Sustrans response to proposed HC changes

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is at

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

Cheers, helen s

--

~~
you may need to remove dependence
on fame & fortune from organisation to get correct email address
~Noodliness is Good~

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

RG

in message <[email hidden]>, wafflycat

('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') said:

Is at

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

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

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

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

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

to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

wafflycat said:

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

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

Colin McKenzie

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, wafflycat

('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') said:

Is at

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

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

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

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

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

KC

Colin McKenzie said:

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

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

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is at

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

Cheers, helen s

--

~~
you may need to remove dependence
on fame & fortune from organisation to get correct email address
~Noodliness is Good~

"Abbey Engineer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

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

T

Pinky said:

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

<snip points about rape of Mother Earth>

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

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony W said:

"Abbey Engineer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

in message <[email hidden]>, "RG" <nochance>

('') said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, "RG" <nochance>

('') said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ffycat*@btco*nnect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steady on there ...

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

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

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

RG

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, "RG" <nochance>

('') said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff�y�cat*@�btco*nn�ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is at

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

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

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

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

[censored].

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

Quoted message said:

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

That, I wholeheartedly endorse.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[censored].

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

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

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

"Pyromancer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[censored].

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

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

cheers,
clive

Pyromancer said:

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[censored].

You think Global Warming is [censored]?

No.

Quoted message said:

That's an interesting POV, care
to elaborate?

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

James

in message <[email hidden]>, James

Annan (') said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, James

Annan (') said:

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

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

Tony W said:

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

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

Jon