Traffic Chaos Trafalger Square - Wednesday Mornings

spen666

Porgy wrote:

Aidy wrote:

gordon861 wrote:

I'm sorry is it not the right of every Englishman (and women(and visitors to these shores)) to go out and enjoy this Green and Pleasant Land whenever the wish strikes us and the sun is out (for a change)?

At the expense of other people's enjoyment?

this is a red herring imo - people going about their legal business often interferes with others' enjoyment - it's a fact of life that we'll never get around. Demonstrations are no different - someone will always be inconvenienced or annoyed by it. C'est la vie.

Porgy you are not comparing apples with apples.

The mortorcyclists aims in this secondary picketing is to inconvenience and cause disruption deliberately to innocent people.

It is not a case of peeiople being accidentally inconvenienced, but deliberately

lost_in_thought

symo wrote:

Gordon,

Fully behind you on this matter, and for those who believes this has nothing to do with cyclists you could not be more wrong as we will be next.

Motorcycles occupy at most a quarter of the area of a car and because they tend not to be sat there idling for hours in a jam; don't pollute as much, as the only weight they are pushing is that if the bike and it's rider. Noise yes granted but being as most car drivers refuse to acknowledge anything on two wheels the louder the better (you think those large Soundz air horns are less polluting then please feel free to argue).

As for those that riagn into radio shows I imagine that they all drive cars that must be unimpeded as they have really important jobs to get to on a weekend.

Pray tell, how on earth is anyone going to charge cyclists to park?

Do you ride a motorbike as well as a bicycle by any chance?

Oh, and the person who I heard ring in was on their way to gatwick to catch a plane. Turns out they fly on weekends too.

Porgy

Spen,

How is a bunch of cyclists turning up at a pre-agreed location at a pre-agreed time and riding on a mutually acceptable route through dense rush hour traffic in any way accidental?

If it's a jolly ride you're having then why not choose a route or a time that will mean the roads will be a little clearer?

tgotb

gordon861 wrote:

Can people caught up in the chaos that surrounds the London to Brighton cycle ride also say that cyclists don't "care about inconveniencing other people" as well?

Of course, the L2B organisers go to a lot of trouble to minimise the inconvenience caused to other people, including restricting the ride to minor roads which experience minimal traffic and are generally easy to avoid. The event raises well over 4 million pounds per year for the British Heart Foundation.

Your little protest, however, is (by your own admission) specifically designed to inconvenience random members of the public, and wilfully obstructs one of the busiest motorways in the UK. One of your stated aims is to raise money towards the 50k cost of fighting a legal battle which can benefit no-one but yourselves.

gordon861

Aidy wrote:

gordon861 wrote:

I'm sorry is it not the right of every Englishman (and women(and visitors to these shores)) to go out and enjoy this Green and Pleasant Land whenever the wish strikes us and the sun is out (for a change)?

At the expense of other people's enjoyment?

Is it your right to have a clear route in front of you on a motorway so you can go at 70mph any time you wish to use it? What about the rights of the other people that don't want to be delayed due to you being in front of them when they want to do 70mph? The M25 is as much any motorcyclists as any car/truck drivers, why should there right to use it be more than ours?

Surely the very fact of anyone else being on the road and causing congestion, when someone wants to get somewhere else spoils someones enjoyment, doesn't it?

So therefore, who gets to decide who has the right to use the roads at that time?
The Police? Well they knew and provided support in the form of manpower.
The Government? Well they didn't ban us, should they?
The Majority? How would we find out what the majority want?
You?
Me?
The Individual? Yes, the individual will decide when they choose to travel on the road and where they will go, unless the act is deamed unlawful by a court?

Now I don't know about you but I feel that freedom of movement and assembly is too important to be left to a simple Majority vote each time and would rather leave it to the Police working within the framework laid down by the Government that is elected by the Individuals (all of them).

---

Aidy

symo wrote:

As for those that riagn into radio shows I imagine that they all drive cars that must be unimpeded as they have really important jobs to get to on a weekend.

I was trying to get out for a bike ride with my riding buddy of 20 years, who's leaving the country, forever, in a few weeks time.

lost_in_thought

gordon861 wrote:

Aidy wrote:

gordon861 wrote:

I'm sorry is it not the right of every Englishman (and women(and visitors to these shores)) to go out and enjoy this Green and Pleasant Land whenever the wish strikes us and the sun is out (for a change)?

At the expense of other people's enjoyment?

Is it your right to have a clear route in front of you on a motorway so you can go at 70mph any time you wish to use it? What about the rights of the other people that don't want to be delayed due to you being in front of them when they want to do 70mph? The M25 is as much any motorcyclists as any car/truck drivers, why should there right to use it be more than ours?

Surely the very fact of anyone else being on the road and causing congestion, when someone wants to get somewhere else spoils someones enjoyment, doesn't it?

So therefore, who gets to decide who has the right to use the roads at that time?
The Police? Well they knew and provided support in the form of manpower.
The Government? Well they didn't ban us, should they?
The Majority? How would we find out what the majority want?
You?
Me?
The Individual? Yes, the individual will decide when they choose to travel on the road and where they will go, unless the act is deamed unlawful by a court?

Now I don't know about you but I feel that freedom of movement and assembly is too important to be left to a simple Majority vote each time and would rather leave it to the Police working within the framework laid down by the Government that is elected by the Individuals (all of them).

---

You've clearly decided you're ignoring me.

But it's the deliberate bit that people object to. Traffic jams are not deliberate, accidents are not deliberate.

Your actions were.

That's the problem.

Aidy

gordon861 wrote:

Aidy wrote:

gordon861 wrote:

I'm sorry is it not the right of every Englishman (and women(and visitors to these shores)) to go out and enjoy this Green and Pleasant Land whenever the wish strikes us and the sun is out (for a change)?

At the expense of other people's enjoyment?

Is it your right to have a clear route in front of you on a motorway so you can go at 70mph any time you wish to use it? What about the rights of the other people that don't want to be delayed due to you being in front of them when they want to do 70mph? The M25 is as much any motorcyclists as any car/truck drivers, why should there right to use it be more than ours?

Surely the very fact of anyone else being on the road and causing congestion, when someone wants to get somewhere else spoils someones enjoyment, doesn't it?

So therefore, who gets to decide who has the right to use the roads at that time?
The Police? Well they knew and provided support in the form of manpower.
The Government? Well they didn't ban us, should they?
The Majority? How would we find out what the majority want?
You?
Me?
The Individual? Yes, the individual will decide when they choose to travel on the road and where they will go, unless the act is deamed unlawful by a court?

Now I don't know about you but I feel that freedom of movement and assembly is too important to be left to a simple Majority vote each time and would rather leave it to the Police working within the framework laid down by the Government that is elected by the Individuals (all of them).

---

You appear to have chosen a different point to argue.

There's obviously a difference between the decision to deliberately inconvenience other people and that of someone who drives with consideration for other road users.

[Edit] Right, and of course, if I'm doing 70mph, then obviously I'm not holding up people behind me who want to do 70mph [/Edit]

Aidy

lost_in_thought wrote:

You've clearly decided you're ignoring me.

I'm still listening!

lost_in_thought

Aidy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

You've clearly decided you're ignoring me.

I'm still listening!

Not you

symo

lost_in_thought wrote:

Pray tell, how on earth is anyone going to charge cyclists to park?

Do you ride a motorbike as well as a bicycle by any chance?

Oh, and the person who I heard ring in was on their way to gatwick to catch a plane. Turns out they fly on weekends too.

Yes I do ride a motorbike. A big smelly noisy motorbike. Turns out that I travel a lot by plane as part of my job, you can ring the airline and tell them that you are delayed, that's why they generally tell you 2 hours for check dontcha know.

Here's how they charge cyclists to park, hydraulically cut anything locked to railings and those wanting to use the designated prepay cycle parking features will display a sticker or have their bikes removed. Simples.

gordon861

LIT, sorry didn't mean to ignore you.

When we were doing 40mph we kept a lane clear and allowed vehicles to pass us, we even made space for them to leave the motorway through the pack as needed. Traffic on the M25 doesn't always travel at 70mph anyways.

You may feel the English bit is rubbish but I feel that I have the right to free assembly and free travel, and if I wish to share that right with a load of my friends and travel along a bit of road I will do, and I will fight for that right if needed.

I know the Essex police don't speak for Essex public.

I'm pretty sure that the L2B ride started off small and with little publicity and has now grown into the massive thing it is now. Was the first time it was run also for charity? I also know the chaos it causes on the route down to Brighton and in Brighton itself, I've done the event about 10 times myself. I remember Turners Hill (?) about the midway point that basically closes down so that you can't even cycle through due to the mass of cycles. I remember the climb up Ditchling calling for people to keep to the left so others can actually ride up the thing, and that little climb after crossing Ditchling that everyone forgets until they hit it and it hurts.

We tried to get publicity, we told the press and the police, we've been spreading the word where we can, but there is only so much you can actually do.

lost_in_thought

gordon861 wrote:

LIT, sorry didn't mean to ignore you.

When we were doing 40mph we kept a lane clear and allowed vehicles to pass us, we even made space for them to leave the motorway through the pack as needed. Traffic on the M25 doesn't always travel at 70mph anyways.

No, it doesn't, but generally if it's slow there's a good reason for it, or at least a far better reason than a group of bikers deliberately travelling at 40mph. And leaving a lane clear would have alleviated the problem a little, but only a little. You, just as the rest of us, will I'm sure be aware of what merges do to the M25.

I do, believe it or not, support your right to free assembly, whatever I may think of your cause. HOWEVER, I don't support your targeting people who have nothing to do with your campaign. Sure, you're not breaking any laws, you have police support, but god, I'd now support an increase in M-Bike parking costs following your actions.

The L2B ride has been for charity for some years, and if as many people were trying to drive up turner's hill and ditchling as are trying to get around the M25, I'm sure it'd be shut down in an instant.

lost_in_thought

symo wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Pray tell, how on earth is anyone going to charge cyclists to park?

Do you ride a motorbike as well as a bicycle by any chance?

Oh, and the person who I heard ring in was on their way to gatwick to catch a plane. Turns out they fly on weekends too.

Yes I do ride a motorbike. A big smelly noisy motorbike. Turns out that I travel a lot by plane as part of my job, you can ring the airline and tell them that you are delayed, that's why they generally tell you 2 hours for check dontcha know.

Here's how they charge cyclists to park, hydraulically cut anything locked to railings and those wanting to use the designated prepay cycle parking features will display a sticker or have their bikes removed. Simples.

Oh wow, you must really fly a lot for work if you can call your airline and they'll wait for you, let you check in past the check in closing time and such. Or maybe you mostly travel by private jet and have lots of spare money for slot times. :P

And I don't think that councils would get away with doing that, quite frankly. For starters, they're not allowed to touch bikes that are parked on private property, which a good number of railings are.

gordon861

One of the reasons for the speed we were traveling at being so low was for safety, at 40mph we could close up the gaps a lot more and actually take up much less road space. Most of the bikes on the ride could easily have done the whole run at over the legal limit if they had wanted to but the spacing between the bikes would have increased accordingly and we would have taken up a lot more roadspace. Add to that the changes in speed and lane when we'd caught up with slower moving traffic and I think we'd have been looking at a much more dangerous situation.

There have been a number of tests done on Motorways in the past with speed limits etc and it's been found that after a certain amount of vehicle density a slower speed limit actually has a greater traffic flow than a higher one if you want to keep things safe.

spen666

gordon861 wrote:

One of the reasons for the speed we were traveling at being so low was for safety, at 40mph we could close up the gaps a lot more and actually take up much less road space. Most of the bikes on the ride could easily have done the whole run at over the legal limit if they had wanted to but the spacing between the bikes would have increased accordingly and we would have taken up a lot more roadspace. Add to that the changes in speed and lane when we'd caught up with slower moving traffic and I think we'd have been looking at a much more dangerous situation.

There have been a number of tests done on Motorways in the past with speed limits etc and it's been found that after a certain amount of vehicle density a slower speed limit actually has a greater traffic flow than a higher one if you want to keep things safe.

So there you go- rather than being selfish obnoxious self centered people deliberately inconveniencing people who are nothing to do with their objections. These people are guardian angels purely there to help increase road safety

Porgy

symo wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Pray tell, how on earth is anyone going to charge cyclists to park?

Do you ride a motorbike as well as a bicycle by any chance?

Oh, and the person who I heard ring in was on their way to gatwick to catch a plane. Turns out they fly on weekends too.

Yes I do ride a motorbike. A big smelly noisy motorbike. Turns out that I travel a lot by plane as part of my job, you can ring the airline and tell them that you are delayed, that's why they generally tell you 2 hours for check dontcha know.

Here's how they charge cyclists to park, hydraulically cut anything locked to railings and those wanting to use the designated prepay cycle parking features will display a sticker or have their bikes removed. Simples.

And how will they deal with children who cycle? Same system?

and some railings are private - i have in the past chained a bike to my own railings. They will have no right to touch bikes changed up in such a manner.

How are you going to force people to use system when we all just decide to take bikes inside with us.

and when no-one uses the scheme it will go bust. end of story. and we all get back to normal.

gordon861

Hey all, just got back a little while ago from another Trafalger Square meet, TfL were so nice to us they actually set all the lights to green for about 10mins and let us go around and around.

Anyways back to the serious stuff that might actually be of real interest to you all.
Westminster Built Environment Policy Scrutiny Committee Report - Dec'09
http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcsu/P ... eeting.doc

Take a read of section 4, you might especially be interested in 4.16

4.16 Councillor Glanz commented that he was a pedestrian and regularly observed cyclists’ behaviour. He was of the view that there was a need to distinguish between professional cyclists such as couriers and the casual cyclist and those who used a bike to travel to work. He suggested that there may be an opportunity to develop a registration scheme for the former which would make enforcing infringements of the Highway Code easier. The Chairman informed the Committee that in advance of the meeting she had visited Oxford Circus with Councillor Glanz for research purposes where they witnessed approximately twenty percent of cyclists ignoring the Highway Code.

Do you really think Westminster won't be coming after you next?
They are already starting to paint you as the next baddie.

---

asprilla

Everyone paints us as the bad guys anyway. Wonder what percentage of pedestrians and drivers ignored the highway code.

Cycle registration has been tried in other countries and it has never worked, ever.

tgotb

I can easily believe that 20% of cyclists were observed breaking the highway code (and quite possibly 20% of motorbike/moped drivers, 20% of car/cab drivers and 20% of pedestrians). Any attempt to crack down on road users who fail to observe the highway code would make the World a better place, and if WCC want to focus on cyclists that's fine by me.

Spent a couple of minutes filtering along Embankment this morning, through the stationary traffic backed up from Trafalgar Square. Couldn't help thinking that the traffic would flow a bit more freely along there if there wasn't a big motorbike parking area in the way (which, incidentally, has caused at least one serious accident and several minor ones in the last year). Maybe WCC should stop charging for motorcycle parking, and at the same time remove on-road motorcycle parking bays. After all, you wouldn't expect them to give you something for nothing in these difficult times.

Or would you?????

Aidy

gordon861 wrote:

Do you really think Westminster won't be coming after you next?
They are already starting to paint you as the next baddie.

The next baddie?

We've been painted as the bad guys way before motorcycle parking fees were on the radar, and we'll continue to be so long after.

... and oddly enough, we're still here, just the same way we've always been.

gordon861

Not all the delayed traffic today was our fault really.

I don't disagree about the fact that the dangerous road users should be targetted, failure to follow the Highway Code isn't actually an offence though because the Highway Code itself isn't the Law.

Another worrying bit from that document is

He considered that the Police were prioritising targets at the expense of citizens’ safety and suggested that if the Police did not have the sufficient resources to undertake additional enforcement activity that they should allocate the powers to the City Council to carry out this type of work.

I think letting the local authorities take over this work and then farm it out to the lowest bidder would be a very bad idea, just look at how bad some of the private Parking Enforcement Officers are. Can you imagine how they'd be if they had even more powers?

tgotb

gordon861 wrote:

Not all the delayed traffic today was our fault really.

Really? Stacked up along the Embankment in both directions leading up to Northumberland Avenue (which was also at a standstill), almost completely clear afterwards (in both directions). It's only ever like that on a Wednesday morning. If it wasn't your fault, please explain the cause...

gordon861

Today someone at TfL Control had a brainstorm or a breakdown and decided to switch all the lights going around the square to green and all the approaches to red. It stayed like this for 5-10 mins then all of a sudden they let all the worked up traffic loose on the square at once, result instant gridlock. The police couldn't believe what was happening and were trying not to laugh as the only thing on the square was the bikes going around at about 20mph on all green lights.

If it had just been us we never would have caused that much trouble.

Esinem

Several stations, Finsbury Park, London Bridge & Walthamstow, have already introduced a parking charge of up to £1.50 per day for bicycles! How long before it is extended to the rest on this list (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/11947.aspx), plus other central locations? OK, it's good you get security but you wouldn't stand for it otherwise would you? Don't worry, the planned 400% increase in cycling will cause a 'problem' that needs to be solved by fines and charges as existing parking overflows or causes pedestrian obstructions. There is already massive groundswell in support of fining cyclists for a wide range of existing offenses, plus the creation of new ones, e.g. cycling with a mobile or mp3 player, and enforcement by local council officials like traffic wardens and 'private police'. You will be the next cash cows!

How long before these will be the only places you are allowed to park for fear of being treated just like a car or motorcycle by greedy coucils and their ticket hungry wardens? How long before those who already pay start saying "All other road users pay. Why should our parking, fines, congestion charges, fuel and road tax subsidise other road users, i.e. you, who pay nothing?". My intention is merely to point out that we should all be on the same side when it comes to resisting being unremittingly shafted by stealth taxes. It has sweet FA to do with how many wheels we use or what we power them with. The only self-righteousness we feel should be directed at the perpetrators of this highway robbery, not each other.

Don't get complacent, I'd imagine that the lack of number plates (so far) will mean enforcement would be by paying to get your bike back after removal or to be 'unclamped' (I don't envisage wheels clamps per se but a chain locking it to any street furniture or anything preventing easy removal by the owner). A small detail like this will not put them off the potential of massive profits.

I hope cyclists wake up to this and resist it like the NTBPT bikers are with their parking charges. Good luck if you do!

lost_in_thought

Ah cheers for joining up to promote the motorbike's corner. You're adding to our daily entertainment.

Tell us again how the charging of cyclists for parking is going to happen? Y'know, legally? In your own time.

Esinem

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ah cheers for joining up to promote the motorbike's corner. You're adding to our daily entertainment.

Tell us again how the charging of cyclists for parking is going to happen? Y'know, legally? In your own time.

Thanks for the welcome, lost_in_thought. I'm glad to be of service as I do like to both inform and amuse. I just hope you will find it as entertaining when you get shafted like other road users. Personally, I rarely park in Westmister so WCC's bike tax doesn't effect me but I am not so disingenuous to imagine that it will not very soon spread like cockroaches and become a lot more than "just £1 per day". Frankly, I'm amazed that so many people seem not to be waking up and smelling the coffee but would rather be sarcastic to those that make a stand. If you guys want to protest about getting ripped off by councils or petty bureaucracy, I'll be behind you. Bikers, likewise, will welcome your support against what is a common enemy. If you want to complain about the demonstrations, might I suggest contacting Westminster CC as they can end them instantly?

If you re-read my OP above, I think you will find your answers. Here are some examples of things to come: http://www.policecommunitysupportofficer.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15562 Bear in mind if a law doesn't exist yet, it can always be made...especially when it is financially expedient. If I can be of any help providing further explanations or links to verify my fears, I'd be delighted to assist. The more know what is going on the better.[/url]

Esinem

Just to make it easy for everyone and save clicking links:

The City of Westminster is reportedly planning to become the first local authority to seek powers for council staff to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists breaking the law.

According to a report in The Times, the borough plans to approach the Metropolitan Police to secure delegated authority under existing legislation to allow its city inspectors, who normally deal with issues such as licensing, waste and noise, to issue fines to cyclists caught committing offences such as riding through red lights or cycling on the pavement.
By Simon_MacMichael - Posted on 07 December 2009

The plan, which still needs to be approved by the full council, has been drawn up by Westminster’s Scrutiny Committee, whose chairman, Angela Harvey, told The Times that law-breaking cyclists were the principal factor behind complaints from the borough’s residents.

“So many people are frustrated with it,” she said. “We’re always getting little old ladies who are knocked down and abused by a cyclist, who leaves them on the ground as they ride away.”

Ms Harvey added: “The police are the only people who have the ability to enforce this issue, and they just aren’t taking this seriously enough. There are more of our officers on the street than there are police at any given time, so it is a sensible solution.”

However, Tom Bogdanowicz, campaigns director of the London Cycling Campaign, believes that giving council staff powers to stop cyclists and issue fines would be a mistake, saying “enforcement of moving traffic offences needs to be carried out by trained police or police community support officers. They are best qualified to enforce the regulations on pavement cycling and most other offences as they have the training and authority to do their work.”

He added: “It is also vital that local authorities address road danger to cycle users by improving the very conditions that force some cyclists to seek the refuge of pavements. Where road design improvements have been made, offending falls

deptfordmarmoset

Esinem,

It's a side issue, really, but here's a little background info on the Angela Harvey quoted above http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... highlight=

Esinem

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Esinem,

It's a side issue, really, but here's a little background info on the Angela Harvey quoted above http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... highlight=

No, that is extremely pertinent. You should see the minutes of the commitee's meeting of Tuesday 1 December 2009 at 7.00pm, it makes grim reading: http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcsu/Policy_and_Scrutiny_Committees/Current_P_and_S_Committees_and_Task_Groups/Built_Environment_PandS/2010/17%20March%202010/Item%203%20-%20Minutes%20of%201%20Dec%202009%20Meeting.doc

"3. That the Police be requested to support the accreditation of the Council's community safety teams and CEO’s (if applicable) to have the power to undertake enforcement action when cyclists break the law;"

"TfL was also considering using resources from its Safer Transport Teams which had in the last two years largely been focused on reducing crime on buses to tackle road related issues including poor cyclist conduct."

"He considered that the Police were prioritising targets at the expense of citizens’ safety and suggested that if the Police did not have the sufficient resources to undertake additional enforcement activity that they should allocate the powers to the City Council to carry out this type of work."

From the above, it seems fairly clear that the intention is to move more enforcement to non-police operatives and to treat cyclists like all other road users. If you know how private revenue-driven traffic wardens operate, you will have some idea of the vigor which cyclists will be pursued. The bureaucrats will use any tactics to achieve their ends, including stories heart-rending stories of the streets being strewn with frail old ladies repeatedly run over by callous giggling hoodies on BMX's or whatever they can dream up :roll: The spin machine is already on full power and the mechanisms are being put into place.

One would have thought, given the alleged cost of congestion, free secure cycle parking might be one way to encourage environmentally sound travel but no, they see it as another way to milk the public. Motoring is taxed at every angle so that only the well-off and gov't officials with free parking/expenses can afford it, motorcycles are being charged to park, public transport costs are rocketing, now they want to add fleece cyclists...what next? A congestion charge on pedestrians and Pay by Phone park benches? :evil: