Road owners

[Just Zis Guy]

I was musing and jotted this:

<http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>

Your comments welcome as ever.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Not Me]

Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

> I was musing and jotted this:
>
> <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>
>
> Your comments welcome as ever.

In my view no-one section of the road using public owns the road and for any section to claim it
owns the road outright is ludicrous.

Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"

From what I can gather, this 'saying' appears to be an urban myth that cyclists seem ever keen to
perpetuate ..

Many motorists, of different types, would certainly benefit from increased education as to their
driving attitude, the needs of other road users and the 'rights' of everyone on the road. I use on
the road (and off-road) a car, a van, a truck occasionally, a Landrover, a motorbike, a cycle.
Variously I have numerous models of each form of transport to choose from. My wife also drives a car
and cycles, my sons (11 and 8 years old) both cycle. As I see it there's an inherent need of
_everyone_ who uses the road to be aware of others and do what they can to limit danger to both
themselves and others. I wear a helmet, all the family does actually, by choice, I have lights on
when I deem them necessary, and I wear as bright clothing as a middle-aged short fat man can get
away with ..

As a 'motorist', as a motorcyclist, a truck driver, a van driver, a cyclist, a pedestrian etc etc, I
have never actually heard anyone *ever* say that cyclists ought not to be allowed onto the road
system, and mean it. I've heard it said in jest, Jeremy Beadle, or is it Clarkson, may have said it
a time or two for effect I presume, but I can honestly confirm I've never heard anyone actually say
it who meant it.

--
Digweed

 

[Bob Flemming]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:18:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was musing and jotted this:
>
><http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>
>
>Your comments welcome as ever.
>

I was chatting to a mate of mine the other day about cycling 'about town' and the phrase 'car
culture' came up, and although a self-evident truism, it really hit home, we do live in a 'car
culture', which, is depressing really.

I drive myself, I have to for work, bit difficult to ferry building stuff around any other way, but
long gone are the days when I enjoy driving across country for pleasure. Cars, cars, cars.....so
much traffic. I just see it as a necessary hassle these days.

If, as cyclists, we knew that any revenue we gave to the treasury for the priviledge of using the
road would go to the development of cycling in the UK, then I'm pretty sure most people would
happily pay something, but like all those kinds of taxes, they just 'get lost' in the swing of it
all and nothing changes.

It's easy to wallow in pessimism about it all, easy to hope that somebody else will change
everything, but 'the people need to rise up and be heard'<barf>, that's about all you can
do....legally!. All groups need a voice, I think you're yearning to be that kind of leader


Go forth!

bob

>Guy
>===
>** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
>dynamic DNS permitting)
>NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Jim Price]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I was musing and jotted this:
>
> <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>
>
> Your comments welcome as ever.

Sorry, its not really a comment on the content, unfortunately. Your menu stuff on your web site
crashes my browser (Mozilla 1.0 - yes I know, I'm just waiting for 1.4 to be released before I
migrate to a different machine RSN).

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[Simon]

> Your menu stuff on your web site crashes my browser (Mozilla 1.0

Sorry to say it's the same in Netscape 7.0. Accidental mouseover and it chokes.

 

[Adrian Tritschl]

Not me, someone else wrote:

..snip..

> In my view no-one section of the road using public owns the road and for any section to claim it
> owns the road outright is ludicrous.
>
> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
> the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"

I have personally heard it *numerous* times, usually screamed in an abusive tone out the window of a
passing car, but more scarily, argued in a perfectly reasonable tone of voice by people who believe
that only private cars should be on the road[1]. "Get off the road", "Get on the bike path", "Pay
registration or get off the road", etc, etc...

> From what I can gather, this 'saying' appears to be an urban myth that cyclists seem ever keen to
> perpetuate ..

If its an urban myth then its one that I keep seeing in letters to the editor in the "Drive" section
of our local paper.

> Many motorists, of different types, would certainly benefit from increased education as to their
> driving attitude, the needs of other road users and the 'rights' of everyone on the road. I use on
> the road (and off-road) a car, a van, a truck occasionally, a Landrover, a motorbike, a cycle.
> Variously I have numerous models of each form of transport to choose from. My wife also drives a
> car and cycles, my sons (11 and 8 years old) both cycle. As I see it there's an inherent need of
> _everyone_ who uses the road to be aware of others and do what they can to limit danger to both
> themselves and others. I wear a helmet, all the family does actually, by choice, I have lights on
> when I deem them necessary, and I wear as bright clothing as a middle-aged short fat man can get
> away with ..
>
> As a 'motorist', as a motorcyclist, a truck driver, a van driver, a cyclist, a pedestrian etc etc,
> I have never actually heard anyone *ever* say that cyclists ought not to be allowed onto the road
> system, and mean it. I've heard it said in jest, Jeremy Beadle, or is it Clarkson, may have said
> it a time or two for effect I presume, but I can honestly confirm I've never heard anyone actually
> say it who meant it.

..and yes, I heard it when I was riding in the UK

Adrian

[1] Usually the same people who are all for public transport, so long as it only results in _other_
people using it, freeing up the road for them.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Tritschler mailto:[email protected] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E,
Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[John'S Cat]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:00:14 +1000, Adrian Tritschler <[email protected]> wrote:

>Not me, someone else wrote:

>>
>> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
>> the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>
>I have personally heard it *numerous* times, usually screamed in an abusive tone out the window of
>a passing car,...
>
>> From what I can gather, this 'saying' appears to be an urban myth that cyclists seem ever keen to
>> perpetuate ..
>
>If its an urban myth then its one that I keep seeing in letters to the editor in the "Drive"
>section of our local paper.
>
...
>
The OP should drop into uk.tosspot sometime. (But please, no cross-posted troll-fests).

 

[Wafflydirtycatl]

>Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
>the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>

Oh yes - I've had it said to me on a few occasions. Plus, w*nker Clarkson spouts such trash on his
TV programme Top W*nker - as in his chat with Boris Johnson, an MP who cycles. It also appears in
local rag periodically.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$**o$l.c$$*o$*m*$ by getting rid of the
overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Arthur Clune]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
: I was musing and jotted this:

: <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>

: Your comments welcome as ever.

Some other points.

1) It's always debatable how much of the true costs motorists do pay. A few years ago a group
(Transport 2000?) did a recosting. Their methodology was simple, and I think nice.

When a new road is proposed a cost-benifit analysis is done. This includes factors for delays, lives
lost, injuries etc etc etc. They used this model to look at motoring as a whole and found that
society was subisdising motoring by a large amount.

Now, one might well say that that is a resonable thing for society to do given the benifts motoring
can bring, but it certainly does for the "we motorists give lots of money to the exchequer"
arguement.

2) Road damage rises as the fifth power of the axle loading. So if road tax was in any way
proportional to road damage, bikes would pay nothing, cars would pay a bit and lorries would be
very, very, very expensive.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that
cyclists
> have no right to use the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"

Anything by Tony Parsons and most of uk.tosspot spring to mind.

> Many motorists, of different types, would certainly benefit from increased education as to their
> driving attitude, the needs of other road users and the 'rights' of everyone on the road.

Quite.

> I wear a helmet, all the family does actually, by choice, I have lights on when I deem them
> necessary, and I wear as bright clothing as a middle-aged short fat man can get away with ..

Why should you have to wear conspicuous clothing? Are we to excuse drivers who hit trees because the
trees are not fitted with reflectors and lights? Back when I passed my test I was expected to be
sure that I could stop within the distance I could see to be clear - not "clear of things with
lights" or "clear of things with reflective surfaces," but "clear." So now we blame pedestrians on
country roads when they are knocked over at night. Who brought the danger to the situation? It's all
part of the pervasive culture of victim-blaming which has characterised British "road safety" policy
for almost a century.

And don't get me started on polystyrene foam deflector beanies...

> As a 'motorist', as a motorcyclist, a truck driver, a van driver, a
cyclist,
> a pedestrian etc etc, I have never actually heard anyone *ever* say that cyclists ought not to be
> allowed onto the road system, and mean it.

I have had people try to run me off the road because I was taking up more than their notion of a
cyclist's fair share (i.e. a 1" strip in the gutter). It's more widespread than you think.

And I am a driver as well, and have driven commercial vehicles for a living in the past.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

> Sorry, its not really a comment on the content, unfortunately. Your menu stuff on your web site
> crashes my browser (Mozilla 1.0 - yes I know, I'm just waiting for 1.4 to be released before I
> migrate to a different machine RSN).

I know, sorry, it's an issue witht he code I nicked.

On my home page it says: "Sincere apologies to Mozilloids everywhere. Yes, the menus make your
browser disappear up its own bottom. They work in Netscrape and IE 4+; I nicked the code from
somewhere ages ago and haven't yet got round to replacing it with better code or (a much worse sin)
bolting in the text-only version which I so desperately need to do. My bike mechanic, Bob, is blind
- there is no excuse for not having a text-only version. I apologise, mea culpa, it will be fixed
as soon as I choose the right method. Anyone who has a reliable DHTML-based menu system which
doesn't require menu dropdown widths to be coded (this is all dynamic and generated on the fly)
please let me know."

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Arthur Clune]

Not me, someone else <[email protected]> wrote:

: Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
: the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"

I've had the latter complaint "I'll start listening when you ******** pay road tax" etc shouted at
me many times.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

[Toby Barrett]

"Simon" <sbennettatwiderworlddotcodotuk> wrote in news:3ee667f8$0$46134
[email protected]:

>> Your menu stuff on your web site crashes my browser (Mozilla 1.0
>
> Sorry to say it's the same in Netscape 7.0. Accidental mouseover and it chokes.

In Opera 7.11 there's no crash, but none of the buttons appears to do anything.

Toby

--
Remove spamtrap to reply by mail

 

[Dave Kahn]

Bob Flemming <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> If, as cyclists, we knew that any revenue we gave to the treasury for the priviledge of using the
> road would go to the development of cycling in the UK, then I'm pretty sure most people would
> happily pay something...

For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a right.

--
Dave...

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
> I was musing and jotted this:
>
> <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>
>
> Your comments welcome as ever.
>
A few nitpicks:

> In the 1960s the car was beginning to take its place as a mass mode of
transport,
> and the numbers of fatalities were becoming a serious cause for concern.

How high were they? Were they much higher than in the 1930s, or was it just the first time that
there was breathing space to enact the laws?

On the seatbelt issue, the total number of deaths did actually go down, which is not what your
article says, the way I read it. And it's not universally accepted that it was drink drive campaigns
(which, AIUI, were more of a factor than laws) that caused the overall reduction.

Given that, IIRC front seat occupants are those most likely to be killed in (and responsible for)
collisions, anything that makes a dramatic change to their survival chances will result in a fall
in total deaths, even it causes them to kill people outside cars at a significantly greater rate
than before.

Anyway, as it is received wisdom that the seat belt law had no downside, it's probably best to
concentrate on its impact on rear seat passengers, motorcyclists and cyclists.

Good article anyway. I've got to write some drop down menus in ECMAScript sometime soon, so I might
mail you the code for it, to deal with the other complaints that are being made (your menus don't
work in Opera, either).

Ambrose

 

[Paul M]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Flemming <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > If, as cyclists, we knew that any revenue we gave to the treasury for the priviledge of using
> > the road would go to the development of cycling in the UK, then I'm pretty sure most people
> > would happily pay something...
>
> For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a
right.
>
> --
> Dave...

I've been putting all the arguments to 'can't walk or cycle motorists' for years but there are none
so deaf as those that don't want to hear.

One point that seems to get through more than others (which is giving in to them a bit) is to point
out that 97% of adult cyclists are car drivers and DO pay vehicle taxes.

They should give me a medal for using the bike and freeing up road space to make their
journey easier.

Paul

 

[Dave Larrington]

You might also care to point out that the first body in the UK to campaign for paved roads was
neither the Royal Automobile Club nor the Automobile Association, but rather the Cyclists' Touring
Club, and thus were it not for the Noble Bicycle, all those hopeless pseuds would be drving 4x4's
out of necessity rather than choice...

It further occurs to me that since one has to have a registration number in order to obtain a tax
disc, Her Majesty The Queen cannot be paying VED for her official Roller, and it is, after all,
Her Highway.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Andy Dingley]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:57:41 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
>the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"

Green Audi, Coronation Rd. Bristol (just after hitting me with their door mirror) "You should be on
the cycle path, not the road"

The cycle path is on the other side of the road, and is a one-way going opposite. It's also the
infamous Bristol path where it's marked to go right through the centre of some long-established,
wide and unmarked trees.

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:41:26 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
> <[email protected]> typed:
>> I was musing and jotted this:
>>
>> <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>
>>
>> Your comments welcome as ever.
>>
> A few nitpicks:
>
>> In the 1960s the car was beginning to take its place as a mass mode of
> transport,
>> and the numbers of fatalities were becoming a serious cause for concern.
>
> How high were they? Were they much higher than in the 1930s, or was it just the first time that
> there was breathing space to enact the laws?
>
> On the seatbelt issue, the total number of deaths did actually go down, which is not what your
> article says, the way I read it. And it's not universally accepted that it was drink drive
> campaigns (which, AIUI, were more of a factor than laws) that caused the overall reduction.
>
http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Not Me]

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX deftly scribbled:

>> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
>> the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>>
>
> Oh yes - I've had it said to me on a few occasions. Plus, w*nker Clarkson spouts such trash on his
> TV programme Top W*nker - as in his chat with Boris Johnson, an MP who cycles. It also appears in
> local rag periodically.

Heheheh, I've heard Clarkson say it .. but I thought it was to be taken like almost any other
comment he makes .. or like I said, he only says it for effect ..

Maybe I'm wrong ..

--
Digweed