lorries should be fitted with mirrors to minimise
blindspots, but the cyclist can spot the lorry easily - why no mention of
some simple steps for cyclists to take? I also agree the lorry driver should
always act responsibly, checking all blind spot regularly to minimise
danger.

The lorry driver has a huge vehicle to move around on busy streets. Even
with a full compliment of mirrors, a poor driver may make a mistake and miss
a cyclist. For that reason, the programme should have made some simple
recommendations for the cyclists.

When it is so easy for a cyclist to spot a huge lorry, why do they put
themselves alongside lorries at junctions? Why not wait behind the lorry
like I would in my car?

Are we talking undertaking by the cyclist, or overtaking by the lorry
driver AT a Junction ;-)

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount of
road tax.

After all, all those signs for cyclists and pedestrians cost money!! :-)

--
Clive

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take.....
but by the moments that take our breath away.

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

Quoted message said:

Are we talking undertaking by the cyclist, or overtaking by the lorry
driver AT a Junction ;-)

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount of
road tax.

After all, all those signs for cyclists and pedestrians cost money!! :-)

Yes, lets have a "pavement tax" for peds while we are at it.

Clive Sinclair said:

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount of
road tax.

Quoted message said:

After all, all those signs for cyclists and pedestrians cost money!! :-)

So from that reasoning you think that pedestrians should be insured and
pay road tax too? That would be, errrr, everyone, pretty much. In
other words, general taxation, which by a /startling/ coincidence is
what is already used to pay for the roads and signs.

Cyclists don't actually cause that much damage, unlike drivers, so
adding a compulsory insurance burden would frankly benefit nobody much
except the insurance companies. It is therefore pretty dumb to insist
on it (though as it happens I am insured because I'm a member of the CTC
(and since I drive too I also pay VED, and more than I'd pay for a low
emission vehicle, even though that emits far more than a bike)).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Clive Sinclair said:

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount
of road tax.

Quoted message said:

After all, all those signs for cyclists and pedestrians cost money!!
:-)

So from that reasoning you think that pedestrians should be insured
and pay road tax too? That would be, errrr, everyone, pretty much.
In other words, general taxation, which by a /startling/ coincidence
is what is already used to pay for the roads and signs.

Cyclists don't actually cause that much damage, unlike drivers, so
adding a compulsory insurance burden would frankly benefit nobody much
except the insurance companies. It is therefore pretty dumb to insist
on it (though as it happens I am insured because I'm a member of the
CTC (and since I drive too I also pay VED, and more than I'd pay for
a low emission vehicle, even though that emits far more than a bike)).

Isn't it amazing, the number of people who *want* to pay more tax for
something they're already paying for!!

Peter Clinch said:

Clive Sinclair said:

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount of
road tax.

Quoted message said:

After all, all those signs for cyclists and pedestrians cost money!! :-)

So from that reasoning you think that pedestrians should be insured and
pay road tax too? That would be, errrr, everyone, pretty much. In
other words, general taxation, which by a /startling/ coincidence is
what is already used to pay for the roads and signs.

Cyclists don't actually cause that much damage, unlike drivers, so
adding a compulsory insurance burden would frankly benefit nobody much
except the insurance companies. It is therefore pretty dumb to insist
on it (though as it happens I am insured because I'm a member of the CTC
(and since I drive too I also pay VED, and more than I'd pay for a low
emission vehicle, even though that emits far more than a bike)).

Pete.

Not a bad idea - tax for walking... ;-) Seriously, I know cyclists do
not 'damage' roads, etc. But they are responsible for a lot of
accidents. Why not some kind of insurance after all they are (or should
be) 'road' users.

--
Clive

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take.....
but by the moments that take our breath away.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would those be the 56 mph trucks which are forbidden by law from
exceeding 50 mph on an A road?

Where do you get that idea?

Highway code is a good start...

clive

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:48:57 GMT someone who may be Clive Sinclair
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount of
road tax.

Given that nobody pays road tax at the moment, it was abolished by
the Finance Act of 1936, why have you singled out cyclists for this
new tax?

Even when there was a road tax, paid by motorists, it didn't pay
very much of the cost of roads. Most of the funding came out of
general taxation.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:05:36 GMT someone who may be Clive Sinclair
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Seriously, I know cyclists do
not 'damage' roads, etc. But they are responsible for a lot of
accidents.

Evidence to back up this assertion?

Quoted message said:

Why not some kind of insurance after all they are (or should
be) 'road' users.

If cyclists were causing large numbers of deaths and injuries then
there would be a public clamour for "compulsory" insurance, just as
there was with motorists.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Peter Amey said:

Trevor A Panther said:

[snip]

It seems to me that the real problem is your own positioning on road.

In traffic and approaching traffic lights I am very firmly in the middle
of my lane and nowhere near the gutter

I agree. This was one of the main points I made during the Highway Code
revision process. The unconditional encouragement to use advance stop
lines was extremely dangerous since most are fed by a short bike lane
down the left hand gutter. An inexperienced cyclist was therefore being
directly encouraged by the HC to put themselves in the most dangerous
place possible.

FWIW I find HGVs (with the possible exception of skip trucks) far easier
to share the road with than, say, 45 year old company car drivers :-)

Peter

yup and most cycle lanes exit to the gutter as well, the ones over
kingston bridge, put you right in the gutter. hence i don't use them
though most do.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

In article <[email hidden]>, Silk says...

Quoted message said:

Lorry Drivers should know where they're going.

Why? Do you think it's feasible for a person to know the location of
absolutely every single street in the UK?

Quoted message said:

Also, with satnavs now
below 100 quid, there's no need to stop to ask directions.

Except there is. I take it you've never done deliveries to any extent.

Here's a delivery address I once got with a trailer loaded with paper
reels:

Grange Storage
West Yorkshire.

That was it. West Yorkshire is a bloody big place. Turned out to be
down Grange Road in Batley in the end.

Most of the addresses on the CMR notes for imported loads are a bag of
bollocks. I've also had countless "P.O.Box No.." addresses with no
street name on. Then there's the ones in the middle of nowhere down a
pokey single lane track where you really want to be sure that's exactly
where you want to be. And to finish it off, the ones that have the name
of the company on which was what it was called half a decade ago but
the delvery address data on the suppliers database has never been
updated for it.

--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

Conor ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quoted message said:

Here's a delivery address I once got with a trailer loaded with paper
reels:

Grange Storage
West Yorkshire.

That was it. West Yorkshire is a bloody big place. Turned out to be
down Grange Road in Batley in the end.

Pfft. Initiative, man! A google for "Grange Storage West Yorkshire" returns
www.grangestorage.co.uk as the first result.

There's a letter sat on the side in the post room at this business centre -
perhaps 30 companies in one building, on an industrial estate road with
probably 50+ buildings on it - addressed to "Sandra, xx Road, xxtown"

Conor said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Silk says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, with satnavs now
below 100 quid, there's no need to stop to ask directions.

Except there is. I take it you've never done deliveries to any extent.

A chap trying to get to my house called me from nearby recently. "Can't
find you, satnav packed up at the bottom of the lane".

Which rather supports the suggestion above that there is a need!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

A chap trying to get to my house called me from nearby recently. "Can't
find you, satnav packed up at the bottom of the lane".

That I can believe. It took me a map and a willingness to try obscure
dirt tracks through dark gates in to the woods in the middle of town
before I found your place!!

...d

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:48:57 GMT someone who may be Clive Sinclair
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

And before you ask, yes I cycle in towns. I am a firm believer that
cyclists should have some sort of insurance and pay a 'small' amount of
road tax.

Given that nobody pays road tax at the moment,

David, why do you persist with that myth, even though its existence is
evident to everyone, and it has been pointed out to you numerous times
before - are you trolling again?

See the entry in the online Concise Oxford English Dictionary at:
<http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/roadtax?view=uk>

*road tax*
noun Brit. a periodic tax payable on motor vehicles using public roads.

It may also have its own technical term, "Vehicle Excise Duty", but it
is a road tax nevertheless.

Quoted message said:

it was abolished by
the Finance Act of 1936,

No, the tax remained exactly the same after the 1936 Finance Act. What
that act did was to remove the compulsion to credit /any/ of the
receipts from the road tax into the /road fund/.

--
Matt B

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:05:36 GMT someone who may be Clive Sinclair
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Seriously, I know cyclists do
not 'damage' roads, etc. But they are responsible for a lot of
accidents.

Evidence to back up this assertion?

The latest RCGB report gives contributory factors in injury "accidents"
by vehicle involved, and for 25% of the 10,749 "accidents" involving
pedal cycles, a factor was that the cyclist "failed to look properly".
11% had the factor "cyclist entering road from pavement", 9% had the
cyclist as "careless, reckless, in a hurry", and 6% had the cyclist made
a "poor turn or manoeuvre".

Only 46% had no contributory factor associated with the cycle - which
suggests that cyclists' actions were a contributory factor in 5751
casualty "accidents".

Ah, I hear you ask, but how does that compare with other vehicle types?
Well, Light Goods Vehicles (driven by the notorious WVM) had
contributory factors in 7366 "accidents", Heavy Goods Vehicles (driven
by lorry drivers) had factors in 5673.

--
Matt B

NM said:

Silk said:

Conor said:

In article <[email hidden]>, John says...

Quoted message said:

> And some lorry drivers are looking for a filling station so that
> they can ask for directions as they haven't a clue where they are
> going..
And the problem with that being?

Lorry Drivers should know where they're going. Also, with satnavs now
below 100 quid, there's no need to stop to ask directions.

Three times now the sat nav has tried to send me up country lanes, the
first time I fell for it,

Why did you fall for it?
--
MrBitsy