Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On 26/05/2011 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2011 20:33:57 +0100, wrote:


Here we go again...

See Dave in his van.

See Dave drive through the Blackwall Tunnel for free.

See Dave getting what he pays for.

See Tom on his bicycle.

See Tom try to cross the River Thames through the Woolwich Tunnel.

See Tom unable to cross the River Thames because the tunnel is closed.

See Dave laughing his socks off.

See Dave in his van.

See Dave on the Woolwich Ferry. Dave and his van are free on the
Woolwich Ferry.

See Dave getting what he pays for.

See Tom on his bike.

See Tom have to pay £3.30 to use the Thames Clipper to cross the
Thames.

See Dave in his Van. He has his lights on. It is dark. It is
nightitme.

See Dave drive across the Dartford Bridge for free.

See Cwispin being a slippery ****.

Cwispin knows full well that vans pay £2 during the day - on top of the
Road Tax they pay.

See Tom off his bike. Tom is waiting. He has been waiting for two
hours. He is waiting for a patrol vehicle to take him over the
Dartford Bridge.

See Cwispin getting what he pays for.

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings. Tom knows that
most river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge are expensive for
bicycles.

See Cwispin getting what he pays for.

Dave knows that at night time he can cross the River at the
Rotherhithe Tunnel, the Blackwall Tunnel and the Dartford River
Crossing for free. Dave is a sponging freeloader.

See Dave paying his Road Tax.
See Dave using the facilities he pays for.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

On Fri, 27 May 2011 00:27:41 +0100, Adam Lea
wrote:

On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

Would you use that hell hole?

On May 26, 6:22*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 26/05/2011 05:51, Doug wrote:

On May 25, 9:29 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote:
On 25/05/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:
...

Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits,...

When the Road Research Laboratory did an extensive study of speed
limits, their conclusion was that the purpose of speed limits should not
be seen as being to keep traffic at or below the set limit.

Source? Link? I would like to verify your claim.

A bound volume of Road Research Laboratory reports that was in Hove
Public Library reference section, when I last looked. I think it changed
its name to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in the early
1980s, so I rather doubt RRL reports are available online.

So it can't be verified?

Rather, they
should be seen as a way to avoid large differentials in traffic speed
and as a way to reduce significantly the number of vehicles that grossly
exceed the set limit. Their suggestions of what constituted 'grossly
exceeding' the limit quite closely match the ACPO recommendations on the
point at which prosecution would be appropriate.

So what are you suggesting here, that its OK to exceed speed limits as
long as its not by very much?

Unlike you, I do not encourage people to break the law. I am simply
reporting the conclusions of the Road Research Laboratory. However, the
Association of Chief Police Officers does seem to think that, as a
general rule and providing there is no other offence, it is acceptable
for vehicles to travel at a little above the limit without penalty.

Do you agree with him, despite the law being broken?

I know there is some latitude because of
speedometer inaccuracies

Not in speed limits. Any speedometer errors must result in the vehicle
travelling slower than indicated, not faster.

Errors can work both ways.

but it doesn't make it OK in principle. What
about places where locals want speed limits to be lowered anyway,
particularly past schools?

The same principles apply, whatever the limit, although the RRL did make
the point that, to be effective, speed limits need to match the drivers'
perception of a safe speed for the road, so lower limits will normally
require traffic calming measures as well.

In other words, drivers will not obey the law if speed limits are set
too low for their perception and they therefore need to be traffic
calmed as well?

You seem to be making excuses for drivers to break the law. Firstly
its OK for them to break speed limits as long as its not by very much
and secondly speed limits should depend on drivers' perception rather
than on safety.

Doug.

On 27/05/2011 02:46, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 00:27:41 +0100, Adam
wrote:

On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

Would you use that hell hole?


I would, in my nice commfy, safe van. Wouldn't use it on a push bike,
skateboard etc.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 27/05/2011 06:16, Doug wrote:
On May 26, 6:22 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 26/05/2011 05:51, Doug wrote:

On May 25, 9:29 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 25/05/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:
...

Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits,...

When the Road Research Laboratory did an extensive study of speed
limits, their conclusion was that the purpose of speed limits should not
be seen as being to keep traffic at or below the set limit.

Source? Link? I would like to verify your claim.

A bound volume of Road Research Laboratory reports that was in Hove
Public Library reference section, when I last looked. I think it changed
its name to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in the early
1980s, so I rather doubt RRL reports are available online.

So it can't be verified?

Of course it can. It just can't be verified while sitting at your computer.


Rather, they
should be seen as a way to avoid large differentials in traffic speed
and as a way to reduce significantly the number of vehicles that grossly
exceed the set limit. Their suggestions of what constituted 'grossly
exceeding' the limit quite closely match the ACPO recommendations on the
point at which prosecution would be appropriate.

So what are you suggesting here, that its OK to exceed speed limits as
long as its not by very much?

Unlike you, I do not encourage people to break the law. I am simply
reporting the conclusions of the Road Research Laboratory. However, the
Association of Chief Police Officers does seem to think that, as a
general rule and providing there is no other offence, it is acceptable
for vehicles to travel at a little above the limit without penalty.

Do you agree with him, despite the law being broken?

It is not for me to judge the informed opinion of the Assistant Chief
Officers from across the country. However, whenever I am driving, I
invariably use the cruise control on my car, usually in speed limiting
mode, to ensure that I stay within the law.


I know there is some latitude because of
speedometer inaccuracies

Not in speed limits. Any speedometer errors must result in the vehicle
travelling slower than indicated, not faster.

Errors can work both ways.

Which is why manufacturers generally make their speedometers over read
slightly. The permitted error is -0% +10%


but it doesn't make it OK in principle. What
about places where locals want speed limits to be lowered anyway,
particularly past schools?

The same principles apply, whatever the limit, although the RRL did make
the point that, to be effective, speed limits need to match the drivers'
perception of a safe speed for the road, so lower limits will normally
require traffic calming measures as well.

In other words, drivers will not obey the law if speed limits are set
too low for their perception and they therefore need to be traffic
calmed as well?

The finding IIRC was that they would initially follow set speed, but
their speed would tend to drift up on roads that did not match their
perception. An example of that would be a wide, semi-rural dual
caarriage way that I used to use, which had a 30mph speed limit and was
a favourite Police speed trap spot. the point being that drivers usually
look at their speedo when they enter a limit, but do not normally keep
lookig at it while driving through it, judging their speed instead from
the environment. It takes your attention from the road to be constantly
looking down, which is why I use the speed limiter.

You seem to be making excuses for drivers to break the law.

I am merely reporting official views.

Firstly
its OK for them to break speed limits as long as its not by very much

That is what the ACPO guidlelines on prosectution say.

and secondly speed limits should depend on drivers' perception rather
than on safety.

As I understood the report, it was rather a warning that the road layout
should be such that drivers naturally drive at the limit. A good example
of this is another road I know that had very wide traffic lane. The
addition of wide cycle lanes each side resulted in narrow central
traffic lanes, which slowed the traffic down.

Colin Bignell

On 27/05/2011 02:46, Tom Crispin wrote:

Adam wrote:
On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

Would you use that hell hole?

Would you just ignore it in a list of places where cyclists may cross the
river, seated on and riding their bikes at that?

And if you would, wouldn't it just be an attempt to make a point where you
didn't have one to make?

On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:39:03 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/05/2011 02:46, Tom Crispin wrote:

Adam wrote:
On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

Would you use that hell hole?

Would you just ignore it in a list of places where cyclists may cross the
river, seated on and riding their bikes at that?

And if you would, wouldn't it just be an attempt to make a point where you
didn't have one to make?

OK - if you didn't understand my point, here's another.

See Dave?

Dave isn't very clever.

Dave thinks that Tom doesn't pay VED.

But Dave is wrong.

Tom does pay VED.

Tom pays VED because he has a car.

See dave?

Dave is jealous.

Dave is jealous because he thinks that Tom doesn't pay VED.

He thinks that Tom doesn't pay VED because Tom is on a bicycle.

But Dave is wrong.

Dave is wrong because he isn't very clever.

Because Dave isn't very clever he doesn't realise that people on a
bike might also have a car.

Dave is also stupid.

Dave is stupid because he doesn't realise that a bicycle is an
excellent form of transport for able bodied people for journeys of
between one and five miles.

On 27/05/11 02:46, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 00:27:41 +0100, Adam
wrote:

On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

Would you use that hell hole?

Having never used it before I would be willing to try it once if I had
to go somewhere where it was practical to use it. Based on what people
have said I wouldn't expect to enjoy the experience. Is it not any
better at night when I would have thought the traffic would be much quieter?

On May 27, 8:29*am, wrote:
On 27/05/2011 02:46, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2011 00:27:41 +0100, Adam
wrote:

On 26/05/11 19:52, Tom Crispin wrote:

Tom knows that at nightime the only place downstream of Tower Bridge
to cross the Thames is the Dartford River Crossings.

Rotherhithe tunnel?

Would you use that hell hole?

I would, in my nice commfy, safe van. *Wouldn't use it on a push bike,
skateboard etc.

Ah! So you are a van driver eh? Is it white? They seem to be among the
most dangerous drivers on our roads, in their haste to get anywhere,
and a serious threat to cyclists by driving too close and too fast.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.