Sustrans response to proposed HC changes

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by wafflycat, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    Tags:


  2. RG

    RG Guest

    "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Is at
    >
    > http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > ~~
    > you may need to remove dependence
    > on fame & fortune from organisation to get correct email address
    > ~Noodliness is Good~


    Forgive me but WTF the has all the climate change crap in point 2 really
    got to do with the Highway Code? ... seems that Sustrans has that bone
    between its teeth and can't let go (or it's something to with funding ...)
    .... but the rest of what is said seems to make sense

    RG
     
  3. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
    ('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') wrote:

    > Is at
    >
    > http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf


    <sings>
    Oh, they themselves have said it, so it's surely to their cre-he-dit...
    </sings>

    <quote>
    ....the wording also suggests that cycle facilities of all kinds must be
    used. The legal implication is likely to be that cyclists who do not use
    poorly designed (or poorly maintained) facilities are placing themselves
    in the wrong...
    </quote>

    <rhetorical>
    Poorly designed and/or poorly maintained facilities, eh? Now what would
    Sustrans possibly know about those?
    </rhetorical>

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    to err is human, to lisp divine
    ;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.
     
  4. wafflycat wrote:
    > Is at
    > http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf


    And on the whole it's good and helpful. They could have mentioned the
    stupid roundabout suggestion, and I disagree with their requested
    change to the description of the red triangle with a picture of a bike
    in it. You should beware of (or be looking out for) cycles at all
    times - the red sign draws your attention to a cycle facility, as the
    draft says.

    Colin McKenzie
     
  5. "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > in message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
    > ('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') wrote:
    >
    >> Is at
    >>
    >> http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf

    >
    > <sings>
    > Oh, they themselves have said it, so it's surely to their cre-he-dit...
    > </sings>
    >
    > <quote>
    > ...the wording also suggests that cycle facilities of all kinds must be
    > used. The legal implication is likely to be that cyclists who do not use
    > poorly designed (or poorly maintained) facilities are placing themselves
    > in the wrong...
    > </quote>
    >
    > <rhetorical>
    > Poorly designed and/or poorly maintained facilities, eh? Now what would
    > Sustrans possibly know about those?
    > </rhetorical>


    Don't see how it can be argued that the road is not a cycle facility.

    KC
     
  6. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Colin McKenzie wrote:

    > And on the whole it's good and helpful. They could have mentioned the
    > stupid roundabout suggestion, and I disagree with their requested change
    > to the description of the red triangle with a picture of a bike in it.
    > You should beware of (or be looking out for) cycles at all times - the
    > red sign draws your attention to a cycle facility, as the draft says.


    Agreed with the above, though the touchy feely "why we're doing this"
    stuff is, IMHO, out of place in the HC and that the HC should be a
    succinct document about safe and legal use of the highways wouldn't be
    served by adding that sort of stuff.

    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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  7. Pinky

    Pinky Guest

    I am distinctly not a Sustrans aficionado!
    (I see no point when I am cycling from A to B that I should follow a poorly
    maintained rout that takes me via L, M, N, X, Y & Z adding umpteen
    kilometres onto my already long routes! )

    However I believe that this response to the Highway Code proposals is a
    responsible and sensible one ( even including the reference to global
    warming)

    I am 69 ( nearly) and if I manage to live as long as my father, who was 99
    on 2 April, I fully expect to see a huge difference in the way that we
    travel and indeed in the way that we live in 30 years time. Hopefully at
    that time I shall still be riding my bike! (I met a 93 year old lady in
    Germany last year who was still cycling and cycled with me for about 5 kms
    helping my find my way)

    In the earths history of millions of years we have managed to squander and
    guzzle much of its long stored resources in less than 150 years. And we keep
    on doing it!

    I can tell you that when the crunch comes we will build wind farms wherever,
    Nuclear power stations wherever, and any other method of producing "energy"
    because "people" will demand it.

    I suspect that my 8 year old grandson, who rides his bike to school daily
    ( only about 600 metres in a quiet village on Salisbury Plain) will, in 30
    years time, be surviving ( if he is lucky) in a very different world to that
    in which I have lived. But I bet if he is surviving he will be riding a bike

    OOOPs --- sorry I went off at a tangent again!


    --
    Trevor A Panther
    In South Yorkshire,
    England, United Kingdom.
    www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
    "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Is at
    >
    > http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > ~~
    > you may need to remove dependence
    > on fame & fortune from organisation to get correct email address
    > ~Noodliness is Good~
     
  8. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Abbey Engineer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > Don't see how it can be argued that the road is not a cycle facility.


    Sue Slimeball, solicitor from Sue, Grabbit & Run Solicitors and Professional
    Liars acting on behalf of Tightfist Insurance acting on behalf of Johnny
    Petrolhead-Braindeadmurderingbastard will doubtless try.

    T
     
  9. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Pinky wrote:

    > However I believe that this response to the Highway Code proposals is a
    > responsible and sensible one ( even including the reference to global
    > warming)


    <snip points about rape of Mother Earth>

    While I agree with your basic points, they don't make for useful reading
    if I want succinct guidance on how to negotiate a junction etc. They
    have a place in policy and certainly /some/ document, but I can't really
    see why it should be the HC.

    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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  10. sothach

    sothach Guest

    Tony W wrote:
    > "Abbey Engineer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >
    > > Don't see how it can be argued that the road is not a cycle facility.

    >
    > Sue Slimeball, solicitor from Sue, Grabbit & Run Solicitors and Professional
    > Liars acting on behalf of Tightfist Insurance acting on behalf of Johnny
    > Petrolhead-Braindeadmurderingbastard will doubtless try.


    BTAIM, all the studies in UK and the Europe that I've seen (see John
    Frankins links) suggest that to use a cyclepath is to increase your
    chance of an accident, quoting figures line 2.5x to 5x. This
    recommendation is akin to saying to car drivers: "Go for a few pints
    first, when practicable, as they can make your journeys safer"
     
  11. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, "RG" <nochance>
    ('') wrote:

    > "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Is at
    >>
    >> http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf
    >>

    > Forgive me but WTF the has all the climate change crap in point 2
    > really got to do with the Highway Code?


    If you can't see that you /really/ need to get your head out of your
    exhaust.

    Your grandchildren are going to live in a food-poor, energy-poor world
    with weather a great deal more violent than we've experienced over the
    past few thousand years. They won't be alone; everyone else's will, too.
    If we all stopped using internal combustion engines now, there's some
    chance things might not be so bad.

    But - it won't hurt us, we'll all be dead and gone before things get too
    bad; and, in any case, even if you stopped and I stopped, if the rest
    all carry on it won't make any difference. So - on with the party,
    folks! Fill those cars up! Live fifty miles from your place of
    employment! Drive to the coast at weekends!

    Yes, the highway code is about how you use the highway. It's about how
    you use the highway considerately, to prevent you doing too much
    unintended harm to other people. But the harm we do to forthcoming
    generations by our use of the highway is at least as significant as the
    harm we do to our contemporaries. I admit I hadn't thought about it that
    way until I read the Sustrans paper, but they're absolutely right.

    Ten years ago passive smoking was something a few eccentrics were
    concerned about; now smoking is banned in every enclosed public space in
    Scotland and Wales and shortly to be banned in most in England. Social
    and legal attitudes to the motor car could change just as quickly.

    How about proposing a rule that fossil-fuel powered vehicles must always
    give way to non-fossil-powered? The outrage of Jeremy Woolly-haired
    Numpty would be worth it by itself!

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    ,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
    /, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
    { \ `_-'' ' /
    `;;' ; ; ;
    ._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
    (,_....----''' (,..--''
     
  12. RG

    RG Guest

    "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > in message <[email protected]>, "RG" <nochance>
    > ('') wrote:
    >
    >> "wafflycat" <w*a*ffycat*@btco*nnect.com> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> Is at
    >>>
    >>> http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf
    >>>

    >> Forgive me but WTF the has all the climate change crap in point 2
    >> really got to do with the Highway Code?

    >
    > If you can't see that you /really/ need to get your head out of your
    > exhaust.
    >
    > Your grandchildren are going to live in a food-poor, energy-poor world
    > with weather a great deal more violent than we've experienced over the
    > past few thousand years. They won't be alone; everyone else's will, too.
    > If we all stopped using internal combustion engines now, there's some
    > chance things might not be so bad.
    >
    > But - it won't hurt us, we'll all be dead and gone before things get too
    > bad; and, in any case, even if you stopped and I stopped, if the rest
    > all carry on it won't make any difference. So - on with the party,
    > folks! Fill those cars up! Live fifty miles from your place of
    > employment! Drive to the coast at weekends!
    >
    > Yes, the highway code is about how you use the highway. It's about how
    > you use the highway considerately, to prevent you doing too much
    > unintended harm to other people. But the harm we do to forthcoming
    > generations by our use of the highway is at least as significant as the
    > harm we do to our contemporaries. I admit I hadn't thought about it that
    > way until I read the Sustrans paper, but they're absolutely right.
    >
    > Ten years ago passive smoking was something a few eccentrics were
    > concerned about; now smoking is banned in every enclosed public space in
    > Scotland and Wales and shortly to be banned in most in England. Social
    > and legal attitudes to the motor car could change just as quickly.
    >
    > How about proposing a rule that fossil-fuel powered vehicles must always
    > give way to non-fossil-powered? The outrage of Jeremy Woolly-haired
    > Numpty would be worth it by itself!
    >
    > --
    > [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    > ,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
    > /, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
    > { \ `_-'' ' /
    > `;;' ; ; ;
    > ._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
    > (,_....----''' (,..--''
    >
    >


    Steady on there ...

    I have no issue with protecting/saving the environment BUT in the context of
    the HC proposals and the potential effects for cyclists then it is a red
    herring. The point I was making was to retain focus and not deviate. The
    powers that be that are behind the HC are, rightly or wrongly, merely
    considering "transport" and not the bigger picture.


    .... although there is one upside to global warming ... it wont be as far to
    drive to the seaside and that'll reduce emissions!

    < before you hit the reply button, that was a joke from the radio last week>

    RG
     
  13. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:

    > in message <[email protected]>, "RG" <nochance>
    > ('') wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff�y�cat*@�btco*nn�ect.com> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>Is at
    >>>
    >>>http://www.sustransrangers.org.uk/downloads/policy/HighwayCode.pdf
    >>>

    >>
    >>Forgive me but WTF the has all the climate change crap in point 2
    >>really got to do with the Highway Code?

    >
    >
    > If you can't see that you /really/ need to get your head out of your
    > exhaust.
    >
    > Your grandchildren are going to live in a food-poor, energy-poor world
    > with weather a great deal more violent than we've experienced over the
    > past few thousand years.


    Bullshit.

    Well, the last bit could perhaps be plausible under some definitions of
    "a great deal more violent", but "a great deal more violent" in the UK
    probably doesn't amount to much anyway. Weather is "a great deal more
    violent" in Japan, for example, and people cope fine with it as it is.

    > How about proposing a rule that fossil-fuel powered vehicles must always
    > give way to non-fossil-powered? The outrage of Jeremy Woolly-haired
    > Numpty would be worth it by itself!


    That, I wholeheartedly endorse.

    James
    --
    James Annan
    see web pages for email
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
     
  14. Pyromancer

    Pyromancer Guest

    Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as James Annan
    <[email protected]> gently breathed:
    >Simon Brooke wrote:


    >> Your grandchildren are going to live in a food-poor, energy-poor
    >>world
    >> with weather a great deal more violent than we've experienced over the
    >> past few thousand years.


    >Bullshit.


    You think Global Warming is bullshit? That's an interesting POV, care
    to elaborate?

    --
    - DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

    Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
    <http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
     
  15. Clive George

    Clive George Guest

    "Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as James Annan
    > <[email protected]> gently breathed:
    >>Simon Brooke wrote:

    >
    >>> Your grandchildren are going to live in a food-poor, energy-poor
    >>>world
    >>> with weather a great deal more violent than we've experienced over the
    >>> past few thousand years.

    >
    >>Bullshit.

    >
    > You think Global Warming is bullshit? That's an interesting POV, care
    > to elaborate?


    You might want to check the stuff in James' sig :)

    cheers,
    clive
     
  16. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Pyromancer wrote:
    > Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as James Annan
    > <[email protected]> gently breathed:
    > >Simon Brooke wrote:

    >
    > >> Your grandchildren are going to live in a food-poor, energy-poor
    > >>world
    > >> with weather a great deal more violent than we've experienced over the
    > >> past few thousand years.

    >
    > >Bullshit.

    >
    > You think Global Warming is bullshit?


    No.

    > That's an interesting POV, care
    > to elaborate?


    Sure. The stuff about food-poor, energy-poor, and weather a great deal
    more violent is bullshit, as any fule kno :)

    James
     
  17. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, James
    Annan ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Sure. The stuff about food-poor, energy-poor, and weather a great deal
    > more violent is bullshit, as any fule kno :)


    Oh, I don't think so. You may be right about the weather, it is after all
    your sphere of expertise. Our food, though, is grown with huge inputs of
    fossil fuel energy, and much of our present arable land would not be
    productive without it. We're at or past 'peak oil', yet demand for
    fossil fuel energy per head is growing, and so is the population. That
    can't be squared.

    Global warming, also, moves the temperate zones towards the poles, where,
    for geographical reasons, there's radically less land surface. So, more
    people, less land, and much less chemical fertiliser all adds up to food
    poor. Dessicating the US grain belt effectively doesn't matter if
    there's no fertiliser to grow things on it with anyway.

    This is off-topic on this group, but is an interesting matter. Can anyone
    suggest a group not utterly destroyed by trolling where it would be on
    topic?

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
    but pick up the pieces.
     
  18. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:

    > in message <[email protected]>, James
    > Annan ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Sure. The stuff about food-poor, energy-poor, and weather a great deal
    >>more violent is bullshit, as any fule kno :)

    >
    >
    > Oh, I don't think so. You may be right about the weather, it is after all
    > your sphere of expertise. Our food, though, is grown with huge inputs of
    > fossil fuel energy, and much of our present arable land would not be
    > productive without it. We're at or past 'peak oil', yet demand for
    > fossil fuel energy per head is growing, and so is the population. That
    > can't be squared.


    There's an awful lot of coal that isn't going to run out any time soon,
    and oil prices are now high enough to justify opening up the tar sands,
    on top of renewables.

    I'm not claiming it will all definitely provide a smooth transition to
    new power sources, but it's a lot more likely to be pretty much ok than
    catastrophic. We could be a lot cleverer with energy use before we
    actually need to go hungy.

    > Global warming, also, moves the temperate zones towards the poles, where,
    > for geographical reasons, there's radically less land surface. So, more
    > people, less land, and much less chemical fertiliser all adds up to food
    > poor. Dessicating the US grain belt effectively doesn't matter if
    > there's no fertiliser to grow things on it with anyway.
    >
    > This is off-topic on this group, but is an interesting matter. Can anyone
    > suggest a group not utterly destroyed by trolling where it would be on
    > topic?



    The as-yet nonexistent sci.enviroment.moderated :)


    James
    --
    James Annan
    see web pages for email
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
     
  19. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:56:16 +0100, Tony W wrote:
    > Sue Slimeball, solicitor from Sue, Grabbit & Run Solicitors and Professional
    > Liars acting on behalf of Tightfist Insurance acting on behalf of Johnny
    > Petrolhead-Braindeadmurderingbastard will doubtless try.


    Careful now Tony... say what you mean! ;-)

    Jon
     
Loading...
Loading...