Traffic Chaos Trafalger Square - Wednesday Mornings
Comments
-
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:Greg66 wrote:Porgy wrote:I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?
Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).
"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."
"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"
Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.
I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.
It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.
I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.
It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.
You're quite right - what I mean is, the "green" movement has been hi-jacked for revenue purposes, which completely undermines any legitimacy it has/had.
No - it undermines the legitimacy of those who have hijacked us.
Not true - they have no legitimacy, but their actions undermine yours.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:Greg66 wrote:Porgy wrote:I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?
Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).
"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."
"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"
Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.
I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.
It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.
I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.
It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.
You're quite right - what I mean is, the "green" movement has been hi-jacked for revenue purposes, which completely undermines any legitimacy it has/had.
No - it undermines the legitimacy of those who have hijacked us.
Not true - they have no legitimacy, but their actions undermine yours.
how come? As an anarchist it's hard to see how they can affect my legitimacy in any way.0 -
Porgy wrote:spen666 wrote:Porgy wrote:....
I've no problem with the demo - i wholeheartedly support your right to protest - even block the traffic if that's what it takes.
.....
The right to protest DOES NOT include the right to block the highway. There is a specific offence of obstructing the Highway.
Road users, including pedestrians have a right to pass over the highway, not to block the same
I'm not even sure that the right to protest exists in English law. Or does it?
I believe - whatever it takes......
Really? That's pretty broad.
it's why Critical Mass is such a disaster - putting ordinary people to an inconvenience isn't an effective way of gaining support nor for getting them to understand your point of view. If it ensures that you get what you want it's no better than blackmail.0 -
spen666 wrote:Porgy wrote:....
I've no problem with the demo - i wholeheartedly support your right to protest - even block the traffic if that's what it takes.
.....
The right to protest DOES NOT include the right to block the highway. There is a specific offence of obstructing the Highway.
Road users, including pedestrians have a right to pass over the highway, not to block the same
As posted earlier
For info: We have been doing these events for seven weeks now and done one evening event. We have had this discussion with the police, Chief Inspector normally at the events (we had a Super Intendant last week), we know the limit of the law. We are not breaking it, there is often 5-6 traffic cops and a number of other police at the events. In all the time we have been running this event we have not had a single ticket or caution for any offence. (I think that is also true going back over the two years including the 4k bike run to Wesminster Town Hall but I can't confirm that.)Despite what you may hear on the news we aren't blocking roads, all we are doing is refusing to filter or block crossings. We are also leaving a bike length between us and the car/bus/van/bike in front, basically riding as if you were doing your driving test. This is why we've had no problems with the police and infact had a very good relationship with the police that turn up. The space we are leaving should be enough to allow pushbikes to filter through fairly easily.
Also, spen666, you are one of a kind you must be the only one not to sneak past any red lights etc, congrats.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:spen666 wrote:Porgy wrote:....
I've no problem with the demo - i wholeheartedly support your right to protest - even block the traffic if that's what it takes.
.....
The right to protest DOES NOT include the right to block the highway. There is a specific offence of obstructing the Highway.
Road users, including pedestrians have a right to pass over the highway, not to block the same I'm not even sure that the right to protest exists in English law. Or does it?
I believe - whatever it takes......
Really? That's pretty broad.
it's why Critical Mass is such a disaster - putting ordinary people to an inconvenience isn't an effective way of gaining support nor for getting them to understand your point of view. If it ensures that you get what you want it's no better than blackmail.
Critical Mass is a disaster because it no longer serves a purpose. I was involved in the mid 90s and it really made a difference back then - at least I noticed it having cycled prior to CM and since.
I have no interest in CM - not since about 12 years ago - it's not focused and it rarely has a coherent message these days.0 -
Porgy wrote:
how come? As an anarchist it's hard to see how they can affect my legitimacy in any way.
Bloody hell Porgy, you really tick all the boxes....Anarchist too.
If you have a legitimate cause, and a party with an alterior motive takes that cause and uses it for their own illegitimate means, the legitimacy of your cause is undermined by their actions. They are illegitimate from the start though.0 -
W1 wrote:Bloody hell Porgy, you really tick all the boxes....Anarchist too.
If you have a legitimate cause, and a party with an alterior motive takes that cause and uses it for their own illegitimate means, the legitimacy of your cause is undermined by their actions. They are illegitimate from the start though.
so you admit that the Green cause is legitimate then
on the anarchist thing - it just follows - i went the route of Labour member - activist - disenchanted labour outcast - to Green Party activist and candidate (twice) - to disenchanted ex Green Party - independent unaligned activist and unable to support any party due to disanchentment with the overall party political system - inevitably led to me become an anarchist - it was a slow and difficult process.0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:Greg66 wrote:Porgy wrote:I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?
Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).
"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."
"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"
Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.
I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.
It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.
I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.
It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.
You're quite right - what I mean is, the "green" movement has been hi-jacked for revenue purposes, which completely undermines any legitimacy it has/had.
No - it undermines the legitimacy of those who have hijacked us.
Not true - they have no legitimacy, but their actions undermine yours.
how come? As an anarchist it's hard to see how they can affect my legitimacy in any way.
Bloody hell Porgy, you really tick all the boxes....Anarchist too.
If you have a legitimate cause, and a party with an alterior motive takes that cause and uses it for their own illegitimate means, the legitimacy of your cause is undermined by their actions. They are illegitimate from the start though.
so you admit that the Green cause is legitimate then
Bloody 'ell. It really knobs me off when people quote these massive long strings of messages over and over again...
0 -
Greg66 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:Greg66 wrote:Porgy wrote:I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?
Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).
"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."
"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"
Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.
I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.
It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.
I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.
It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.
You're quite right - what I mean is, the "green" movement has been hi-jacked for revenue purposes, which completely undermines any legitimacy it has/had.
No - it undermines the legitimacy of those who have hijacked us.
Not true - they have no legitimacy, but their actions undermine yours.
how come? As an anarchist it's hard to see how they can affect my legitimacy in any way.
Bloody hell Porgy, you really tick all the boxes....Anarchist too.
If you have a legitimate cause, and a party with an alterior motive takes that cause and uses it for their own illegitimate means, the legitimacy of your cause is undermined by their actions. They are illegitimate from the start though.
so you admit that the Green cause is legitimate then
Bloody 'ell. It really knobs me off when people quote these massive long strings of messages over and over again...
you were too quick i was already editting it down. :P 0 -
W1 wrote:God no. How did you work that out? Hop, skip and a jump? I said IF you have a legitimate cause.
no, really your argument is circular and plain wrong. whatever the main parties do brings illegitimacy to themselves. They cannot hurt the green movement except as a negative pr exercise. Hopefully people will see through that eventually.0 -
Porgy wrote:
on the anarchist thing - it just follows - i went the route of Labour member - activist - disenchanted labour outcast - to Green Party activist and candidate (twice) - to disenchanted ex Green Party - independent unaligned activist and unable to support any party due to disanchentment with the overall party political system - inevitably led to me become an anarchist - it was a slow and difficult process.
That figures....0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:
on the anarchist thing - it just follows - i went the route of Labour member - activist - disenchanted labour outcast - to Green Party activist and candidate (twice) - to disenchanted ex Green Party - independent unaligned activist and unable to support any party due to disanchentment with the overall party political system - inevitably led to me become an anarchist - it was a slow and difficult process.
That figures....
what does that mean?0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:
on the anarchist thing - it just follows - i went the route of Labour member - activist - disenchanted labour outcast - to Green Party activist and candidate (twice) - to disenchanted ex Green Party - independent unaligned activist and unable to support any party due to disanchentment with the overall party political system - inevitably led to me become an anarchist - it was a slow and difficult process.
That figures....
what does that mean?
I mean that's a predictable route and helps me understand why we'll never agree on anything!
How many steps from here to full on Commie?0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:God no. How did you work that out? Hop, skip and a jump? I said IF you have a legitimate cause.
no, really your argument is circular and plain wrong. whatever the main parties do brings illegitimacy to themselves. They cannot hurt the green movement except as a negative pr exercise. Hopefully people will see through that eventually.
What negative PR exercise? They're all claiming the green agenda as positive PR! The problem is, they're doing it for revenue reasons, thereby undermining any legitimate cause you might have (presuming you don't support green issues on the basis of revenue raising alone).0 -
Full-on Commie would be a retrograde step, shurely?
Here's how I see it.
Porgy believes the "green cause" as a legitimate one (ie based on legitimate grievances, with legitimate goals). He's pissed off because the cause has been hijacked by mainstream politicians and used by them as a tax raising front.
W1 (and I) don't believe the "green cause" is legitimate. So we're equally, if not more pissed off, because the mainstream boys have taken a lie and used it to rape more taxes out of us.
I think the point W1 makes is this: if the greens had a legit cause, they've basically "sold out", in the sense that they've been prepared to allow their cause to be hijacked, because that's a price they're willing to pay for more exposure. In short, they've prostituted themselves in the name of publicity.
Trouble is, what happens when the pendulum swings (and it will, because it always does)? When enough of a mass of people become sufficiently disaffected by the current green tax bandwagon that they reject a higher-tax green-friendly model of government (the loonies at UKIP are on this bandwagon already, in case no one had noticed). It will be very difficult, as I see it, for the green advocates (advocados?) to disentangle themselves from their high-tax green-friendly allies at that point, and could very well end up sinking with them.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see...0 -
Greg66 wrote:Full-on Commie would be a retrograde step, shurely?
Here's how I see it.
Porgy believes the "green cause" as a legitimate one (ie based on legitimate grievances, with legitimate goals). He's pissed off because the cause has been hijacked by mainstream politicians and used by them as a tax raising front.
W1 (and I) don't believe the "green cause" is legitimate. So we're equally, if not more pissed off, because the mainstream boys have taken a lie and used it to rape more taxes out of us.
I think the point W1 makes is this: if the greens had a legit cause, they've basically "sold out", in the sense that they've been prepared to allow their cause to be hijacked, because that's a price they're willing to pay for more exposure. In short, they've prostituted themselves in the name of publicity.
Trouble is, what happens when the pendulum swings (and it will, because it always does)? When enough of a mass of people become sufficiently disaffected by the current green tax bandwagon that they reject a higher-tax green-friendly model of government (the loonies at UKIP are on this bandwagon already, in case no one had noticed). It will be very difficult, as I see it, for the green advocates (advocados?) to disentangle themselves from their high-tax green-friendly allies at that point, and could very well end up sinking with them.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see...
We'll probably all be dead by then Greg.
I note the latest Green loony woman has said she'll increase taxes rather than tackle the bloated public sector - fogetting of course that to get £1 of tax in you need to spend 31p first, but to save £1 in efficiency costs nothing... thank god they won't ever get in.
Now, where did I put the keys to the Ferrari??0 -
It's just been pointed out to me another reason motorcyclists like loud exhausts. Car drivers might not look for bikes but when they hear one coming up behind them they know you are there and therefore do look then. "Loud Pipes Save Lives" - not saying I totally agree though.0
-
gordon861 wrote:It's just been pointed out to me another reason motorcyclists like loud exhausts. Car drivers might not look for bikes but when they hear one coming up behind them they know you are there and therefore do look then. "Loud Pipes Save Lives" - not saying I totally agree though.
I reckon it's the same reason all the hair-gelled boys in Essex have dustbins attached to the back of their cars, only bikers don't grow out of it.0 -
gordon861 wrote:It's just been pointed out to me another reason motorcyclists like loud exhausts. Car drivers might not look for bikes but when they hear one coming up behind them they know you are there and therefore do look then. "Loud Pipes Save Lives" - not saying I totally agree though.
In my experience loud pipes scare the crap out of me when they wing past my elbow at 60!
Sorry for taking your thread off-topic Gordon!0 -
Hey np, sorry for taking your forum off topic.W1 wrote:Sorry for taking your thread off-topic Gordon!0 -
I don't have a problem with loud pipes - I like to know if motorbikes are there. As someone who occasionally uses a scooter to commute but largely cycles, I get as pissed off with bad motorcyclists as I do with bad cyclists. I would like cyclists groups and motorcyclists groups to come together to form a code of conduct which could be policed by its members - ie other cyclists and motorcyclists tell off people who jump lights, who hog the front of ASL, who block cycle lanes, who pull out in front of filtering motorcycles etc.http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
spen666 wrote:gordon861 wrote:
Er I think I did say that I try to avoid cycle lanes, and I also stated that I do avoid the ones with solid lines, so your point is?spen666 wrote:You openly admit to breaking the law re ASLs when it suits you, irrespective of the fact it is a criminal offence
Re cycle lanes - Rule 140 of The Highway Code ( remember it is a code, not the law states....140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply
Unavoidable does not mean because you are a selfish twonk and want to get to your destination a few seconds faster
Entering the ASL is a Driving Offence not a Criminal Offence, there is a difference and as you are moving onto insults I might as well point it out. So are you saying that as a cyclist that you NEVER break any of the laws of the road, no crossing red lights, no illegal turns, no hoping onto the pavement ever? If you can honestly say that I think you are probably in a minority or just don't know all the laws of the road. Every road user, car/bike/motorbike, I have ever met stretches some part of the law when on the road.
...
......
I refer you to your earlier post at 13:56Filter lanes I avoid if at all possible esp if there's a pushbike in there, but of course the dotted ones other vehicles are allowed to go into them they just aren't allowed to stop. The solid ones I just avoid, also they are usually on the inside lane, motorbikes normally try to stay on the outside.
I also refer you to my post at 14:15, which you have selectively quoted out of context
I think the 2 quotes speak for themselves.You clearly do not know the law re cycle lanes
Erm, I could not disagree more with you re the ASL offence being a driving offence only. Driving offences are CRIMINAL offences like it or not. That is why they are prosecuted by the CRIMINAL prosecution service, in a CRIMINAL court, to the CRIMINAL standard of proof.
Not all CRIMINAL offences are driving offences, but all DRIVING offences are CRIMINAL offences. That is also why they are referred to as offence. Argue it till you are blue in the face, but I have worked in the criminal law field for some 4 decades now defending CRIMINAL allegationsa, which often have included driving matters.
I can safely say I have not ridden through red lights, made illegal turns and never ridden on the pavement
Not all driving offences are criminal offences, why you don't have a criminal record for getting a mobile phone tickect ect, however the more serious such a drink drive, dangerous driving are criminal matters...
No matter what ppl think, the bike parking fee, is just a tax nothing more no secure parking has provided and bike theft is still a problem. Like the congestion zone, when the price of it being put up proves its nothing more than a tax. I haven't seen public tranist improved or road surfaces improve in fact its only got worse-as in the circle line need we say more?
I don't see any government is serious about dealing with the issue with climate change, the extra money raised on so called green taxes isn't being spent on this at all. Its a huge cycnical move to increase the tax income of the state which has been spent on what exactly.
In all the biggest threat we face is that we are destroying the biodiversty on the Earth, to make an impact this must stop that is bottom line it will be our downfall...
Putting it back into context, how about we have a bit of respect for each ever, if that happened we would have far less problems, simples.0 -
Metal Monkey - you arecriminal offences.metalmonkey wrote:spen666 wrote:gordon861 wrote:
Er I think I did say that I try to avoid cycle lanes, and I also stated that I do avoid the ones with solid lines, so your point is?spen666 wrote:You openly admit to breaking the law re ASLs when it suits you, irrespective of the fact it is a criminal offence
Re cycle lanes - Rule 140 of The Highway Code ( remember it is a code, not the law states....140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply
Unavoidable does not mean because you are a selfish twonk and want to get to your destination a few seconds faster
Entering the ASL is a Driving Offence not a Criminal Offence, there is a difference and as you are moving onto insults I might as well point it out. So are you saying that as a cyclist that you NEVER break any of the laws of the road, no crossing red lights, no illegal turns, no hoping onto the pavement ever? If you can honestly say that I think you are probably in a minority or just don't know all the laws of the road. Every road user, car/bike/motorbike, I have ever met stretches some part of the law when on the road.
...
......
I refer you to your earlier post at 13:56Filter lanes I avoid if at all possible esp if there's a pushbike in there, but of course the dotted ones other vehicles are allowed to go into them they just aren't allowed to stop. The solid ones I just avoid, also they are usually on the inside lane, motorbikes normally try to stay on the outside.
I also refer you to my post at 14:15, which you have selectively quoted out of context
I think the 2 quotes speak for themselves.You clearly do not know the law re cycle lanes
Erm, I could not disagree more with you re the ASL offence being a driving offence only. Driving offences are CRIMINAL offences like it or not. That is why they are prosecuted by the CRIMINAL prosecution service, in a CRIMINAL court, to the CRIMINAL standard of proof.
Not all CRIMINAL offences are driving offences, but all DRIVING offences are CRIMINAL offences. That is also why they are referred to as offence. Argue it till you are blue in the face, but I have worked in the criminal law field for some 4 decades now defending CRIMINAL allegationsa, which often have included driving matters.
I can safely say I have not ridden through red lights, made illegal turns and never ridden on the pavement
Not all driving offences are criminal offences, why you don't have a criminal record for getting a mobile phone tickect ect, however the more serious such a drink drive, dangerous driving are criminal matters...
No matter what ppl think, the bike parking fee, is just a tax nothing more no secure parking has provided and bike theft is still a problem. Like the congestion zone, when the price of it being put up proves its nothing more than a tax. I haven't seen public tranist improved or road surfaces improve in fact its only got worse-as in the circle line need we say more?
I don't see any government is serious about dealing with the issue with climate change, the extra money raised on so called green taxes isn't being spent on this at all. Its a huge cycnical move to increase the tax income of the state which has been spent on what exactly.
In all the biggest threat we face is that we are destroying the biodiversty on the Earth, to make an impact this must stop that is bottom line it will be our downfall...
Putting it back into context, how about we have a bit of respect for each ever, if that happened we would have far less problems, simples.
They may be regarded as less serious offences. but they are still CRIMINAL offencesWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
I've rarely had problems with motorbikes in many years cycling in London. By and large they are far more road aware than cars and like the OP said, when they do nip to the front are gone in the blink of an eye.
Mopeds, on the other hand...0 -
As someone who has worked on and off in the city it amazes me how rubbish the motorbike parking is. You get as many bikes as possible squeezed into the alloted parking while the car bays are totally empty. God only knows how you get a m/cyle in and out from the middle.
From a personal point of view I have to prefer bikes to cars. Cars sitting in a queues will always cause hazards when filtering. The same number of people on bikes in the same space will have loads of room.
Ban the cars and the lorries. 2 wheels good. 4 wheels bad
(Just don't stop too close to the back of those stinky old scooters)0 -
Kurako wrote:Ban the cars and the lorries. 2 wheels good. 4 wheels bad
+1. Haven't got time to read the rest of the thread, but that pretty much summarises my opinion.
FB (with loud pipes) 8)Misguided Idealist0 -
Off Topic but why can't cyclists organise similar protests, to things like the encouragement of HGV use during rush hour etc. that was raised recently, except poorly executed through critical mass.0
-
-
MadammeMarie wrote:
I still have my old club colours lycra around somewhere but it's highly doubtful I'd still fit in it.0
