Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On 28/05/2011 11:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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.

You may wonder Dougwit, why Colin has such a nice car with all these
great features.

Its because he made a success of his life instead of whinging about
everything & being a natural victim.

No wonder you are jealous of motorists.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On May 27, 4:40*pm, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:39:03 +0100, JNugent
wrote:



Dave is jealous.


Perhaps Dave is jealous of many things, but I can't understand why
Dave would be jealous of Tom, of all people.

On May 28, 8:10*am, 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.

Its very suitable because cycling is much less environmentally
unfriendly than motoring and does not take up as much road space as a
car. It also gives healthy exercise, unlike a car, and does not cost
nearly as much to operate. Also you can take a bicycle on most trains
for long distance travel, unlike cars, and there is little difficulty
in finding parking spaces for bicycles, unlike cars.

Doug.

On May 28, 11:59*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
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.

On your behalf? You must be joking!

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.

Perhaps in future you should choose verifiable sources to support your
claims.


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.

So you are judging their behaviour. Its still judging.

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.

Who?

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.

All very interesting but it still doesn't adjust for differing speed
limits automatically so is not infallible.

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.

The fact that they are reliable does not make every one of them immune
from inaccuracy.

"ACPO Guidelines on speeding, and the UK law regarding prosecution.
Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer
accuracy to be in the range of -0-+10%. The implications are that it
must never under-read - for obvious reasons - but may over-read. As
the cost of manufacturing a speedometer with -0% error would be very
costly they all over-read by a few percent without exception. Even if
speed is measured correctly the display may not be accurate, so a
speedometer error is allowed. Because of this, the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating
a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph. In reality,
most speed traps are triggered at higher speeds than this because if
they were set bang-on those guidelines, the sheer amount of paperwork
generated would overrun the police speeding departments."

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_...ge/The_Law.htm

So police allow drivers to exceed speed limits because of difficulties
with speedometers, as I claimed previously.



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.

Why should I be expected to go to a lot of trouble and expense merely
to help you support your dubious claim?

I have also pointed out that I do not encourage people to
break the law.

Are you also claiming you never break the law yourself and indeed are
perfect in that respect, despite your speed limiter not being
automatic? All it would take is as moment's inattention on your part.


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.

Again, speed limits do not work on law-breaking driver majorities.

Doug.

On 31/05/2011 06:45, Doug wrote:
On May 28, 11:59 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
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.

On your behalf? You must be joking!

No need for that. I've already done the research, which is how I found
the reports in Hove Public Library.


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.

Perhaps in future you should choose verifiable sources to support your
claims.

My source is verifiable. You just can't do it from the comfort of your
armchair. There is no way that I can change whether the owners of the
copyright have decided to make it available online to the public for
free. The same would apply if I quoted from a British or ISO Standard.



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.

So you are judging their behaviour. Its still judging.

If Chief Police Officers went around throwing things through windows, I
would criticise them. However, if they decide that there is a speed,
higher than the speed limit, below which prosecution need not be
automatic, in order to comply with Human Rights legislation, then I have
no information with which to challenge that.


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.

Who?

I don't recall the name, but that is something you probably can find out
from the comfort of your own armchair. However, the Home Office
published proposals today for zero tolerance on speed limits, which I am
sure will please you.

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.

All very interesting but it still doesn't adjust for differing speed
limits automatically so is not infallible.

Why does an aid I use to keep within the law need to be automatic?

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.

The fact that they are reliable does not make every one of them immune
from inaccuracy.

"ACPO Guidelines on speeding, and the UK law regarding prosecution.
Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer
accuracy to be in the range of -0-+10%. The implications are that it
must never under-read - for obvious reasons - but may over-read. As
the cost of manufacturing a speedometer with -0% error would be very
costly they all over-read by a few percent without exception. Even if
speed is measured correctly the display may not be accurate, so a
speedometer error is allowed. Because of this, the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating
a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph. In reality,
most speed traps are triggered at higher speeds than this because if
they were set bang-on those guidelines, the sheer amount of paperwork
generated would overrun the police speeding departments."

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_...ge/The_Law.htm

So police allow drivers to exceed speed limits because of difficulties
with speedometers, as I claimed previously.

Both you and the writer of that article are wrong. The reasons given in
the ACPO guidleines are to ensure a proportional response to the crime,
consistency within different police areas and transparency about
enforecement action. There is absolutely no mention of speedometer
inaccuracy. The permitted tolerance is not really difficult to achieve.
What would be difficult would be making a speedo that always gave an
accurate reading, while staying within the tolerance.

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.

Why should I be expected to go to a lot of trouble and expense merely
to help you support your dubious claim?

I'm not asking you to do anything to support my claim - there is no need
as it is accurate. However, if you want to verify it for yourself, there
is no way other than seeking out the published reports.

I have also pointed out that I do not encourage people to
break the law.

Are you also claiming you never break the law yourself and indeed are
perfect in that respect, despite your speed limiter not being
automatic? All it would take is as moment's inattention on your part.

It would require me to be moving into a slower speed limit and to fail
to see two speed limit signs on posts by the side of the road and
usually one painted on the road surface as well. That would require a
lot more than a moment's inattention on my part. It would need to be
nearer half a minute without looking ahead properly and, probably, no
slowing traffic ahead of me. That simply isn't going to happen, no
matter how many straws you clutch at.

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.

Again, speed limits do not work on law-breaking driver majorities.

They achieve the purposes identified by the Road Reseach Laboratory: to
reduce the differences in speed between traffic travelling on the same
road and significantly reducing the number of vehicles that grossly
exceed the set speed.

Colin Bignell

On 31/05/2011 06:45, Doug wrote:
On May 28, 11:59 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
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.

On your behalf? You must be joking!

He has done his research, if you don't believe it prove him wrong.


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.

Perhaps in future you should choose verifiable sources to support your
claims.

He has, can't you read.

snip


Doug.

On 31/05/2011 06:13, Doug wrote:
On May 28, 8:10 am, 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.

Its very suitable because cycling is much less environmentally
unfriendly than motoring and does not take up as much road space as a
car. It also gives healthy exercise, unlike a car, and does not cost
nearly as much to operate.

And that latter facet is very important to many posters here.

On 31/05/2011 06:13, Doug wrote:
On May 28, 8:10 am, 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.

Its very suitable because cycling is much less environmentally
unfriendly than motoring and does not take up as much road space as a
car.

But only carries one passenger, no goods or luggage, is slow,
uncomfortable, open to the elements, unable to cope with steep hills,
leaves the rider vulnerable etc.


It also gives healthy exercise, unlike a car,

Entirely possible to exercise without riding a push bike.

and does not cost
nearly as much to operate.

Suitable for the poor or cheapskates.


Also you can take a bicycle on most trains
for long distance travel, unlike cars, and there is little difficulty
in finding parking spaces for bicycles, unlike cars.

No need to take a car on a train, its quite able to undertake long
distance travel - unlike a push bike.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 31/05/2011 11:30, Tony Dragon wrote:
....
He has, can't you read...

Doug is only capable of reading things that suit him.

Colin Bignell

On 31/05/2011 18:07, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 31/05/2011 11:30, Tony Dragon wrote:
...
He has, can't you read...

Doug is only capable of reading things that suit him.

Colin Bignell

I'm not even sure of that.