Games Lanes

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:11:01 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 23:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:31:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 12:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:26:31 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 12:18, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:53:03 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 11:40, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:16:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Turk182 wrote:

Games lanes are for runners and their rich sponsors. They are NOT for
doctors, nurses, people caring for the elderly, people trying to get
hospital appointments, gravediggers, vicars, train drivers, bus
drivers (on their way to work), dentists, solicitors, teachers, prison
staff, cleaners, airport staff, airline passengers etc etc. Olympic
lanes are for people who like running and throwing things and are too
self-obsessed to get a job helping people. So we hinder everyoner
else in London to make sure that politicians don't get embarrased by
the fact that London is always at a standstill.

The public come last as usual.

I wonder why the affected public don't just rebel and use the Zil lanes
as normal. What could the authorities do? Put tanks on the streets?
It would effectively render the law useless, and clog up the legal
system for years.

That ploy brought about the end to the M4 bus lane after Tony Blair
led the way and rebelled against the lane introduced by his deputy,
John Prescott.

Muscovites also rebelled against the Kremlin Lanes in Moscow, designed
to keep officials moving from their high end official residences to
the Kremlin, while fellow comrades were left stranded in endless
delays on the narrow lanes.

If I were one of the organisers, it's so awful a prospect I wouldn't
even like to think about it. It's surely only a matter of time before
civil obedience breaks down. Will it be before the games, during them
or, phew, only when they're over? I reckon it's touch and go.

Whilst it's not a matter of personal importance for me day to day, and whilst
it's easy enough for me to say (since I wouldn't be involved), it would be
fun to see Londoners (whether residential or occupational Londoners)
rebelling against the Mad Ken lanes and causing such delay that the games
were disrupted.

Mad Ken can be blamed for much, but the lanes were introduced under
Bungling Boris.

You are wrong. The number of "bus lanes" (so-called) was increased massively
under Mad Ken. The stage was therefore set. The interesting thing this time
is that the usual collaborators are miffed because they too are excluded.

My, how the boot pinches when it's on the other foot, eh?

As already pointed out, the games lanes make travel safer for
cyclists.

Hasn't stopped you from complaining for England, has it?

If there were an available Gold for it.

We use the inside lane and the only vehicles overtaking are
Games traffic. The chances of an HGV left hook are reduced as HGVs
should not be overtaking, and in many places left turns are banned.
In other words, non Games traffic fumes behind cyclists at safe
cycling speeds.

Win-win I'd say.

Where's the "win" for normal traffic?

Safer roads.

What is the use of a "safe" road which does not provide the utility required?

"Safety always comes first." That's what the helmut advocates say
anyway.

*Not*, of course, that "safety" has been improved for anyone (except possibly
the Zil-occupants). Congestion is well-recognised as a source of danger.

I felt very safe on my bike on the Commercial Road.

Or don't the people who constitute it count as humans as far as you are
concerned?

Anyway, enjoy your little childish games while you can... because...

... the Zil Lanes: they'll all be gone in a few weeks: even the one on the M4.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say the same of Mad Ken's "bus lanes"?

Under Bungling Boris average traffic speeds on TLRN roads decreased by
0.5mph to 18mph (2011/12 figures). This is despite rephasing of
traffic lights to delay pedestrians and supposedly smooth traffic
flow, and a 2.5 index point decrease in traffic volume.

Scrap all bus and contra-flows, scrap all discriminatory "priority" schemes,
re-phase all traffic lights so as to cater for maximum safe traffic
throughput and make sabotage (eg narrowing) of highways a criminal offence on
the part of the LA chief executive and the leader of the council controlling
group - and everything will start to get better.

Unlikely. Those things are there for a reason.

And as we all know, the reason is not connected with the welfare of normal
people.

Hoisted by their own petard. If motorists always kept within the
posted speed limit there would be no need for the road narrowings,
etc.

Judith wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:54:01 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:12:20 +0100, (Roger Merriman) wrote:

Judith wrote:

A ****wit on uk.rec.cycling has posted how hilarious it was for him, as
part of a group of cyclists, to cycle along the inside lane, (outside lane
being a Games Lane) - holding up the traffic. As he said:

"Ahead of us the road was clear all the
way to our turn off to Stratford. But behind us was a long line of
beeping and fuming motor vehicles."

so your being trolled then?


Yes of course - what an amazing "troll" - demonstrate that you are an
anti-social ****wit as you have demonstrated many times in the past - and on
this occasion everyone who sees it will believe that it was just a troll.

He is not bright is he?



Sorry - I did not mean *you* - I of course meant Crispin.

it may not be sophisticated but he got you to bite!

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Jul 27, 7:04*am, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:11:01 +0100, JNugent
wrote:









On 26/07/2012 23:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:31:13 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 12:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:26:31 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 12:18, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:53:03 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/07/2012 11:40, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:16:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Turk182 wrote:

Games lanes are for runners and their rich sponsors. *They are NOT for
doctors, nurses, people caring for the elderly, people trying to get
hospital appointments, gravediggers, vicars, train drivers, bus
drivers (on their way to work), dentists, solicitors, teachers, prison
staff, cleaners, airport staff, airline passengers etc etc. *Olympic
lanes are for people who like running and throwing things and are too
self-obsessed to get a job helping people. *So we hinder everyoner
else in London to make sure that politicians don't get embarrased by
the fact that London is always at a standstill.

The public come last as usual.

I wonder why the affected public don't just rebel and use the Zil lanes
as normal. *What could the authorities do? *Put tanks on the streets?
It would effectively render the law useless, and clog up the legal
system for years.

That ploy brought about the end to the M4 bus lane after Tony Blair
led the way and rebelled against the lane introduced by his deputy,
John Prescott.

Muscovites also rebelled against the Kremlin Lanes in Moscow, designed
to keep officials moving from their high end official residences to
the Kremlin, while fellow comrades were left stranded in endless
delays on the narrow lanes.

If I were one of the organisers, it's so awful a prospect I wouldn't
even like to think about it. *It's surely only a matter of time before
civil obedience breaks down. *Will it be before the games, during them
or, phew, only when they're over? *I reckon it's touch and go..

Whilst it's not a matter of personal importance for me day to day, and whilst
it's easy enough for me to say (since I wouldn't be involved), it would be
fun to see Londoners (whether residential or occupational Londoners)
rebelling against the Mad Ken lanes and causing such delay that the games
were disrupted.

Mad Ken can be blamed for much, but the lanes were introduced under
Bungling Boris.

You are wrong. The number of "bus lanes" (so-called) was increased massively
under Mad Ken. The stage was therefore set. The interesting thing this time
is that the usual collaborators are miffed because they too are excluded.

My, how the boot pinches when it's on the other foot, eh?

As already pointed out, the games lanes make travel safer for
cyclists.

Hasn't stopped you from complaining for England, has it?

If there were an available Gold for it.

We use the inside lane and the only vehicles overtaking are
Games traffic. The chances of an HGV left hook are reduced as HGVs
should not be overtaking, and in many places left turns are banned.
In other words, non Games traffic fumes behind cyclists at safe
cycling speeds.

Win-win I'd say.

Where's the "win" for normal traffic?

Safer roads.

What is the use of a "safe" road which does not provide the utility required?

"Safety always comes first." That's what the helmut advocates say
anyway.

*Not*, of course, that "safety" has been improved for anyone (except possibly
the Zil-occupants). Congestion is well-recognised as a source of danger.

I felt very safe on my bike on the Commercial Road.









Or don't the people who constitute it count as humans as far as you are
concerned?

Anyway, enjoy your little childish games while you can... because...

... the Zil Lanes: they'll all be gone in a few weeks: even the one on the M4.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say the same of Mad Ken's "bus lanes"?

Under Bungling Boris average traffic speeds on TLRN roads decreased by
0.5mph to 18mph (2011/12 figures). This is despite rephasing of
traffic lights to delay pedestrians and supposedly smooth traffic
flow, and a 2.5 index point decrease in traffic volume.

Scrap all bus and contra-flows, scrap all discriminatory "priority" schemes,
re-phase all traffic lights so as to cater for maximum safe traffic
throughput and make sabotage (eg narrowing) of highways a criminal offence on
the part of the LA chief executive and the leader of the council controlling
group - *and everything will start to get better.

Unlikely. Those things are there for a reason.

And as we all know, the reason is not connected with the welfare of normal
people.

Hoisted by their own petard. If motorists always kept within the
posted speed limit there would be no need for the road narrowings,
etc.

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are
causing to other road users, or do you kid yourself that it's 'not
really dangerous' despite plentiful research and all legitimate road
safety organisations differing with that view? I don't know how you
can look in the mirror. Perhaps you don't.

People's lives are more important than your progress. When will you
accept that and stop speeding?

"M Wicks" wrote in message
...

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. Doing much at the weekend?

On Jul 27, 2:29*pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"M Wicks" wrote in message

...









Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. *Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going too fast
is safe?

On 27/07/2012 13:54, M Wicks wrote:

On Jul 27, 7:04 am, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 26/07/2012 23:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 26/07/2012 12:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Whilst it's not a matter of personal importance for me day to day, and whilst
it's easy enough for me to say (since I wouldn't be involved), it would be
fun to see Londoners (whether residential or occupational Londoners)
rebelling against the Mad Ken lanes and causing such delay that the games
were disrupted.

Mad Ken can be blamed for much, but the lanes were introduced under
Bungling Boris.

You are wrong. The number of "bus lanes" (so-called) was increased massively
under Mad Ken. The stage was therefore set. The interesting thing this time
is that the usual collaborators are miffed because they too are excluded.
My, how the boot pinches when it's on the other foot, eh?

As already pointed out, the games lanes make travel safer for
cyclists.

Hasn't stopped you from complaining for England, has it?
If there were an available Gold for it.

We use the inside lane and the only vehicles overtaking are
Games traffic. The chances of an HGV left hook are reduced as HGVs
should not be overtaking, and in many places left turns are banned.
In other words, non Games traffic fumes behind cyclists at safe
cycling speeds.

Win-win I'd say.

Where's the "win" for normal traffic?

Safer roads.

What is the use of a "safe" road which does not provide the utility required?
*Not*, of course, that "safety" has been improved for anyone (except possibly
the Zil-occupants). Congestion is well-recognised as a source of danger.

Anyway, enjoy your little childish games while you can... because...

... the Zil Lanes: they'll all be gone in a few weeks: even the one on the M4.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say the same of Mad Ken's "bus lanes"?

Under Bungling Boris average traffic speeds on TLRN roads decreased by
0.5mph to 18mph (2011/12 figures). This is despite rephasing of
traffic lights to delay pedestrians and supposedly smooth traffic
flow, and a 2.5 index point decrease in traffic volume.

Scrap all bus and contra-flows, scrap all discriminatory "priority" schemes,
re-phase all traffic lights so as to cater for maximum safe traffic
throughput and make sabotage (eg narrowing) of highways a criminal offence on
the part of the LA chief executive and the leader of the council controlling
group - and everything will start to get better.

Unlikely. Those things are there for a reason.

And as we all know, the reason is not connected with the welfare of normal
people.

Hoisted by their own petard. If motorists always kept within the
posted speed limit there would be no need for the road narrowings,
etc.

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit

Wrong. They are done to reduce capacity and cause delay.

and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.
If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.
Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are
causing to other road users, or do you kid yourself that it's 'not
really dangerous' despite plentiful research and all legitimate road
safety organisations differing with that view? I don't know how you
can look in the mirror. Perhaps you don't.
People's lives are more important than your progress. When will you
accept that and stop speeding?

When you stop beating your wife and your toddler children with that
cat-o-nine-tails you bought in Soho, while dressed in that leather outfit
with the mask, etc..

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:54:20 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:
snip


Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.



You are talking about Numb-nuts Mason here.

He thought it was great to ride his push bike at more than 20mph in a 20mph
speed limit as "the limit did not apply to cyclists".

Absolutely no consideration for the other people using the road.

On Jul 26, 8:18*pm, Brett Dunbar wrote:
In message , Deux
writes

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:54:35 +0100, JNugent wrote:

"Olympic lanes" are merely the latest manifestation of the "privileged
versus non-persons" mentality of traffic planners since the late 1960s..
We normally call them "bus lanes". The principle is the same.

I saw on the news that every country that has hosted the olympics has
installed these games lanes since a time when the athletes were failing
to turn up for their event due to traffic, Athens maybe?

I thought it was only something introduced this year.

No it isn't, indeed it is rather scaled down. London has about thirty
miles of Olympic lanes both Beijing and Athens had over a hundred miles.
The lanes were introduced following traffic problems in Atlanta, several
athletes nearly missed the start of their events due to congestion.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Searchhttp://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournalhttp://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

Have you heard of mission creep?

Now they know they can do it, they'll find a hundred excuses for doing
it again.

It's about what the public will put up with - and the British are well
known for capitulating and handing their rights over on a plate to
fake officials and the bully state.

Turk182

"M Wicks" wrote in message
...
On Jul 27, 2:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:
"M Wicks" wrote in message

...
Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going too fast
is safe?

You assume too much about people. I don't speed. I keep within the speed
limits and I don't condone speeding. Some speed limits are set too high,
others are set too low but regardless I always keep within the legal limits,
often travelling significantly below those limits. So you have falsely
accused me of speeding. You can apologise if you want. Will you?

On Jul 27, 2:32*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:29*pm, "John Benn" wrote:



"M Wicks" wrote in message

...

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. *Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going too fast
is safe?

Hello it's Cretin Wicks again, Please explain how driving past a
primary school at 0300 when there are no light in the building and
there are no cars or minibuses in the car park needs to be at 20 mph?