Cycling wrong way up one way streets to be made legal

[Ben C]

On 2008-06-04, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>> You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>>
>>> Couldn't think of any. Annoying the 'mentalists counts as a positive
>>> consequence.
>>
>> If you can't think of any obvious negative consequences of speeding,
>> it's time you turned in your driving license.
>
> Can you think of any - that is, any that /are/ consequences of
> /speeding/ per se?

Getting to work early resulting in doing too many hours leading to
stress.

> To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they apply to travelling at
> 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would cease to be "negative"
> if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.

That is a somewhat unreasonably strict definition of "per se"!

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-06-04, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:48:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>>> > when you have a
>>>> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
>>>> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
>>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>>
>>>and breaking the speed limit?
>>
>>You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>
> Until relatively recently if councils measured the speed motorists
> were driving down roads and a weighted average was higher than the
> speed limit they raised the speed limit. I still hear the same
> concept from time to time.

Interesting. Whenever I see those cables on the road I slow down because
I assume they're gathering evidence to present to someone to justify
putting cameras or, worse, bumps in. But perhaps I should step on it to
boost the average.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:03:23 -0500, Ben C <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>> To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they apply to travelling at
>> 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would cease to be "negative"
>> if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.
>
>That is a somewhat unreasonably strict definition of "per se"!

It's also a fallacious argument, the fallacy of the heap. I suspect
Troll B has been told this before.

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Peter Pie Eater <[email protected]> wrote:

> POHB wrote:
> > or at least to be trialled on a few roads in part of London.
>
> My initial thoughts are as follows:
>
> I'm always stepping out in front of cyclists on those damn contraflow
> one way roads. It just doesn't come naturally to me to look in the
> "wrong direction" when crossing a one way street.

Are you aware that it remains legal for a motorist to reverse, for
example into a parking space, on one way streets?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Tom Anderson]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:12:15 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <[email protected]> said in
> <abdadd19-8850-41e6-9f68-8c9a73f7c43f@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> AF is defeated by GC's KUATB though
>
> Entirely appropriate. It means: Keep Up At The Back.

You are Sir Humphrey Appleby. AICMFP!

tom

--
only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are
universally valid -- Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Peter Pie Eater wrote:
> I'm always stepping out in front of cyclists on those damn contraflow
> one way roads. It just doesn't come naturally to me to look in the
> "wrong direction" when crossing a one way street.

If the road has been one-way for a while, this may happen a bit, which
is why:
- signing is important
- point no entry with cycle exemption is a better solution

If the road was 2-way before, pedestrians will not have got used to
only looking one way.

I have done some cycle one-way exemptions here in Ealing, and there
were a few already. All have segregated entry rather than flying
motorcycle, and some have contraflow lanes. All have cycle casualty
rates too low to measure.

Local opposition is all that's stopping me doing a lot more. Maybe
this publicity will help with that.

Even with continuous parked cars both sides, cyclists can always avoid
oncoming traffic if it refuses to slow down. Mostly drivers and
cyclists just use gaps in the parked cars to pass each other.

Actually with-flow can be worse than contraflow, because the drivers
trying to squeeze past you are coming from behind. Because they're
going the same way they're alongside you for longer. Few cyclists have
the confidence to prevent overtaking that would require them to move
into the door-opening zone.

> The argument being presented seems to be that cycling the wrong way down
> one-way streets should be legalised because some bike users do it
> already and it can't be policed. That seems to me to be a bad argument.

The good arguments are that the reasons for creating one-ways don't
apply to cyclists, the alternatives to legal contraflow cycling are
more dangerous and less pleasant, and the extra distance of the route
motor traffic has to use always lengthens cyclists' journey time -
whereas drivers can go faster to keep journey time unchanged.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[PK]

"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1e1a0bbe-a0c0-4c52-8261-153151b7768e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> or at least to be trialled on a few roads in part of London.
>
'He told The Times: “If this is what bicyclists want to do and they can do
it safely, then we see it as our responsibility to adapt the legal position
to allow them to do it legally.'



>>



that seems a very dodgy argument!

would it apply to cars going through light controlled crossings where no
pedestrians are present?



pk

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 4, 9:40 am, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> POHB wrote:
> > or at least to be trialled on a few roads in part of London.
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2073117/Cyclists-allowed-wrong-way-up...
>
> >http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/news/arti...
>
> > There's several streets around my way with cycle contraflow lanes,
> > this just sounds like trying to save a bit of money on white paint.
>
> That seems sensible. They had a guy on the radio discussing it. He said
> that cyclists were already doing it. He also said that when you have a
> law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
> it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.

...except when it's motorists safely exceeding the speed limit, or
motorists doing anything really.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 4, 10:29 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:03:23 -0500, Ben C <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
> >> To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they apply to travelling at
> >> 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would cease to be "negative"
> >> if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.
>
> >That is a somewhat unreasonably strict definition of "per se"!
>
> It's also a fallacious argument, the fallacy of the heap.  I suspect
> Troll B has been told this before.

I think what you meant to say was "I can't show that there are any
negative consequences of exceeding the speed limit per se, so I hereby
admit that my support of speed cameras has never been anything to do
with safety. I only like them because they're a good motorist-
persecuting tool."

Whenever the trolls are asked to demonstrate how exceeding the speed
limit in itself can actually cause accidents, they fail miserably, and
immediately set about obfuscating and (surprise surprise) trolling.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 4, 3:03 pm, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:26e5a277-daca-4106-a6a3-db8be5de7499@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Why in the name of left-handed Greek buggery have they asked "Captain
> >Gatso" to comment?
>
> Cos he's such an obvious numpty it makes the proposal look all the better.

Yeah. Damaging public property...terrible. Except that if there were
red light cameras and/or pavement cameras for bikes, and there was
someone (probably a troll from here) going round vandalising them, I
doubt you'd use the word "numpty" about them.

Go on, admit it. You wouldn't. You'd say something like "Shouldn't
really do it, but I can understand why".

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 4, 12:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> But why can't the politicians do something about pedal reflectors re
> clipless pedals and recumbents? It's akin to still not having changed
> the law prohibiting more than a few pints of petrol being kept in a
> container to exclude car fuel tanks.

Hang on, I think most of the car-hating trolls here would love it if
that hadn't happened. I think they've been barking up the wrong tree
all these years with speed cameras: campaigning to decimate fuel tank
sizes "for safety" would have been a far more effective way of getting
the motorist scum off the roads.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 5, 4:53 am, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:1e1a0bbe-a0c0-4c52-8261-153151b7768e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...>or at least to be trialled on a few roads in part of London.
>
> 'He told The Times: “If this is what bicyclists want to do and they can do
> it safely, then we see it as our responsibility to adapt the legal position
> to allow them to do it legally.'
>
>
>
> that seems a very dodgy argument!
>
> would it apply to cars going through light controlled crossings where no
> pedestrians are present?

No, because this is an anti-motorist newsgroup, and you'll never get
an admission from the trolls that any illegal behaviour from motorists
is safe. (Go on then trolls, prove me wrong. Oh, you can't, as
usual. I can see how that must get frustrating for you.)

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:03:23 -0500, Ben C <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>> To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they apply to travelling at
>>> 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would cease to be "negative"
>>> if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.
>> That is a somewhat unreasonably strict definition of "per se"!
>
> It's also a fallacious argument, the fallacy of the heap. I suspect
> Troll B has been told this before.

I suspect you mean the "paradox of the heap", which isn't a /fallacy/,
but a question about how small does a "heap" have to be before it ceases
to be a heap. We know speeding is black and white, 1 mph over and it
/is/ speeding, so to attempt to wriggle-out of answering the argument on
that basis /is/ fallacious.

--
Matt B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:46:35 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<dd779f5d-f040-4a52-aaf1-9ee058294d38@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>I think what you meant to say was "I can't show that there are any
>negative consequences of exceeding the speed limit per se, so I hereby
>admit that my support of speed cameras has never been anything to do
>with safety. I only like them because they're a good motorist-
>persecuting tool."

Yes, I'm sure you do think that. And you are, as always, completely
wrong.

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, you know?]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<87515cac-809e-4530-8991-18a61fdd83b6@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>...except when it's motorists safely exceeding the speed limit

Oxymoron.

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, you know?]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:03:07 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>this is an anti-motorist newsgroup

In your mind. Actually it is (and the clue here is in the name) a
*pro-cycling* newsgroup. Now I know that in the minds of obsessive
petrolheads anything other than exclusive and uncritical adulation
for all things car equates to being anti-motorist, but most of us in
this newsgroup see no such dichotomy. Most of us are motorists, in
fact. We don't see the need to be anti one thing in order to be pro
another, because unlike you (and, to be fair, a good many other
drivers), we don't view the road primarily as a battleground.

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

 

[lardyninja]

spindrift wrote:
> Why in the name of left-handed Greek buggery have they asked "Captain
> Gatso" to comment?


Because the séance they held failed to contact small pith.

LN

 

[Mark]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:05:06 -0500, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2008-06-04, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:48:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
>> you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>>>> > when you have a
>>>>> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
>>>>> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
>>>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>>>
>>>>and breaking the speed limit?
>>>
>>>You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>>
>> Until relatively recently if councils measured the speed motorists
>> were driving down roads and a weighted average was higher than the
>> speed limit they raised the speed limit. I still hear the same
>> concept from time to time.
>
>Interesting. Whenever I see those cables on the road I slow down because
>I assume they're gathering evidence to present to someone to justify
>putting cameras or, worse, bumps in.

I think this is more likely to be true. I don't think they raise
speed limits very often nowadays.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Mark]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:42:03 +0100, Danny Colyer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 04/06/2008 15:47, Dave Larrington wondered:
>> Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?
>
>Acquire a diesel-powered motor vehicle, fill the tank to the brim, then
>drive at speed over bumps and around roundabouts. That should do the trick.

Do you work for Stagecoach? ;-)

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[A.C.P.Crawshaw]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> I think what you meant to say was "I can't show that there are any
> negative consequences of exceeding the speed limit per se, so I hereby
> admit that my support of speed cameras has never been anything to do
> with safety. I only like them because they're a good motorist-
> persecuting tool."

Nuxxy, you've still not told us about your motoring convictions, time to 'fess up...