Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On May 27, 9:05*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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.

On May 28, 12:38*am, Adam Lea wrote:
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?

Not really. It is a busy, narrow tunnel full of nasty fumes and very
noisy. Pragmatically the cyclist has to use the pavement to avoid
holding up drivers, who are not supposed to overtake in the tunnel. In
places the pavement is partly obstructed and narrowed but it is
otherwise empty and hardly ever used by pedestrians. If there were
more ways for cyclists to cross the river I doubt that they would even
consider using the Rotherhithe Tunnel at any time.

Doug.

On 28/05/2011 06:50, Doug wrote:
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?

Reinforcing stereotypes? I thought you were against that?


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.


Evidence?


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 28/05/2011 07:16, Doug wrote:
On May 28, 12:38 am, Adam wrote:
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?

Not really. It is a busy, narrow tunnel full of nasty fumes and very
noisy. Pragmatically the cyclist has to use the pavement to avoid
holding up drivers, who are not supposed to overtake in the tunnel. In
places the pavement is partly obstructed and narrowed but it is
otherwise empty and hardly ever used by pedestrians. If there were
more ways for cyclists to cross the river I doubt that they would even
consider using the Rotherhithe Tunnel at any time.


Which nicely proves that a push bike isn't a suitable form of transport.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:10:41 +0100, davidlang wrote:




Which nicely proves that a push bike isn't a suitable form of transport.

No it doesn't



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On 27/05/2011 22:27, Tom Crispin wrote:

See Tom not mentioning that Dave can't use the Gravesend to Tilbury
Ferry

I expect Dave can use the Gravesend to Tilbury Ferry, but unlike
taking his van free on the Woolwich Ferry, he'd have to pay to cross
on the Gravesend to Tilbury Ferry.

Do vans fit onto the Tilbury/Gravesend ferry?

No. Dave would still be able to use the Gavesend to Tilbury ferry.

With his van?

Clearly not.

Or without it?

If the latter, what would be the point in that?

I don't know - I was simply correcting Francis's assertion that Dave
couldn't use the Gravesend to Tilbury Ferry.

No you weren't - you were just being a **** as usual.

Todays top tip; "When in a hole, stop digging".

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 28/05/2011 07:06, Doug wrote:
On May 27, 9:05 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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.


How am I supposed to read a printed paper online? I have already gone
to the trouble of conducting a fruitless Google search for something
which supports your claim. Something you seem too lazy to do yourself.

You must try to read & understand, he told you that you could not use
your computor.



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.

Why not? You seem to be able to judge public protesters. I am sure
ACPOs are not infallible and they have a vested interest anyway in not
going to the trouble of policing marginal law-breakers. Oh yes and you
can bet they are also motorists too who suffer from the same problems
as their fellow motorists.

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.

How does that adjust to differing speed limits?


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%

And of course speedometers never suffer from faults.


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.

See above about speed limiters.

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

I am merely reporting official views.

Just one unverifiable example of an official view on lawbreakers which
you are making excuses for.

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.

So speed limits don't work on law-breaking driver majorities, who you
are making excuses for, and they have to be traffic-calmed instead.

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

On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:10:41 +0100, wrote:

On 28/05/2011 07:16, Doug wrote:
On May 28, 12:38 am, Adam wrote:
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?

Not really. It is a busy, narrow tunnel full of nasty fumes and very
noisy. Pragmatically the cyclist has to use the pavement to avoid
holding up drivers, who are not supposed to overtake in the tunnel. In
places the pavement is partly obstructed and narrowed but it is
otherwise empty and hardly ever used by pedestrians. If there were
more ways for cyclists to cross the river I doubt that they would even
consider using the Rotherhithe Tunnel at any time.


Which nicely proves that a push bike isn't a suitable form of transport.

Through the Rotherhithe Tunnel, you may well be correct.

On 28/05/2011 07:06, Doug wrote:
On May 27, 9:05 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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.


How am I supposed to read a printed paper online?

You aren't. You need to get off your backside and do some real research.

I have already gone
to the trouble of conducting a fruitless Google search for something
which supports your claim. Something you seem too lazy to do yourself.

I didn't bother, because I was fairly sure that anything published by
the Road Research Laboratory, rather than the Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, was not going to be online.

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.

Why not? You seem to be able to judge public protesters.

I do not judge the views of public protesters. I do, however, criticise
anti-social behaviour by them.

I am sure
ACPOs are not infallible and they have a vested interest anyway in not
going to the trouble of policing marginal law-breakers.

It seems that one of your favourite bits of legislation - the Human
Rights Act - has had a bearing on their views. They point out that, to
take that into account, it is necessary to keep enforcement
proportionate to the risk posed by people exceeding the speed limit and,
that, for this reason, they set levels at which prosecution should take
place. They also say the following:

'This guidance does not and cannot replace the police officer's
discretion and they may decide to issue a summons or a fixed penalty
notice in respect of offences committed at speeds lower than those set
out in the table. Moreover, in particular circumstances, driving at
speeds lower than the legal limit may result in prosecution for other
offences, for example dangerous driving or driving without due care and
attention when the speed is inappropriate and inherently unsafe.'

Oh yes and you
can bet they are also motorists too who suffer from the same problems
as their fellow motorists.

At least one is well known for appearing to be quite anti-motorist.

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.

How does that adjust to differing speed limits?

I can set it to any speed I like, from 20mph up. It is only a driving
aid, but one I chose to use every time I drive.

In speed limiter mode, a quick click on the control lever changes it in
5 mph steps, so I use one or more double clicks to change it in 10mph
steps whenever the speed limit changes. I then drive as usual, safe in
the knowledge that the car is preventing me from exceeding the speed I
have set.

In cruise control mode, I set the speed I want to maintain, after which
I merely have to steer the car. It will take care of keeping to the
speed or, if the radar detects traffic ahead, slowing down to suit the
traffic. That mode is more suited to long distance cruising.

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%

And of course speedometers never suffer from faults.

They are remarkably reliable devices and it is an offence not to have
one that complies with the Construction and Use Regulations. BTW, you
may also find those difficult to verify online. Despite numerous
searches, I have never found them.

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.

See above about speed limiters.

Ditto.

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

I am merely reporting official views.

Just one unverifiable example of an official view on lawbreakers which
you are making excuses for.

As I said, it can be verified, just not from the comfort of your
armchair. I have also pointed out that I do not encourage people to
break the law.

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.

So speed limits don't work on law-breaking driver majorities, who you
are making excuses for, and they have to be traffic-calmed instead.

On the contrary, speed limits do work, if you understand what they are
supposed to do in the first place. However, as the report was aimed at
those setting speed limits it also made the point that the road layout
must be taken into account when setting speed limits. Sometimes, that
may mean that traffic calming is appropriate, but there must be
thousands of miles of road where it has not been necessary.

Colin Bignell

On 27/05/2011 16:40, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:39:03 +0100,
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.

Not 'understand' - 'agree with'.

See Dave?

Dave isn't very clever.

Clever enough not to use a childs toy as a form of transport.

Dave thinks that Tom doesn't pay VED.

Here we go again with this old bollox. Simple Simon tried this a while ago.

But Dave is wrong.

Tom does pay VED.

Tom pays VED because he has a car.

Tom pays Road Tax to use the car on the road. As a cyclist he pays ****
all.



See dave?

Dave is jealous.

Jealous of a **** in lycra riding a kids toy?

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.

Tom is a thick **** desperate to try & win a failed argument.

The indisputable fact is that Tom has to pay a specific extra tax to use
the car on the road, but does not have to pay a specific extra tax to
use his toy on the road.

One does not cover the other.

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.

A push bike is slow, uncomfortable, unable to carry passengers or goods
(unless you are terminally stupid enough to tow a grossly overloaded
bike trailer through heavy traffic), offers no protection from the
elements, is liable to be stolen & offers no impact protection at all.

Excellent if you are completely & utterly ****ing stupid.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.