Worcester's rat-run drivers warned - 100 tickets for illegal queue-jumpers in a fortnight

Malvern Gazette: PC Mark Broughton talks to a driver at the junction of Britannia Square and Hebb Street PC Mark Broughton talks to a driver at the junction of Britannia Square and Hebb Street

A HUNDRED drivers have been fined in a fortnight for flouting the law by ignoring no entry signs to dodge Worcester’s notorious roadworks and traffic jams.

Police officers handed out a hundred fixed penalty notices, which include a £90 fine and three penalty points, in just two weeks (up to Tuesday, April 1) as drivers head the wrong way along the city’s Britannia Square, through the red no-entry signs, along Hebb Street and on to the main A38. Historically, drivers have used it as an illegal cut-through to avoid the traffic lights in Castle Street and congestion through the Tything and Barbourne.

However, police responded after neighbours complained the situation had become much worse because of the recent roadworks.

Last Sunday alone officers handed out 20 tickets, running out of penalty forms so they had to return to the station for more. Officers handed out 12 penalty points in just 12 minutes on that Sunday.

The one-way section of Britannia Square also includes a cycle lane. Officers stressed it was illegal for anyone to drive through the no entry signs, including the emergency services.

PC Alex Denny and PC Mark Broughton said there had been a number of ‘near misses’ and stand-offs between motorists when they met head-on.

PC Boughton said: “On one occasion a car drove into an off-duty police officer’s leg and it was deliberate. Last Wednesday a car brushed past a community support officer’s leg.”

When a driver in a Golf R32 was stopped on Sunday going the wrong way at speed, fed-up residents cheered officers.

PC Denny said: “There have been a number of incidents and it literally is a serious accident waiting to happen due to the nature of the junction and the speed at which vehicles approach it.

You get some poor excuses like ‘I didn’t notice the signs’. There is a severe risk of head-on collisions. We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.”

He said drivers, who knew they should not go through the no entry signs, accelerated to get through the 50 metre prohibited section more quickly, increasing the risk.

He said: “It is difficult to enforce because we can’t be here permanently. You get a lot of people trying to avoid the traffic at rush hour.”

Sometimes there are tense stand-offs where motorists travelling the correct way along Britannia Square (in the direction of Castle Street) refuse to reverse when they encounter a car going the wrong way.

There is a blind entry for drivers going the right way from Hebb Street into Britannia Square.

One resident, who declined to be named, said: “There’s going to be an almighty smash here. Residents are both getting abuse from and giving it back to the drivers.

"We say ‘you’re going the wrong way.’ There is some colourful language sometimes. You’re told what you can do.”

West Mercia Police now want to see bollards put in to protect the cycle lane and for the markings on the road to be repainted after raising concerns with Worcestershire County Council and the Safer Roads Partnership.

John Ball, of Britannia Square, said: “I want to say thank you to the police for what they have done.

“They have been attending most days for the last two weeks when the roadworks have been on.

“Hopefully the people who have got caught will have learned a lesson.”

However, Bob Peachey, a former Worcester city and county councillor, who lives nearby in York Place, said the restrictions had made the junction much safer than it had been before.

Comments (66)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:35am Sun 6 Apr 14

CJH says...

It's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? Serves them right - why do they think the law doesn't apply to them?
It's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? Serves them right - why do they think the law doesn't apply to them? CJH
  • Score: 60

11:55am Sun 6 Apr 14

St Jon says...

Fantastic work. Next, can you run a similar campaign at the Whittington roundabout. Almost every day I see a crash or near miss as a minority decide the road lane directions heading from the M5 towards Malvern don't apply to them; turning left from a lane clearly marked as straight on, usually at speed, usually without indicators, leaving the law abiding motorists on the slip road a tenth of a second to hit the anchors or be T boned.
Fantastic work. Next, can you run a similar campaign at the Whittington roundabout. Almost every day I see a crash or near miss as a minority decide the road lane directions heading from the M5 towards Malvern don't apply to them; turning left from a lane clearly marked as straight on, usually at speed, usually without indicators, leaving the law abiding motorists on the slip road a tenth of a second to hit the anchors or be T boned. St Jon
  • Score: 60

12:05pm Sun 6 Apr 14

CJH says...

St Jon wrote:
Fantastic work. Next, can you run a similar campaign at the Whittington roundabout. Almost every day I see a crash or near miss as a minority decide the road lane directions heading from the M5 towards Malvern don't apply to them; turning left from a lane clearly marked as straight on, usually at speed, usually without indicators, leaving the law abiding motorists on the slip road a tenth of a second to hit the anchors or be T boned.
Quite right. And all those idiots who get into the wrong lane at the Norton Island just to jump the queue going to Malvern. Which would be simple to correct just by mounting a machine gun post on the island and giving a quick blast to anyone who tried it. Or they could just mark the road better making that lane right turn only to St Peters. I prefer option one actually. :-)
[quote][p][bold]St Jon[/bold] wrote: Fantastic work. Next, can you run a similar campaign at the Whittington roundabout. Almost every day I see a crash or near miss as a minority decide the road lane directions heading from the M5 towards Malvern don't apply to them; turning left from a lane clearly marked as straight on, usually at speed, usually without indicators, leaving the law abiding motorists on the slip road a tenth of a second to hit the anchors or be T boned.[/p][/quote]Quite right. And all those idiots who get into the wrong lane at the Norton Island just to jump the queue going to Malvern. Which would be simple to correct just by mounting a machine gun post on the island and giving a quick blast to anyone who tried it. Or they could just mark the road better making that lane right turn only to St Peters. I prefer option one actually. :-) CJH
  • Score: 45

12:16pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Dirty-Belcher says...

well done residents for reporting this, and well done to the old bill for enforcing it. It really does my head on just how many people cut through there. Also in other places though such as the road between the Old Talbot and the Vue cinema, just to avoid sitting at the lights in front of City Walls road for a few minutes. Or perhaps driving down London Road and having people tear down towards oncoming traffic to get to the front offside lane and then cut back in just by Skellerns. I hate sitting in traffic like the rest of us, but unlike these people, I don't feel that I am super special and allowed to drive through what should quiet areas where people should feel safe in the fact that they are unlikely to get hit by a mad motorist. The rules apply the same to everyone. We are all equal.
well done residents for reporting this, and well done to the old bill for enforcing it. It really does my head on just how many people cut through there. Also in other places though such as the road between the Old Talbot and the Vue cinema, just to avoid sitting at the lights in front of City Walls road for a few minutes. Or perhaps driving down London Road and having people tear down towards oncoming traffic to get to the front offside lane and then cut back in just by Skellerns. I hate sitting in traffic like the rest of us, but unlike these people, I don't feel that I am super special and allowed to drive through what should quiet areas where people should feel safe in the fact that they are unlikely to get hit by a mad motorist. The rules apply the same to everyone. We are all equal. Dirty-Belcher
  • Score: 33

12:45pm Sun 6 Apr 14

tub_thumper says...

And they say that cyclists always flout the law...
And they say that cyclists always flout the law... tub_thumper
  • Score: 12

1:01pm Sun 6 Apr 14

jb says...

If you know this area and the offenders obviously do then you know how dangerous these actions are. Selfish doesn't come into it! Well done to the police and residents for catching these idiots out before someone was seriously injured, although no doubt some will still believe THEY can dodge the law.
If you know this area and the offenders obviously do then you know how dangerous these actions are. Selfish doesn't come into it! Well done to the police and residents for catching these idiots out before someone was seriously injured, although no doubt some will still believe THEY can dodge the law. jb
  • Score: 32

1:01pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Andy_R says...

A better solution to the chaos caused by the roadworks would have been to temporarily change the direction of traffic flow on this road. I don't support drivers breaking the law, but I think there needs to be more incentive to solve traffic problems and less incentive to make a profit from them, as the government has done here.
A better solution to the chaos caused by the roadworks would have been to temporarily change the direction of traffic flow on this road. I don't support drivers breaking the law, but I think there needs to be more incentive to solve traffic problems and less incentive to make a profit from them, as the government has done here. Andy_R
  • Score: -19

1:11pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Saturn V says...

A good example of why you should ALWAYS check both ways before crossing a one-way street.
A good example of why you should ALWAYS check both ways before crossing a one-way street. Saturn V
  • Score: 19

1:13pm Sun 6 Apr 14

canuck7 says...

I was cycling though this one way on the cycle IN the cycle lane last year and saw a car heading towards me at speed the wrong way.the missed me by an inch, with the drivers face showing a snarling expression. i straightaway though about reporting it to the police but i did'nt get the v.r.m and thought whats the point?..i'm very happy to here so many lawless driver have been nicked and BEFORE someone is killed or maimed here!. lets us see a CONTINUED effort please not just a funny five minutes.
I was cycling though this one way on the cycle IN the cycle lane last year and saw a car heading towards me at speed the wrong way.the missed me by an inch, with the drivers face showing a snarling expression. i straightaway though about reporting it to the police but i did'nt get the v.r.m and thought whats the point?..i'm very happy to here so many lawless driver have been nicked and BEFORE someone is killed or maimed here!. lets us see a CONTINUED effort please not just a funny five minutes. canuck7
  • Score: 41

1:13pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Maggie Would says...

Andy_R wrote:
A better solution to the chaos caused by the roadworks would have been to temporarily change the direction of traffic flow on this road. I don't support drivers breaking the law, but I think there needs to be more incentive to solve traffic problems and less incentive to make a profit from them, as the government has done here.
Except that in the morning rush hour, the rat run was in the opposite direction and therefore legal ...
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: A better solution to the chaos caused by the roadworks would have been to temporarily change the direction of traffic flow on this road. I don't support drivers breaking the law, but I think there needs to be more incentive to solve traffic problems and less incentive to make a profit from them, as the government has done here.[/p][/quote]Except that in the morning rush hour, the rat run was in the opposite direction and therefore legal ... Maggie Would
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Andy_R says...

Maggie Would wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
A better solution to the chaos caused by the roadworks would have been to temporarily change the direction of traffic flow on this road. I don't support drivers breaking the law, but I think there needs to be more incentive to solve traffic problems and less incentive to make a profit from them, as the government has done here.
Except that in the morning rush hour, the rat run was in the opposite direction and therefore legal ...
True, but in the morning rush hour people are generally trying to get into town, not out of it, and the roadworks at the bottom of castle street at the time meant most traffic trying to go that way wouldn't have been able to get onto the back streets that way.
[quote][p][bold]Maggie Would[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: A better solution to the chaos caused by the roadworks would have been to temporarily change the direction of traffic flow on this road. I don't support drivers breaking the law, but I think there needs to be more incentive to solve traffic problems and less incentive to make a profit from them, as the government has done here.[/p][/quote]Except that in the morning rush hour, the rat run was in the opposite direction and therefore legal ...[/p][/quote]True, but in the morning rush hour people are generally trying to get into town, not out of it, and the roadworks at the bottom of castle street at the time meant most traffic trying to go that way wouldn't have been able to get onto the back streets that way. Andy_R
  • Score: -1

1:50pm Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean! i-cycle
  • Score: 3

3:54pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken! Guy66
  • Score: -6

4:06pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Andy_R says...

i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
Considering I didn't mention cyclists running a red, cycling on pavements or indeed anything at all about cycling, I have no idea why you are mentioning my comment in your irrelevant rant about cycles.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]Considering I didn't mention cyclists running a red, cycling on pavements or indeed anything at all about cycling, I have no idea why you are mentioning my comment in your irrelevant rant about cycles. Andy_R
  • Score: 7

4:57pm Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Guy66 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
You are of course correct. All road users should obey the law or be fined.
Where I think we'll have to agree to disagree is your suggestion that motorists are proportionately less likely to break the law. Its obviously not true. This article provides clear evidence of widespread and flagrant flouting of the law by motorists. Other reports have revealed that thousands regularly break speed limits. 43% admit to parking on pavements. I almost always see drivers using bus and cycle lanes or parking in them. Then there's the regular sight of drivers on mobiles. Fortunately the incidence of drink drive appears to have reduced.

Perhaps time for all to agree that Worcester would be a better and safer place if all Highway users complied with the law and showed more respect for other road users including more vulnerable ones such as pedestrians and cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken![/p][/quote]You are of course correct. All road users should obey the law or be fined. Where I think we'll have to agree to disagree is your suggestion that motorists are proportionately less likely to break the law. Its obviously not true. This article provides clear evidence of widespread and flagrant flouting of the law by motorists. Other reports have revealed that thousands regularly break speed limits. 43% admit to parking on pavements. I almost always see drivers using bus and cycle lanes or parking in them. Then there's the regular sight of drivers on mobiles. Fortunately the incidence of drink drive appears to have reduced. Perhaps time for all to agree that Worcester would be a better and safer place if all Highway users complied with the law and showed more respect for other road users including more vulnerable ones such as pedestrians and cyclists. i-cycle
  • Score: 14

5:16pm Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Andy_R wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
Considering I didn't mention cyclists running a red, cycling on pavements or indeed anything at all about cycling, I have no idea why you are mentioning my comment in your irrelevant rant about cycles.
Correct.

I was merely pointing out that, as the article mentions, the illegal activity of those drivers who flagrantly ignore one way systems put other road users lives at risk.

All too often the anti-cyclist lobby use the argument that we shouldn't be on the road anyway because we don't pay for the upkeep of the roads.

As seen from previous comments in the WM they also see enforcement activity primarily as a way of extracting more cash from motorists and thus by implication they are effectively stating they should be allowed to break the law, because I assume they either think they are better drivers and know best or because they have more rights to do so because they pay more to use the roads.

Your statement about the the 'government' using traffic congestion as a way of making a profit from motorists reflects the views of too many road users. The authorities are only taking enforcement action to protect road users. Obey the law and you won't get fined.

Given the potential seriousness of this report I'm surprised that you aren't thanking the police rather than implying that they've taken these actions to make money.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]Considering I didn't mention cyclists running a red, cycling on pavements or indeed anything at all about cycling, I have no idea why you are mentioning my comment in your irrelevant rant about cycles.[/p][/quote]Correct. I was merely pointing out that, as the article mentions, the illegal activity of those drivers who flagrantly ignore one way systems put other road users lives at risk. All too often the anti-cyclist lobby use the argument that we shouldn't be on the road anyway because we don't pay for the upkeep of the roads. As seen from previous comments in the WM they also see enforcement activity primarily as a way of extracting more cash from motorists and thus by implication they are effectively stating they should be allowed to break the law, because I assume they either think they are better drivers and know best or because they have more rights to do so because they pay more to use the roads. Your statement about the the 'government' using traffic congestion as a way of making a profit from motorists reflects the views of too many road users. The authorities are only taking enforcement action to protect road users. Obey the law and you won't get fined. Given the potential seriousness of this report I'm surprised that you aren't thanking the police rather than implying that they've taken these actions to make money. i-cycle
  • Score: 12

7:04pm Sun 6 Apr 14

The Villan says...

It's quite simple really...... All road users obey the law and no problems, break the law, then get what you deserve.
It's quite simple really...... All road users obey the law and no problems, break the law, then get what you deserve. The Villan
  • Score: 23

7:56pm Sun 6 Apr 14

b1ackb1rd says...

Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ? b1ackb1rd
  • Score: 7

9:22pm Sun 6 Apr 14

canuck7 says...

b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
Interesting and thought provoking post, b1ackb1rd. yes it get boring with cycle haters jumping on the bandwagon.. my thoughts on you're points. 1/. yes, SOME police routinely break the law just like us, cuz they can!. 2/.there is going to be local residents there who have no regard for others safety. 3/. the old chesnut of "lack of resources due to cutbacks".- can be translated as- we'll enforce the law when WE feel like it- or the public complain enough!.
Bit operation "sparticus" in the city over xmas which was supposed to be ongoing but any fri+sat night finds addicts begging outside most cashpoints in town. yes know i've gone off topic. terrible.
[quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]Interesting and thought provoking post, b1ackb1rd. yes it get boring with cycle haters jumping on the bandwagon.. my thoughts on you're points. 1/. yes, SOME police routinely break the law just like us, cuz they can!. 2/.there is going to be local residents there who have no regard for others safety. 3/. the old chesnut of "lack of resources due to cutbacks".- can be translated as- we'll enforce the law when WE feel like it- or the public complain enough!. Bit operation "sparticus" in the city over xmas which was supposed to be ongoing but any fri+sat night finds addicts begging outside most cashpoints in town. yes know i've gone off topic. terrible. canuck7
  • Score: 9

9:32pm Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

The Villan wrote:
It's quite simple really...... All road users obey the law and no problems, break the law, then get what you deserve.
100% agree.

Clear and simple. No excuses.

Cyclists, pedestrians, motorists should obey the law and be considerate to other road users.

I hope we can all agree on that.
[quote][p][bold]The Villan [/bold] wrote: It's quite simple really...... All road users obey the law and no problems, break the law, then get what you deserve.[/p][/quote]100% agree. Clear and simple. No excuses. Cyclists, pedestrians, motorists should obey the law and be considerate to other road users. I hope we can all agree on that. i-cycle
  • Score: 13

10:13pm Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
On the first point you raise.

I think you'll find the Police have a standard response.

When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013.

"Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services.

When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response

"As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles"

I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.
[quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]On the first point you raise. I think you'll find the Police have a standard response. When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013. "Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services. When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response "As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles" I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority. i-cycle
  • Score: 6

9:28am Mon 7 Apr 14

Marant says...

I wonder if anyone got caught twice?
I wonder if anyone got caught twice? Marant
  • Score: 7

9:32am Mon 7 Apr 14

Mr A Mazing says...

b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
Get real. There is a massive difference between the police responding to EDL/ badger cull protests and enforcing traffic matters.
As for manning the junction from day 1, with their dwindling numbers I am amazed that they could scrape a couple together to put the effort into this that they did. Wait until you have your car stolen or broken into-they don't come out to that any more.
[quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]Get real. There is a massive difference between the police responding to EDL/ badger cull protests and enforcing traffic matters. As for manning the junction from day 1, with their dwindling numbers I am amazed that they could scrape a couple together to put the effort into this that they did. Wait until you have your car stolen or broken into-they don't come out to that any more. Mr A Mazing
  • Score: 3

10:21am Mon 7 Apr 14

Hwicce says...

The biggest problem with failure to comply with the law is failure to enforce.

I've seen cars go the wrong way along this street long before these road works. Why do they do it? Simple - they get away with it.

The same issue crops up all over Worcester with all forms of criminality (because that's what breaking the law is), parking on pavements, cycling on pavements, dropping litter, mobile phone while driving, begging, drunk in the street etc etc,.

Until we have proper enforcement then all these crimes will go on. We no longer have a Police "Force" fit for purpose and we need to be looking at how it can be replaced/augmented with a body that can actually enforce the law.
The biggest problem with failure to comply with the law is failure to enforce. I've seen cars go the wrong way along this street long before these road works. Why do they do it? Simple - they get away with it. The same issue crops up all over Worcester with all forms of criminality (because that's what breaking the law is), parking on pavements, cycling on pavements, dropping litter, mobile phone while driving, begging, drunk in the street etc etc,. Until we have proper enforcement then all these crimes will go on. We no longer have a Police "Force" fit for purpose and we need to be looking at how it can be replaced/augmented with a body that can actually enforce the law. Hwicce
  • Score: 6

10:33am Mon 7 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
The biggest problem with failure to comply with the law is failure to enforce.

I've seen cars go the wrong way along this street long before these road works. Why do they do it? Simple - they get away with it.

The same issue crops up all over Worcester with all forms of criminality (because that's what breaking the law is), parking on pavements, cycling on pavements, dropping litter, mobile phone while driving, begging, drunk in the street etc etc,.

Until we have proper enforcement then all these crimes will go on. We no longer have a Police "Force" fit for purpose and we need to be looking at how it can be replaced/augmented with a body that can actually enforce the law.
Well put Hwicce.

Compliance with the law is however not only a police matter. We all need to ensure we set an example by ensuring we don't break the law. Also by not condoning others that do.

In this respect comments from some that portray police and local authority actions as simply a tax raising ruse undermine authority and only serve to increasingly put other highway users lives at risk.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: The biggest problem with failure to comply with the law is failure to enforce. I've seen cars go the wrong way along this street long before these road works. Why do they do it? Simple - they get away with it. The same issue crops up all over Worcester with all forms of criminality (because that's what breaking the law is), parking on pavements, cycling on pavements, dropping litter, mobile phone while driving, begging, drunk in the street etc etc,. Until we have proper enforcement then all these crimes will go on. We no longer have a Police "Force" fit for purpose and we need to be looking at how it can be replaced/augmented with a body that can actually enforce the law.[/p][/quote]Well put Hwicce. Compliance with the law is however not only a police matter. We all need to ensure we set an example by ensuring we don't break the law. Also by not condoning others that do. In this respect comments from some that portray police and local authority actions as simply a tax raising ruse undermine authority and only serve to increasingly put other highway users lives at risk. i-cycle
  • Score: 4

11:13am Mon 7 Apr 14

liketoknow says...

how did cycles get into this debate?
how did cycles get into this debate? liketoknow
  • Score: 5

11:23am Mon 7 Apr 14

CJH says...

liketoknow wrote:
how did cycles get into this debate?
They always do...
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: how did cycles get into this debate?[/p][/quote]They always do... CJH
  • Score: 12

12:09pm Mon 7 Apr 14

whyme says...

While we're at it, how about the w****rs who cut in off the Powick roundabout heading up to the Ketch. There can be as many as 4 cars side by side there on some nights due to a*******s who can't queue up properly like the rest of us. It's just a matter of time before someone comes out from Lower Wick to go straight across to Malvern and gets hit by a t**t cutting in.
While we're at it, how about the w****rs who cut in off the Powick roundabout heading up to the Ketch. There can be as many as 4 cars side by side there on some nights due to a*******s who can't queue up properly like the rest of us. It's just a matter of time before someone comes out from Lower Wick to go straight across to Malvern and gets hit by a t**t cutting in. whyme
  • Score: 19

12:09pm Mon 7 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

liketoknow wrote:
how did cycles get into this debate?
Because the Police have made it very clear in the article that they, at least, are very concerned about a cyclist being killed or seriously injured as a result of some motorists inconsiderate and illegal actions.

"The one-way section of Britannia Square also includes a cycle lane."

"We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.”

"West Mercia Police now want to see bollards put in to protect the cycle lane and for the markings on the road to be repainted after raising concerns with Worcestershire County Council and the Safer Roads Partnership."

As Canuck7 has stated he personally was nearly hit:

"I was cycling though this one way on the cycle IN the cycle lane last year and saw a car heading towards me at speed the wrong way.the missed me by an inch, with the drivers face showing a snarling expression"

From your comment do I assume you personally don't see this as a concern?
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: how did cycles get into this debate?[/p][/quote]Because the Police have made it very clear in the article that they, at least, are very concerned about a cyclist being killed or seriously injured as a result of some motorists inconsiderate and illegal actions. "The one-way section of Britannia Square also includes a cycle lane." "We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.” "West Mercia Police now want to see bollards put in to protect the cycle lane and for the markings on the road to be repainted after raising concerns with Worcestershire County Council and the Safer Roads Partnership." As Canuck7 has stated he personally was nearly hit: "I was cycling though this one way on the cycle IN the cycle lane last year and saw a car heading towards me at speed the wrong way.the missed me by an inch, with the drivers face showing a snarling expression" From your comment do I assume you personally don't see this as a concern? i-cycle
  • Score: 3

1:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Hwicce says...

As an interesting twist on the story of this one-way bit in Britannia Square.

A while back I was driving (the right way) along the one way bit of this road and there was a cyclist coming the other way. He ignored the specially put in cycle lane and proceeded to come straight at me on the wrong side of the bollard and between the two no entry signs.

Some people just can't be helped. Unfortunately (as previously stated) there was no Police in sight so the cyclist got away with flouting the law and endangering his life.
As an interesting twist on the story of this one-way bit in Britannia Square. A while back I was driving (the right way) along the one way bit of this road and there was a cyclist coming the other way. He ignored the specially put in cycle lane and proceeded to come straight at me on the wrong side of the bollard and between the two no entry signs. Some people just can't be helped. Unfortunately (as previously stated) there was no Police in sight so the cyclist got away with flouting the law and endangering his life. Hwicce
  • Score: 5

2:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

thesquirrel says...

Thank you to those drivers who broke the law by cutting through. You made my wait to get through these roadworks just that little bit less painful.
Thank you to those drivers who broke the law by cutting through. You made my wait to get through these roadworks just that little bit less painful. thesquirrel
  • Score: -1

3:56pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Bushi says...

i-cycle wrote:
b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
On the first point you raise.

I think you'll find the Police have a standard response.

When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013.

"Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services.

When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response

"As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles"

I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.
I know this is a little off the subject, but the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road really frustrates me. It's only a part time bus lane (rush hour Mon-Fri) as the signs say at the beginning of it, but a lot of people don't see the signs so treat it as a bus lane when it's not in use then get frustrated when someone blows there horn when they're cut up, then people don't respect it as a bus lane during rush hour because they've seen lots of people driving down it when it wasn't rush hour.

Sorry I know this isn't connected, but just needed to get it off my chest
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]On the first point you raise. I think you'll find the Police have a standard response. When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013. "Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services. When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response "As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles" I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.[/p][/quote]I know this is a little off the subject, but the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road really frustrates me. It's only a part time bus lane (rush hour Mon-Fri) as the signs say at the beginning of it, but a lot of people don't see the signs so treat it as a bus lane when it's not in use then get frustrated when someone blows there horn when they're cut up, then people don't respect it as a bus lane during rush hour because they've seen lots of people driving down it when it wasn't rush hour. Sorry I know this isn't connected, but just needed to get it off my chest Bushi
  • Score: 9

4:36pm Mon 7 Apr 14

liketoknow says...

i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
how did cycles get into this debate?
Because the Police have made it very clear in the article that they, at least, are very concerned about a cyclist being killed or seriously injured as a result of some motorists inconsiderate and illegal actions.

"The one-way section of Britannia Square also includes a cycle lane."

"We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.”

"West Mercia Police now want to see bollards put in to protect the cycle lane and for the markings on the road to be repainted after raising concerns with Worcestershire County Council and the Safer Roads Partnership."

As Canuck7 has stated he personally was nearly hit:

"I was cycling though this one way on the cycle IN the cycle lane last year and saw a car heading towards me at speed the wrong way.the missed me by an inch, with the drivers face showing a snarling expression"

From your comment do I assume you personally don't see this as a concern?
oh yes I do .personally I would like to see a dedicated unit to deal with this sort of offence . I can think of others too . driving down bus lanes, overtaking wrong side of bollards, tailgating, racing, blocking box junctions. etc.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: how did cycles get into this debate?[/p][/quote]Because the Police have made it very clear in the article that they, at least, are very concerned about a cyclist being killed or seriously injured as a result of some motorists inconsiderate and illegal actions. "The one-way section of Britannia Square also includes a cycle lane." "We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.” "West Mercia Police now want to see bollards put in to protect the cycle lane and for the markings on the road to be repainted after raising concerns with Worcestershire County Council and the Safer Roads Partnership." As Canuck7 has stated he personally was nearly hit: "I was cycling though this one way on the cycle IN the cycle lane last year and saw a car heading towards me at speed the wrong way.the missed me by an inch, with the drivers face showing a snarling expression" From your comment do I assume you personally don't see this as a concern?[/p][/quote]oh yes I do .personally I would like to see a dedicated unit to deal with this sort of offence . I can think of others too . driving down bus lanes, overtaking wrong side of bollards, tailgating, racing, blocking box junctions. etc. liketoknow
  • Score: 2

6:51pm Mon 7 Apr 14

DarrenM says...

i-cycle wrote:
b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
On the first point you raise.

I think you'll find the Police have a standard response.

When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013.

"Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services.

When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response

"As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles"

I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.
My God! Police vehicles are allowed to use a bus lane, do you know they are allowed to carry batons, tasers and C.S spray and in fact do a whole host of things the members of the public generally aren't.
Won't someone think of the children? Is there no end to this madness?

As for "the letter and the spirit of the law", well its not some obscure loophole the law was clearly drafted to allow them to do this, so they're complying with both.

A lack of understanding of legislation seems to be common amongst cyclists.......
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]On the first point you raise. I think you'll find the Police have a standard response. When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013. "Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services. When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response "As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles" I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.[/p][/quote]My God! Police vehicles are allowed to use a bus lane, do you know they are allowed to carry batons, tasers and C.S spray and in fact do a whole host of things the members of the public generally aren't. Won't someone think of the children? Is there no end to this madness? As for "the letter and the spirit of the law", well its not some obscure loophole the law was clearly drafted to allow them to do this, so they're complying with both. A lack of understanding of legislation seems to be common amongst cyclists....... DarrenM
  • Score: 6

8:15pm Mon 7 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

DarrenM wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
On the first point you raise.

I think you'll find the Police have a standard response.

When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013.

"Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services.

When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response

"As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles"

I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.
My God! Police vehicles are allowed to use a bus lane, do you know they are allowed to carry batons, tasers and C.S spray and in fact do a whole host of things the members of the public generally aren't.
Won't someone think of the children? Is there no end to this madness?

As for "the letter and the spirit of the law", well its not some obscure loophole the law was clearly drafted to allow them to do this, so they're complying with both.

A lack of understanding of legislation seems to be common amongst cyclists.......
Darren,of course the emergency services should be allowed to use bus lanes ' in an emergency', not whenever they feel like it. However from another post on this thread it appears some may be abusing their rights, as evidenced from this recent example in a neighbouring force:

"Around 300 of the 408 cops caught using bus lanes in Birmingham have been handed fines of £60 and have had to pay them out of their own pockets. The rest were deemed to be on 999 calls. West Midland Asst. Chief Constable Garry Forsyth said "officers not exempt must abide by the same rules as citizens".

No one is saying the police shouldn't be able to disregard traffic regulations in an emergency, but from the above its clear that some in an adjacent force are taking liberties. From the responses I've had from an officer representing West Mercia I and I'm sure others will have concerns.

I only hope that Bill Longmore and West Mercia are setting a good example.

I'm sure you'll want to make it clear to WN readers that, despite you're obvious prejudice against all cyclists, you'd like to confirm that you always comply with the law and don't cause risk to less vulnerable road users as well as other motorists.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]On the first point you raise. I think you'll find the Police have a standard response. When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013. "Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services. When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response "As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles" I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.[/p][/quote]My God! Police vehicles are allowed to use a bus lane, do you know they are allowed to carry batons, tasers and C.S spray and in fact do a whole host of things the members of the public generally aren't. Won't someone think of the children? Is there no end to this madness? As for "the letter and the spirit of the law", well its not some obscure loophole the law was clearly drafted to allow them to do this, so they're complying with both. A lack of understanding of legislation seems to be common amongst cyclists.......[/p][/quote]Darren,of course the emergency services should be allowed to use bus lanes ' in an emergency', not whenever they feel like it. However from another post on this thread it appears some may be abusing their rights, as evidenced from this recent example in a neighbouring force: "Around 300 of the 408 cops caught using bus lanes in Birmingham have been handed fines of £60 and have had to pay them out of their own pockets. The rest were deemed to be on 999 calls. West Midland Asst. Chief Constable Garry Forsyth said "officers not exempt must abide by the same rules as citizens". No one is saying the police shouldn't be able to disregard traffic regulations in an emergency, but from the above its clear that some in an adjacent force are taking liberties. From the responses I've had from an officer representing West Mercia I and I'm sure others will have concerns. I only hope that Bill Longmore and West Mercia are setting a good example. I'm sure you'll want to make it clear to WN readers that, despite you're obvious prejudice against all cyclists, you'd like to confirm that you always comply with the law and don't cause risk to less vulnerable road users as well as other motorists. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

8:18pm Mon 7 Apr 14

19joshua87 says...

As a pedestrian I have to say that over the past year motorists in Worcester have certainly gotten worse, with many failing to recognise simple tenets of the highway code. These include failure to let pedestrians cross at a zebra crossing, failing to indicate when pulling into a junction and stopping at pelican crossings when the light is red.
As a pedestrian I have to say that over the past year motorists in Worcester have certainly gotten worse, with many failing to recognise simple tenets of the highway code. These include failure to let pedestrians cross at a zebra crossing, failing to indicate when pulling into a junction and stopping at pelican crossings when the light is red. 19joshua87
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Mon 7 Apr 14

DarrenM says...

i-cycle wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
b1ackb1rd wrote:
Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ...

My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject;

1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses.

2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at.

3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed.

This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I
f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?
On the first point you raise.

I think you'll find the Police have a standard response.

When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013.

"Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services.

When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response

"As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles"

I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.
My God! Police vehicles are allowed to use a bus lane, do you know they are allowed to carry batons, tasers and C.S spray and in fact do a whole host of things the members of the public generally aren't.
Won't someone think of the children? Is there no end to this madness?

As for "the letter and the spirit of the law", well its not some obscure loophole the law was clearly drafted to allow them to do this, so they're complying with both.

A lack of understanding of legislation seems to be common amongst cyclists.......
Darren,of course the emergency services should be allowed to use bus lanes ' in an emergency', not whenever they feel like it. However from another post on this thread it appears some may be abusing their rights, as evidenced from this recent example in a neighbouring force:

"Around 300 of the 408 cops caught using bus lanes in Birmingham have been handed fines of £60 and have had to pay them out of their own pockets. The rest were deemed to be on 999 calls. West Midland Asst. Chief Constable Garry Forsyth said "officers not exempt must abide by the same rules as citizens".

No one is saying the police shouldn't be able to disregard traffic regulations in an emergency, but from the above its clear that some in an adjacent force are taking liberties. From the responses I've had from an officer representing West Mercia I and I'm sure others will have concerns.

I only hope that Bill Longmore and West Mercia are setting a good example.

I'm sure you'll want to make it clear to WN readers that, despite you're obvious prejudice against all cyclists, you'd like to confirm that you always comply with the law and don't cause risk to less vulnerable road users as well as other motorists.
If the drafters of the law had intended the exemption to apply in an emergency they would have stated that.
They didn't they stated "for police purposes", because you don't happen to agree with that is irrelevant, they aren't breaking the law in letter or in spirit, nor can they be setting a bad example, because they are complying with the law.
The fact that another force decides to only allow that use in an emergency doesn't change the fact.

I have no prejudice against cyclists, and nor do I intend to confirm that I always comply with the law, to someone who has no idea what it is or how to interpret it.
Perhaps there is an internet cycling forum you could impress with your "barrack room" lawyering?
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b1ackb1rd[/bold] wrote: Bored with the cycling bent that these comments have generated ... My tenpenneth to bring it back on subject; 1) I have seen police vehicles coming through this one way street, both pandas and vans, no blue lights so no excuses. 2) I have witnessed some of the self same residents driving the wrong way, and have been abused and driven at. 3) Before 8am it remained the Wild West as police only arrived after clocking on, and when their shifts allowed. This junction was unmanned for some time, why didn't police man the junction from Day One of the roadworks? Don't the police have planning departments? - or are they just for EDL protests, and Badger Culls? I f police were serious about this there could have been many many more offenders caught, enough to fund a permanent CCTV camera on the junction perhaps ?[/p][/quote]On the first point you raise. I think you'll find the Police have a standard response. When questioning why police cars were using the bus lane at the bottom of Newtown Road at prohibited times I received this response on 29 May 2013. "Without going into a lengthy debate on the subject, I would make the point that most traffic orders and restrictions contain an exemption for vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes, as is the case with the bus lanes in and around Worcester City and Newtown Road bus lane in particular. This exemption includes vehicles whether marked or unmarked and is included as a standard clause to facilitate the operational needs of the emergency services. When asked what operational needs were being facilitated on the specific occasion raised I got the response "As I indicated in my reply the exemption clause states " vehicles being used for Police Fire or Ambulance purposes" it does not stipulate an emergency. As to the vehicle being referred to I am not prepared to comment on operational matters or individual instances involving Police vehicles" I'm pleased West Mercia are taking enforcement action in this case and appreciate a no entry is different from a bus lane, but if you are correct I'm sure we're all exceptionally concerned if the police themselves are not complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law as this certainly sets a bad example and undermines their authority.[/p][/quote]My God! Police vehicles are allowed to use a bus lane, do you know they are allowed to carry batons, tasers and C.S spray and in fact do a whole host of things the members of the public generally aren't. Won't someone think of the children? Is there no end to this madness? As for "the letter and the spirit of the law", well its not some obscure loophole the law was clearly drafted to allow them to do this, so they're complying with both. A lack of understanding of legislation seems to be common amongst cyclists.......[/p][/quote]Darren,of course the emergency services should be allowed to use bus lanes ' in an emergency', not whenever they feel like it. However from another post on this thread it appears some may be abusing their rights, as evidenced from this recent example in a neighbouring force: "Around 300 of the 408 cops caught using bus lanes in Birmingham have been handed fines of £60 and have had to pay them out of their own pockets. The rest were deemed to be on 999 calls. West Midland Asst. Chief Constable Garry Forsyth said "officers not exempt must abide by the same rules as citizens". No one is saying the police shouldn't be able to disregard traffic regulations in an emergency, but from the above its clear that some in an adjacent force are taking liberties. From the responses I've had from an officer representing West Mercia I and I'm sure others will have concerns. I only hope that Bill Longmore and West Mercia are setting a good example. I'm sure you'll want to make it clear to WN readers that, despite you're obvious prejudice against all cyclists, you'd like to confirm that you always comply with the law and don't cause risk to less vulnerable road users as well as other motorists.[/p][/quote]If the drafters of the law had intended the exemption to apply in an emergency they would have stated that. They didn't they stated "for police purposes", because you don't happen to agree with that is irrelevant, they aren't breaking the law in letter or in spirit, nor can they be setting a bad example, because they are complying with the law. The fact that another force decides to only allow that use in an emergency doesn't change the fact. I have no prejudice against cyclists, and nor do I intend to confirm that I always comply with the law, to someone who has no idea what it is or how to interpret it. Perhaps there is an internet cycling forum you could impress with your "barrack room" lawyering? DarrenM
  • Score: 11

10:25pm Mon 7 Apr 14

b1ackb1rd says...

Let's follow the Birmingham lead - cover these junctions, bus lanes etc with CCTV .
Offenders can defend themselves, whether in uniform or otherwise.
Let's follow the Birmingham lead - cover these junctions, bus lanes etc with CCTV . Offenders can defend themselves, whether in uniform or otherwise. b1ackb1rd
  • Score: 8

10:10am Tue 8 Apr 14

sean1207@gmail.com says...

Maybe if they'd made all ring roads round Worcester dual lanes like they should have been from the start, a lot of people wouldn't need to go through the Centre due to long delays going North.
Maybe if they'd made all ring roads round Worcester dual lanes like they should have been from the start, a lot of people wouldn't need to go through the Centre due to long delays going North. sean1207@gmail.com
  • Score: 3

11:04am Tue 8 Apr 14

s93ncer says...

19joshua87 wrote:
As a pedestrian I have to say that over the past year motorists in Worcester have certainly gotten worse, with many failing to recognise simple tenets of the highway code. These include failure to let pedestrians cross at a zebra crossing, failing to indicate when pulling into a junction and stopping at pelican crossings when the light is red.
https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-pedestrians-1-t
o-35/crossings-18-to
-30

See point 19 - you don't have to stop unless someone is actually on the crossing
[quote][p][bold]19joshua87[/bold] wrote: As a pedestrian I have to say that over the past year motorists in Worcester have certainly gotten worse, with many failing to recognise simple tenets of the highway code. These include failure to let pedestrians cross at a zebra crossing, failing to indicate when pulling into a junction and stopping at pelican crossings when the light is red.[/p][/quote]https://www.gov.uk/r ules-pedestrians-1-t o-35/crossings-18-to -30 See point 19 - you don't have to stop unless someone is actually on the crossing s93ncer
  • Score: -5

11:25am Tue 8 Apr 14

liketoknow says...

s93ncer wrote:
19joshua87 wrote:
As a pedestrian I have to say that over the past year motorists in Worcester have certainly gotten worse, with many failing to recognise simple tenets of the highway code. These include failure to let pedestrians cross at a zebra crossing, failing to indicate when pulling into a junction and stopping at pelican crossings when the light is red.
https://www.gov.uk/r

ules-pedestrians-1-t

o-35/crossings-18-to

-30

See point 19 - you don't have to stop unless someone is actually on the crossing
it would be a brave pedestrian to step on a crossing in front of some drivers.
[quote][p][bold]s93ncer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]19joshua87[/bold] wrote: As a pedestrian I have to say that over the past year motorists in Worcester have certainly gotten worse, with many failing to recognise simple tenets of the highway code. These include failure to let pedestrians cross at a zebra crossing, failing to indicate when pulling into a junction and stopping at pelican crossings when the light is red.[/p][/quote]https://www.gov.uk/r ules-pedestrians-1-t o-35/crossings-18-to -30 See point 19 - you don't have to stop unless someone is actually on the crossing[/p][/quote]it would be a brave pedestrian to step on a crossing in front of some drivers. liketoknow
  • Score: 4

12:42pm Tue 8 Apr 14

CJH says...

I pulled up at a zebra crossing on St Peters Drive a few days ago. Cyclist on my left in cycle lane. Did he wait? Oh no - went straight out of the cycle lane in front of me and over the zebra crossing just missing the elderly lady crossing. Generally agree that car drivers and cyclists are no better than each other, but what part of stupidity/arrogance told him it was ok to do that?
I pulled up at a zebra crossing on St Peters Drive a few days ago. Cyclist on my left in cycle lane. Did he wait? Oh no - went straight out of the cycle lane in front of me and over the zebra crossing just missing the elderly lady crossing. Generally agree that car drivers and cyclists are no better than each other, but what part of stupidity/arrogance told him it was ok to do that? CJH
  • Score: 7

9:44am Wed 9 Apr 14

MJI says...

The Tything is too narrow for three lanes, car parking and pavements, I had to move slightly left so a bus could go north past the parked cars, but this stopped a bus from going south.

South bound MUST have seen why I moved so why blow the horn?
The Tything is too narrow for three lanes, car parking and pavements, I had to move slightly left so a bus could go north past the parked cars, but this stopped a bus from going south. South bound MUST have seen why I moved so why blow the horn? MJI
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mcdonald45 says...

Guy66 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
I agree with you, some annoying cyclists who ride in the middle of the road, randomly turn off with out signalling, running red lights and even going on the path before the red light and getting off the path when they have passed. Car drivers are stopped for having lights out, but what about when a cyclist has no lights at all!

But on the other hand you do get the cyclists that stick to the rules and do stop at lights.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken![/p][/quote]I agree with you, some annoying cyclists who ride in the middle of the road, randomly turn off with out signalling, running red lights and even going on the path before the red light and getting off the path when they have passed. Car drivers are stopped for having lights out, but what about when a cyclist has no lights at all! But on the other hand you do get the cyclists that stick to the rules and do stop at lights. Mcdonald45
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Wed 9 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Mcdonald45

Whilst agreeing that, just as with motorists who break the law cyclists shouldn't. However cyclists do ride and quite legally in the middle of the road as you put it. Here's some of the reasons and why its entirely proper and reasonable.

DfT approved guidance for cycle training, Bikeability is to cycle in the middle if is too narrow for a car to pass at a safe passing distance which is not proscribed but usually interpreted as an arms length or one metre. Its a prudent safety measure to protect the cyclist from injury and compliant with the Highway Code that says motorists should allow this type of distance (as if passing another car) or not overtake.

Cyclists are also advised to pull out when passing a parked vehicle to allow sufficient space pace in case someone opens a car door without checking properly.

DfT approved training also advises cycling between half and one metre out from the kerb as this is where the most potholes and debris are found. Obviously road conditions that can damage a car, but can seriously injure or kill a cyclist.

Its also legal to cycle two abreast, but single file is recommended whenever its safe and considerate to do so.

Unfortunately all too many motorists think its reasonable and safe to pass cyclists at much closer distances and expect them to constantly cycle in the gutter.
Mcdonald45 Whilst agreeing that, just as with motorists who break the law cyclists shouldn't. However cyclists do ride and quite legally in the middle of the road as you put it. Here's some of the reasons and why its entirely proper and reasonable. DfT approved guidance for cycle training, Bikeability is to cycle in the middle if is too narrow for a car to pass at a safe passing distance which is not proscribed but usually interpreted as an arms length or one metre. Its a prudent safety measure to protect the cyclist from injury and compliant with the Highway Code that says motorists should allow this type of distance (as if passing another car) or not overtake. Cyclists are also advised to pull out when passing a parked vehicle to allow sufficient space pace in case someone opens a car door without checking properly. DfT approved training also advises cycling between half and one metre out from the kerb as this is where the most potholes and debris are found. Obviously road conditions that can damage a car, but can seriously injure or kill a cyclist. Its also legal to cycle two abreast, but single file is recommended whenever its safe and considerate to do so. Unfortunately all too many motorists think its reasonable and safe to pass cyclists at much closer distances and expect them to constantly cycle in the gutter. i-cycle
  • Score: 3

3:39pm Thu 10 Apr 14

bikepacker says...

Guy66 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken![/p][/quote]My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law. bikepacker
  • Score: 4

10:25am Fri 11 Apr 14

MJI says...

i-cycle wrote:
Mcdonald45

Whilst agreeing that, just as with motorists who break the law cyclists shouldn't. However cyclists do ride and quite legally in the middle of the road as you put it. Here's some of the reasons and why its entirely proper and reasonable.

DfT approved guidance for cycle training, Bikeability is to cycle in the middle if is too narrow for a car to pass at a safe passing distance which is not proscribed but usually interpreted as an arms length or one metre. Its a prudent safety measure to protect the cyclist from injury and compliant with the Highway Code that says motorists should allow this type of distance (as if passing another car) or not overtake.

Cyclists are also advised to pull out when passing a parked vehicle to allow sufficient space pace in case someone opens a car door without checking properly.

DfT approved training also advises cycling between half and one metre out from the kerb as this is where the most potholes and debris are found. Obviously road conditions that can damage a car, but can seriously injure or kill a cyclist.

Its also legal to cycle two abreast, but single file is recommended whenever its safe and considerate to do so.

Unfortunately all too many motorists think its reasonable and safe to pass cyclists at much closer distances and expect them to constantly cycle in the gutter.
I have seen some bad ones. But luckily they are rare. Usually chavvy males. The Lycra squad are usually pretty good, and POBs are norammly fine. But when they decide lights are optional at night on a main road, or cycling against oncoming traffic, or in two cases both at the same time, I think they need their bikes taking off them. But then they will probably just steal another.

It is so scary to realise you just passed a bike with no room as you did not see it until you were nearly on top of it. These really bad riders should think of this, it is unfair to put other road users through the distress of hurting/killing them.

As to people driving and riding correctly, you just don't notice them as they are a majority. Well there are some I do notice as good lights can make a cyclist very noticable,and also safe.

Now cyclists asserting their right of way, perfectly fine on junctions and places where there are traffic islands, but country lanes are a different matter, they are two way and we do not overtake unless it is clear, so don't try to force the car to not overtake (riding on white line), just keep to your correct position, people could get hurt. As the cyclist vs bus driver in I think Bristol found out, better to take care than be dead right.

BTW I try to leave roughly a 2m gap while passing, if at speed i will go fully over the white line as well.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Mcdonald45 Whilst agreeing that, just as with motorists who break the law cyclists shouldn't. However cyclists do ride and quite legally in the middle of the road as you put it. Here's some of the reasons and why its entirely proper and reasonable. DfT approved guidance for cycle training, Bikeability is to cycle in the middle if is too narrow for a car to pass at a safe passing distance which is not proscribed but usually interpreted as an arms length or one metre. Its a prudent safety measure to protect the cyclist from injury and compliant with the Highway Code that says motorists should allow this type of distance (as if passing another car) or not overtake. Cyclists are also advised to pull out when passing a parked vehicle to allow sufficient space pace in case someone opens a car door without checking properly. DfT approved training also advises cycling between half and one metre out from the kerb as this is where the most potholes and debris are found. Obviously road conditions that can damage a car, but can seriously injure or kill a cyclist. Its also legal to cycle two abreast, but single file is recommended whenever its safe and considerate to do so. Unfortunately all too many motorists think its reasonable and safe to pass cyclists at much closer distances and expect them to constantly cycle in the gutter.[/p][/quote]I have seen some bad ones. But luckily they are rare. Usually chavvy males. The Lycra squad are usually pretty good, and POBs are norammly fine. But when they decide lights are optional at night on a main road, or cycling against oncoming traffic, or in two cases both at the same time, I think they need their bikes taking off them. But then they will probably just steal another. It is so scary to realise you just passed a bike with no room as you did not see it until you were nearly on top of it. These really bad riders should think of this, it is unfair to put other road users through the distress of hurting/killing them. As to people driving and riding correctly, you just don't notice them as they are a majority. Well there are some I do notice as good lights can make a cyclist very noticable,and also safe. Now cyclists asserting their right of way, perfectly fine on junctions and places where there are traffic islands, but country lanes are a different matter, they are two way and we do not overtake unless it is clear, so don't try to force the car to not overtake (riding on white line), just keep to your correct position, people could get hurt. As the cyclist vs bus driver in I think Bristol found out, better to take care than be dead right. BTW I try to leave roughly a 2m gap while passing, if at speed i will go fully over the white line as well. MJI
  • Score: 2

10:28am Fri 11 Apr 14

MJI says...

bikepacker wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.
They may have been on the phone (not condoning it) but were they driving dangerously?

I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them.
[quote][p][bold]bikepacker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken![/p][/quote]My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.[/p][/quote]They may have been on the phone (not condoning it) but were they driving dangerously? I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them. MJI
  • Score: -2

10:42am Fri 11 Apr 14

chrism says...

Indeed bikepacker - the only reason Guy doesn't see all the motorists breaking the law is that he's not looking for them, that and that a lot of the illegal stuff motorists do is so commonplace it gets ignored.

Though clearly Guy's post is just hyperbole (like most of his posts on here, which are best ignored). I drive through Worcester often enough and can't actually recall the last time I saw a cyclist flouting the HC.

Of course the other issue is that drivers are in charge of a lethal weapon, so should be held to a higher standard than cyclists (I'm not excusing cyclists behaviour, simply pointing out that if you want to make roads safer, controlling what they do is not the right place to start).
Indeed bikepacker - the only reason Guy doesn't see all the motorists breaking the law is that he's not looking for them, that and that a lot of the illegal stuff motorists do is so commonplace it gets ignored. Though clearly Guy's post is just hyperbole (like most of his posts on here, which are best ignored). I drive through Worcester often enough and can't actually recall the last time I saw a cyclist flouting the HC. Of course the other issue is that drivers are in charge of a lethal weapon, so should be held to a higher standard than cyclists (I'm not excusing cyclists behaviour, simply pointing out that if you want to make roads safer, controlling what they do is not the right place to start). chrism
  • Score: 2

10:45am Fri 11 Apr 14

chrism says...

MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?
MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC? chrism
  • Score: 1

10:49am Fri 11 Apr 14

CJH says...

MJI wrote:
bikepacker wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.
They may have been on the phone (not condoning it) but were they driving dangerously?

I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them.
"I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them" And where would you draw the line? It has to be all or nothing. Grey areas are not acceptable. Why answer to say 'go away'. Just don't answer at all. There are answer phones on mobiles. I don't understand why people jump to attention every time their mobiles ring. You control them, not the other way round. And trained monkeys should not be driving...
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bikepacker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken![/p][/quote]My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.[/p][/quote]They may have been on the phone (not condoning it) but were they driving dangerously? I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them.[/p][/quote]"I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them" And where would you draw the line? It has to be all or nothing. Grey areas are not acceptable. Why answer to say 'go away'. Just don't answer at all. There are answer phones on mobiles. I don't understand why people jump to attention every time their mobiles ring. You control them, not the other way round. And trained monkeys should not be driving... CJH
  • Score: 4

2:00pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Hwicce says...

chrism wrote:
Indeed bikepacker - the only reason Guy doesn't see all the motorists breaking the law is that he's not looking for them, that and that a lot of the illegal stuff motorists do is so commonplace it gets ignored.

Though clearly Guy's post is just hyperbole (like most of his posts on here, which are best ignored). I drive through Worcester often enough and can't actually recall the last time I saw a cyclist flouting the HC.

Of course the other issue is that drivers are in charge of a lethal weapon, so should be held to a higher standard than cyclists (I'm not excusing cyclists behaviour, simply pointing out that if you want to make roads safer, controlling what they do is not the right place to start).
If you don't see all the cyclists zipping up and down the pavements in Worcester you must have your eyes closed.
[quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: Indeed bikepacker - the only reason Guy doesn't see all the motorists breaking the law is that he's not looking for them, that and that a lot of the illegal stuff motorists do is so commonplace it gets ignored. Though clearly Guy's post is just hyperbole (like most of his posts on here, which are best ignored). I drive through Worcester often enough and can't actually recall the last time I saw a cyclist flouting the HC. Of course the other issue is that drivers are in charge of a lethal weapon, so should be held to a higher standard than cyclists (I'm not excusing cyclists behaviour, simply pointing out that if you want to make roads safer, controlling what they do is not the right place to start).[/p][/quote]If you don't see all the cyclists zipping up and down the pavements in Worcester you must have your eyes closed. Hwicce
  • Score: -1

2:06pm Fri 11 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

chrism wrote:
MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?
I cycled through the bus/cycle lane on Lowesmoor yesterday at about 4.45.pm.

It was blocked solid with cars. All illegal.

It s not a regular route for mer, but I suspect this happens everyday.

Equally there were a couple of workmen cycling on the pavement. Again illegal and not to be condoned, but possibly understandable when they couldn't use a dedicated cycleway because of it being blocked by inconsiderate motorists.

As I've said before, all road users should abide by the law and be considerate to other road users.
[quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?[/p][/quote]I cycled through the bus/cycle lane on Lowesmoor yesterday at about 4.45.pm. It was blocked solid with cars. All illegal. It s not a regular route for mer, but I suspect this happens everyday. Equally there were a couple of workmen cycling on the pavement. Again illegal and not to be condoned, but possibly understandable when they couldn't use a dedicated cycleway because of it being blocked by inconsiderate motorists. As I've said before, all road users should abide by the law and be considerate to other road users. i-cycle
  • Score: 4

3:37pm Fri 11 Apr 14

MJI says...

chrism wrote:
MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?
The point in laws is to protect other people & property so yes it is OK to break laws if no one else is in danger or being hurt. I do include things like unroadworthy vehicles and no car insurance as endangering other people,

Depends, riding on pavements doesn't bother me if done carefully.

Riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings though - dangerous
[quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?[/p][/quote]The point in laws is to protect other people & property so yes it is OK to break laws if no one else is in danger or being hurt. I do include things like unroadworthy vehicles and no car insurance as endangering other people, Depends, riding on pavements doesn't bother me if done carefully. Riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings though - dangerous MJI
  • Score: 1

3:42pm Fri 11 Apr 14

MJI says...

CJH wrote:
MJI wrote:
bikepacker wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'.

Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean!
No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots.

It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken!
My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.
They may have been on the phone (not condoning it) but were they driving dangerously?

I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them.
"I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them" And where would you draw the line? It has to be all or nothing. Grey areas are not acceptable. Why answer to say 'go away'. Just don't answer at all. There are answer phones on mobiles. I don't understand why people jump to attention every time their mobiles ring. You control them, not the other way round. And trained monkeys should not be driving...
Grey areas are perfectly acceptable, common law used properly is pretty effective, compared to Napolian laws.
.
Why do grey areaas matter to you? It is not a binary world. The original careless driving laws were fine for phone usage, get caught driving like an idiot - points, phone while queueing at a junction - no problem.
.
All the people casuing issues before with their phone driving are the ones careless driving would have caught.
.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bikepacker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Some cyclists may occasionally 'run a red', others may cycle on pavements they're not supposed to. The frequency of this is insignificant when compared to the almost daily flouting of the law by some motorists. The consequences are far worse for pedestrians, cyclists and, despite our air bag 'bubble', us car drivers when motorists wilfully and repeatedly break the law in the flawed belief that its only them that pay 'road tax'. Have a look at what Andy R suggests above and you'll see what I mean![/p][/quote]No mention of road tax entitlement in the article. No cocooned driver reports. This is a very good bit of news for law abiding drivers. Just like cyclists there are good drivers, bad drivers, sensible drivers and headless idiots. It is impossible to go for any journey in Worcester city without seeing a cyclist completely flout the highway code. On the other hand I can make several journeys before spotting the one 'black sheep' driver in a pack of hundreds. This alone should tell us all that it is about time cyclists were stopped and fined, on the spot (just like our continental cousins do), for failure to observe the rules of the road. Instant ££££ fines or the bike taken![/p][/quote]My experience is quite the opposite. Stood on Carrington Bridge for 20 minutes on Monday I observed 37 drivers on mobile phones. In the same time I did not see a single cyclists breaking the law.[/p][/quote]They may have been on the phone (not condoning it) but were they driving dangerously? I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them.[/p][/quote]"I have no issues with people on the phone if stop start traffic, or just to answer to say go away. But long conversations - book them" And where would you draw the line? It has to be all or nothing. Grey areas are not acceptable. Why answer to say 'go away'. Just don't answer at all. There are answer phones on mobiles. I don't understand why people jump to attention every time their mobiles ring. You control them, not the other way round. And trained monkeys should not be driving...[/p][/quote]Grey areas are perfectly acceptable, common law used properly is pretty effective, compared to Napolian laws. . Why do grey areaas matter to you? It is not a binary world. The original careless driving laws were fine for phone usage, get caught driving like an idiot - points, phone while queueing at a junction - no problem. . All the people casuing issues before with their phone driving are the ones careless driving would have caught. . MJI
  • Score: -3

3:44pm Fri 11 Apr 14

MJI says...

i-cycle wrote:
chrism wrote:
MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?
I cycled through the bus/cycle lane on Lowesmoor yesterday at about 4.45.pm.

It was blocked solid with cars. All illegal.

It s not a regular route for mer, but I suspect this happens everyday.

Equally there were a couple of workmen cycling on the pavement. Again illegal and not to be condoned, but possibly understandable when they couldn't use a dedicated cycleway because of it being blocked by inconsiderate motorists.

As I've said before, all road users should abide by the law and be considerate to other road users.
Actually the Lowesmoor bus lane is just stupid, causes more traffic jams.

As to pavement cyclists in this circumstance, as long as they are not worrying walkers why worry?
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?[/p][/quote]I cycled through the bus/cycle lane on Lowesmoor yesterday at about 4.45.pm. It was blocked solid with cars. All illegal. It s not a regular route for mer, but I suspect this happens everyday. Equally there were a couple of workmen cycling on the pavement. Again illegal and not to be condoned, but possibly understandable when they couldn't use a dedicated cycleway because of it being blocked by inconsiderate motorists. As I've said before, all road users should abide by the law and be considerate to other road users.[/p][/quote]Actually the Lowesmoor bus lane is just stupid, causes more traffic jams. As to pavement cyclists in this circumstance, as long as they are not worrying walkers why worry? MJI
  • Score: 2

4:05pm Fri 11 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

MJI wrote:
chrism wrote:
MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?
The point in laws is to protect other people & property so yes it is OK to break laws if no one else is in danger or being hurt. I do include things like unroadworthy vehicles and no car insurance as endangering other people,

Depends, riding on pavements doesn't bother me if done carefully.

Riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings though - dangerous
Interestingly several countries permit left turns (where people drive on the left and right turns on the right) for cars and cycles at red traffic lights if its safe to filter. I'm not sure whether or not, if made legal, this would help traffic flow and particularly at congested times.

Shared space by pedestrians, cyclists and cars is also a fairly regular occurrence in many continental cities, but usually only where speeds are at 20mph. Its actually supposed to improve traffic flow. I doubt the great british public could cope with this though, despite type of situation on supermarket and out of town shopping centre car parks.
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?[/p][/quote]The point in laws is to protect other people & property so yes it is OK to break laws if no one else is in danger or being hurt. I do include things like unroadworthy vehicles and no car insurance as endangering other people, Depends, riding on pavements doesn't bother me if done carefully. Riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings though - dangerous[/p][/quote]Interestingly several countries permit left turns (where people drive on the left and right turns on the right) for cars and cycles at red traffic lights if its safe to filter. I'm not sure whether or not, if made legal, this would help traffic flow and particularly at congested times. Shared space by pedestrians, cyclists and cars is also a fairly regular occurrence in many continental cities, but usually only where speeds are at 20mph. Its actually supposed to improve traffic flow. I doubt the great british public could cope with this though, despite type of situation on supermarket and out of town shopping centre car parks. i-cycle
  • Score: 3

9:38pm Fri 11 Apr 14

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

Whilst the police are in mood, can they just make their way to Bilford Road at "School Out Time" and book all the parents who park on the pavement (I know the offence is actually driving on the pavement - but if the police lie in wait with a camera?) I drove down Bilford this afternoon and lost count of the number of cars parked on the pavement.
Whilst the police are in mood, can they just make their way to Bilford Road at "School Out Time" and book all the parents who park on the pavement (I know the offence is actually driving on the pavement - but if the police lie in wait with a camera?) I drove down Bilford this afternoon and lost count of the number of cars parked on the pavement. imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 7

12:43am Sat 12 Apr 14

chrism says...

i-cycle wrote:
MJI wrote:
chrism wrote:
MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?
The point in laws is to protect other people & property so yes it is OK to break laws if no one else is in danger or being hurt. I do include things like unroadworthy vehicles and no car insurance as endangering other people,

Depends, riding on pavements doesn't bother me if done carefully.

Riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings though - dangerous
Interestingly several countries permit left turns (where people drive on the left and right turns on the right) for cars and cycles at red traffic lights if its safe to filter. I'm not sure whether or not, if made legal, this would help traffic flow and particularly at congested times.

Shared space by pedestrians, cyclists and cars is also a fairly regular occurrence in many continental cities, but usually only where speeds are at 20mph. Its actually supposed to improve traffic flow. I doubt the great british public could cope with this though, despite type of situation on supermarket and out of town shopping centre car parks.
Shared space has been tried in London, and the shared spaces there demonstrate the problem - rather than being a real shared space, the car takes over by bullying the pedestrians who don't want to be hit by a big lump of metal. I believe the idea originated in Holland and it has now been totally discredited there - they have got rid of most of theirs in favour of removing cars from areas used by pedestrians and cyclists (it seems pedestrians and cyclist can co-exist safely in some environments).
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: MJI - so it's OK to break the law so long as you are not endangering other people? In which case you presumably don't actually have a problem with cyclists breaking the HC?[/p][/quote]The point in laws is to protect other people & property so yes it is OK to break laws if no one else is in danger or being hurt. I do include things like unroadworthy vehicles and no car insurance as endangering other people, Depends, riding on pavements doesn't bother me if done carefully. Riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings though - dangerous[/p][/quote]Interestingly several countries permit left turns (where people drive on the left and right turns on the right) for cars and cycles at red traffic lights if its safe to filter. I'm not sure whether or not, if made legal, this would help traffic flow and particularly at congested times. Shared space by pedestrians, cyclists and cars is also a fairly regular occurrence in many continental cities, but usually only where speeds are at 20mph. Its actually supposed to improve traffic flow. I doubt the great british public could cope with this though, despite type of situation on supermarket and out of town shopping centre car parks.[/p][/quote]Shared space has been tried in London, and the shared spaces there demonstrate the problem - rather than being a real shared space, the car takes over by bullying the pedestrians who don't want to be hit by a big lump of metal. I believe the idea originated in Holland and it has now been totally discredited there - they have got rid of most of theirs in favour of removing cars from areas used by pedestrians and cyclists (it seems pedestrians and cyclist can co-exist safely in some environments). chrism
  • Score: 1

6:41pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Bufton Tufton says...

PC Denny said: “There is a severe risk of head-on collisions. We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.”
HEAR THAT JAMES, HEAR THAT JAMES !
James Connell sometime "health corespondent" who in his now infamous article in the Worcester News "Cyclists are a Nuisance on the Road" advocated using his car as a weapon against a transgressing cyclist.
http://www.worcester
news.co.uk/features/
fairpoint/10800707.C
yclists_are_a_nuisan
ce_on_the_road/
PC Denny said: “There is a severe risk of head-on collisions. We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.” HEAR THAT JAMES, HEAR THAT JAMES ! James Connell sometime "health corespondent" who in his now infamous article in the Worcester News "Cyclists are a Nuisance on the Road" advocated using his car as a weapon against a transgressing cyclist. http://www.worcester news.co.uk/features/ fairpoint/10800707.C yclists_are_a_nuisan ce_on_the_road/ Bufton Tufton
  • Score: 6

9:07pm Sat 12 Apr 14

canuck7 says...

Bufton Tufton wrote:
PC Denny said: “There is a severe risk of head-on collisions. We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.”
HEAR THAT JAMES, HEAR THAT JAMES !
James Connell sometime "health corespondent" who in his now infamous article in the Worcester News "Cyclists are a Nuisance on the Road" advocated using his car as a weapon against a transgressing cyclist.
http://www.worcester

news.co.uk/features/

fairpoint/10800707.C

yclists_are_a_nuisan

ce_on_the_road/
Yes. i believe most sane folks realize james o'connell is a plonker of the very 1st order. and the editor for sanctioning his diatribe.
[quote][p][bold]Bufton Tufton[/bold] wrote: PC Denny said: “There is a severe risk of head-on collisions. We don’t want any cyclists knocked off their bikes – that would be catastrophic.” HEAR THAT JAMES, HEAR THAT JAMES ! James Connell sometime "health corespondent" who in his now infamous article in the Worcester News "Cyclists are a Nuisance on the Road" advocated using his car as a weapon against a transgressing cyclist. http://www.worcester news.co.uk/features/ fairpoint/10800707.C yclists_are_a_nuisan ce_on_the_road/[/p][/quote]Yes. i believe most sane folks realize james o'connell is a plonker of the very 1st order. and the editor for sanctioning his diatribe. canuck7
  • Score: 3

10:53am Wed 16 Apr 14

worcestermc says...

I would appreciate it if the new, presumably temporary, sign was removed so that the cycle lane could actually be used safely. Having a sign at head height isn't ideal when you have barely a meter to play with.
I would appreciate it if the new, presumably temporary, sign was removed so that the cycle lane could actually be used safely. Having a sign at head height isn't ideal when you have barely a meter to play with. worcestermc
  • Score: -3

12:30pm Thu 17 Apr 14

joesmo2 says...

In my view we live in a backward looking society that does not believe in progress. The idea should be this. The council and the UK department of transport should only hire top graduates preferably PhDs in the top subjects: of engineering, city planning, science, and numerate subjectes preferably with research publications and from the elite institutions: Oxford and Cambridge, Imperial College, etc. Such experts should articulate the challenges that are required of society. These challenges should be expressed as tradeoffs, for example: "how can we drive faster and at the same time make the road environment safer!". Such tradeoffs motivate people to think of solutions. Competitions with large cash prizes should be run for ideas. Otherwise we spend the money on coppers and squabbles like this. As one of the people who received the fine that Sunday I wish to complain. The road was suddenly closed, they work on weekends. Two days before it was open and the weekend before it was closed. When faced with the closure, the frustration and impracticality of turning around and wasting so much time to get to the destination was too much. It was a very quiet Sunday with nobody in the streets at all. While I am sorry for what happened I was not going fast. If people go fast there it is because residents take their number plates, so you cannot go extremely slowly there as the residents are aggressive. Why do we not hire the best and fewer in the council to articulate the challenge. The real thieves are the council and the community charge that they charge. You cannot get any of them to do anything. They act as though they are Nobel winners, sitting around in the office, you cannot mobilize most of them to go anywhere or do anything and they take a salary and a good pension from society. Most of them are unqualified academically. Let us look at the big picture here instead of on vendettas on drivers.
In my view we live in a backward looking society that does not believe in progress. The idea should be this. The council and the UK department of transport should only hire top graduates preferably PhDs in the top subjects: of engineering, city planning, science, and numerate subjectes preferably with research publications and from the elite institutions: Oxford and Cambridge, Imperial College, etc. Such experts should articulate the challenges that are required of society. These challenges should be expressed as tradeoffs, for example: "how can we drive faster and at the same time make the road environment safer!". Such tradeoffs motivate people to think of solutions. Competitions with large cash prizes should be run for ideas. Otherwise we spend the money on coppers and squabbles like this. As one of the people who received the fine that Sunday I wish to complain. The road was suddenly closed, they work on weekends. Two days before it was open and the weekend before it was closed. When faced with the closure, the frustration and impracticality of turning around and wasting so much time to get to the destination was too much. It was a very quiet Sunday with nobody in the streets at all. While I am sorry for what happened I was not going fast. If people go fast there it is because residents take their number plates, so you cannot go extremely slowly there as the residents are aggressive. Why do we not hire the best and fewer in the council to articulate the challenge. The real thieves are the council and the community charge that they charge. You cannot get any of them to do anything. They act as though they are Nobel winners, sitting around in the office, you cannot mobilize most of them to go anywhere or do anything and they take a salary and a good pension from society. Most of them are unqualified academically. Let us look at the big picture here instead of on vendettas on drivers. joesmo2
  • Score: 2

1:03pm Thu 17 Apr 14

joesmo2 says...

EXAMPLE OF MY SOLUTION: , for example "tunneling". We could dig 300 m holes in every garden in the UK to stop our dependency on gas (via geothermal energy funded by the government), and when the 100 billion are spent on that (the UK can easily borrow 100 billion over 50 years, gee, our debt is already a cool trillion GBP), then our tunneling technology would be such we could dig and place vacuum tubes carrying people at 300 mph between towns such as Birmingham and Bristol with minor links between say Malvern and Worcester or Cheltenham and Worcester. CONSEQUENCE OF NOT ACTING: The big picture is we are paying a bunch of people decent salary and excellent pension (Council workers, Police) to do menial things instead of paying for the guys who went to university to study the hard numerate subjects. We can carry on like this but at some point we will be the slave of Koreans and Chinese for they are advancing robotics, materials and taking the lead from us in every field? I watch Japanese TV and see it with my own eyes. The Asians are now so ahead of us, inventing solutions that we would believe are as if by magic (some sheet that removes odour in a sewage plant and such amazing technology). At some point they will come here and we will marvel at their inventions as though we were native American Indians when the European man came to take their gold by giving them mirrors!
EXAMPLE OF MY SOLUTION: , for example "tunneling". We could dig 300 m holes in every garden in the UK to stop our dependency on gas (via geothermal energy funded by the government), and when the 100 billion are spent on that (the UK can easily borrow 100 billion over 50 years, gee, our debt is already a cool trillion GBP), then our tunneling technology would be such we could dig and place vacuum tubes carrying people at 300 mph between towns such as Birmingham and Bristol with minor links between say Malvern and Worcester or Cheltenham and Worcester. CONSEQUENCE OF NOT ACTING: The big picture is we are paying a bunch of people decent salary and excellent pension (Council workers, Police) to do menial things instead of paying for the guys who went to university to study the hard numerate subjects. We can carry on like this but at some point we will be the slave of Koreans and Chinese for they are advancing robotics, materials and taking the lead from us in every field? I watch Japanese TV and see it with my own eyes. The Asians are now so ahead of us, inventing solutions that we would believe are as if by magic (some sheet that removes odour in a sewage plant and such amazing technology). At some point they will come here and we will marvel at their inventions as though we were native American Indians when the European man came to take their gold by giving them mirrors! joesmo2
  • Score: 2

2:01pm Thu 17 Apr 14

CJH says...

joesmo2 are you related to PrivateSi?
joesmo2 are you related to PrivateSi? CJH
  • Score: 1

3:41am Wed 23 Apr 14

joesmo2 says...

CJH wrote:
joesmo2 are you related to PrivateSi?
I do not know who PrivateSi is. I would like to draw your attention to this fact. Here in Worcestershire we had an agency of the government with some of the best brains in Britain (DERA in Malvern). The government ruthlessly downsized it and practically shut it down. We were ahead of the world in many fields of science and technology attracting funding from the US and so on. Nearly 3000 top scientists lost their jobs and the great British public did not even bat an eyelid. I travel to the Far East and I see dozens of agencies as the one we had up and running. If you go to Taiwan for example, GIANT the biggest manufacturer of high spec bikes got their break by consulting the equivalent government agency in Taiwan to understand how to make carbon fibre bikes in a special way (by the way carbon fibre was invented at the old DERA Malvern). While we treated scientists in this way, at the mercy of accountants and greedy expediency, the government more than doubled the number at the council. Most at the council are comparatively speaking non-technical, unqualified academically, etc. I think this demonstrates my point most emphatically. If you look at Project X at Google and countless other examples in the Far East then that is what we need to move the country ahead. For sure let us keep the financial institutions and the culture of honesty and law abiding behaviour that makes people put money here, but for God's sake let us become more progressive. When these other societies sort things out it will be curtains for us. Have you seen any Japanese students in the UK recently? The same will happen with Chinese students as soon as their technical universities catch up with and surpass ours. It will be curtains. We need to develop industry and become more progressive. The problem is compounded by the attitude of old people which tends to be entrenched in the conservatism of the past (and of always). Let us wake up!
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: joesmo2 are you related to PrivateSi?[/p][/quote]I do not know who PrivateSi is. I would like to draw your attention to this fact. Here in Worcestershire we had an agency of the government with some of the best brains in Britain (DERA in Malvern). The government ruthlessly downsized it and practically shut it down. We were ahead of the world in many fields of science and technology attracting funding from the US and so on. Nearly 3000 top scientists lost their jobs and the great British public did not even bat an eyelid. I travel to the Far East and I see dozens of agencies as the one we had up and running. If you go to Taiwan for example, GIANT the biggest manufacturer of high spec bikes got their break by consulting the equivalent government agency in Taiwan to understand how to make carbon fibre bikes in a special way (by the way carbon fibre was invented at the old DERA Malvern). While we treated scientists in this way, at the mercy of accountants and greedy expediency, the government more than doubled the number at the council. Most at the council are comparatively speaking non-technical, unqualified academically, etc. I think this demonstrates my point most emphatically. If you look at Project X at Google and countless other examples in the Far East then that is what we need to move the country ahead. For sure let us keep the financial institutions and the culture of honesty and law abiding behaviour that makes people put money here, but for God's sake let us become more progressive. When these other societies sort things out it will be curtains for us. Have you seen any Japanese students in the UK recently? The same will happen with Chinese students as soon as their technical universities catch up with and surpass ours. It will be curtains. We need to develop industry and become more progressive. The problem is compounded by the attitude of old people which tends to be entrenched in the conservatism of the past (and of always). Let us wake up! joesmo2
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree