🚀 go-pugleaf

<nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:jmrag9$8mn$1@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <9vcld7FblqU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Tim Ward  <tim@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 20/04/2012 08:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends when the incident was, but for the last nine years there has to
>>> be an intent to 'alarm or distress', for an "exposure" charge to stick.
>>
>>That's interesting. So if the exposer intends that his victim will be
>>"impressed and excited" rather than "alarmed or distress" there's no
>>crime?
>>
>>I hope you will excuse me if I don't believe that ...
>
> As with most matters of intent, it would hinge on whether he had
> reasonable grounds for believing that it would have that effect.
> If there were no such condition, then using a public urinal at the
> same time as a boy was using another one was would be a very serious
> crime.

I was around a corner out of view taking a leak on a patch of grass, but the
police spotted me from their car as I went around the corner, got out and
followed me.
In the meantime, I have urinated in "public" in the countryside hundreds of
times as all cyclists do.
Sometimes in front of fellow cyclists.

--
Simon Mason 

On 20/04/2012 08:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <e7WdnWx5FvbnrRLSnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at 22:22:01
> on Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Yes, the scheme could easily be self-financing. In places like Cambridge, a
>>> significant amount of revenue could be earned this way.
>>
>> Which traffic lights in Cambridge have a large enough number of cyclists ?
>
> If you look at the traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing between QAT
> and Parker's Piece, there's an almost continuous flow of cyclists, many of

  Easily visible from roughly halfway along Parkside would you say?

> whom ignore the lights. Almost as bad at the nearby 'Catholic Church'
> crossroads

  Perhaps it would help if there was a doughnut or chip shop nearby.

On 20/04/2012 20:24, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
> Perhaps it would help if there was a doughnut or chip shop nearby.

I have been in a police car with a policeman who nicked a cyclist for 
cycling across one of the crossings mentioned (a) with no lights and (b) 
across a red light. The policeman said that one or the other was pretty 
standard for cyclists, but doing both at once a few feet in front of a 
normal marked police car was taking the piss and thus deserved being nicked.

He offered the cyclist a choice of whether he wanted the ticket for no 
lights or for the red light. I don't recall which the guy chose.

This particular policeman did not stop for food throughout the shift, 
and said that this was his normal practice (I think the stopping for 
doughnuts every two minutes is something you might have picked up from 
US cop shows, rather than from spending time with UK cops). However 
before dropping me off at home he did stop at Renu so that *I* would get 
something to eat that evening.

-- 
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

In message <NPydnfqdVvNgKgzSnZ2dnUVZ8rWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at 
20:24:42 on Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
>> If you look at the traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing between QAT
>> and Parker's Piece, there's an almost continuous flow of cyclists, many of
>
> Easily visible from roughly halfway along Parkside would you say?

That's where they are visible to me, when I'm crossing the road there.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 20/04/2012 19:30, Simon Mason wrote:

> I was around a corner out of view taking a leak on a patch of grass, but the
> police spotted me from their car...

Brings a new meaning to "out of view", doesn't it?

On Apr 18, 10:13 am, "Mr Benn" <Mr_Benn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is very good news
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-180...
>
> Cyclists jumping red lights in Cambridge could be targeted by council
> officers armed with controversial police powers.
>
> The move to stop cyclists flouting the law comes after the city council
> learned PCSOs can only issue fines to cyclists riding on pavements.  It is
> in talks with the Cambridgeshire force to acquire police powers for staff to
> issue fines to cyclists jumping lights.  The Community Safety Accreditation
> Scheme has already been rolled out to Addenbrooke's security guards.  They
> were given the power to impose on-the-spot fines despite critics claiming it
> would create a "private police force".
>
> Now the scheme could be extended to city council employees, if the go-ahead
> is given by the police, who would have to train the enforcement officers.
> Lynda Kilkelly, the council's safer community's manager, told the News: "It
> was put forward and we will certainly pursue it if it helps prevent cyclists
> going through red lights.  "This is not going to happen overnight, but we
> have been talking to the police about what can be done."

F - all.  Without a warrent issued by the crown they are not agents of
the crown and so cannot lawfully withold or fine or whatnot a bicycle
rider who jumps a red light.

>
> Cllr Geoffrey Heathcock has campaigned against cyclists flouting red lights
> at the roundabout next to Addenbrooke's, in the Queen Edith's ward he is
> county councillor for.  He said: "Anything that can be done to enforce the
> law at red lights is to be welcomed. Too many cyclists take unnecessary
> risks which also impacts on others' safety."

Where has this been proven, who has been agreived and what losses were
incurred?

>
> At a meeting of the council's Neighbourhood Action Group, Yvonne Collins,
> streets and open spaces manager, asked if its officers could be given the
> powers because of the limited scope of PCSOs.

NO!

>
> A police spokesman said: "This is still at a very early stage, and would
> need to go through consultation."

Nice bit of overtime.  Money makes the world go round, the world go
round, the world go round.

On Apr 18, 10:40 am, "Mr Benn" <Mr_Benn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:kJvjr.102515$Hp5.72214@fx12.am4...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mr Benn wrote:
> >> This is very good news
>
> >>http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-180...
>
> >> Cyclists jumping red lights in Cambridge could be targeted by council
> >> officers armed with controversial police powers.
>
> >> The move to stop cyclists flouting the law comes after the city
> >> council learned PCSOs can only issue fines to cyclists riding on
> >> pavements.  It is in talks with the Cambridgeshire force to acquire
> >> police powers for staff to issue fines to cyclists jumping lights. The
> >> Community Safety Accreditation Scheme has already been rolled out
> >> to Addenbrooke's security guards.  They were given the power to
> >> impose on-the-spot fines despite critics claiming it would create a
> >> "private police force".
> >> Now the scheme could be extended to city council employees, if the
> >> go-ahead is given by the police, who would have to train the
> >> enforcement officers. Lynda Kilkelly, the council's safer community's
> >> manager, told the News: "It was put forward and we will certainly
> >> pursue it if it helps prevent cyclists going through red lights. "This is
> >> not going to happen overnight, but we have been talking to
> >> the police about what can be done."
> >> Cllr Geoffrey Heathcock has campaigned against cyclists flouting red
> >> lights at the roundabout next to Addenbrooke's, in the Queen Edith's
> >> ward he is county councillor for.  He said: "Anything that can be
> >> done to enforce the law at red lights is to be welcomed. Too many
> >> cyclists take unnecessary risks which also impacts on others' safety."
>
> >> At a meeting of the council's Neighbourhood Action Group, Yvonne
> >> Collins, streets and open spaces manager, asked if its officers could
> >> be given the powers because of the limited scope of PCSOs.
>
> >> A police spokesman said: "This is still at a very early stage, and
> >> would need to go through consultation."
>
> > They could raise a tidy sum, on the spot fines would be best, with
> > confiscation of the bike if they could/would not pay.  Who could possibly
> > object?  If they do it right then every bike that is stopped would be
> > checked for legality and another fine for each item, anything dangerous
> > would mean that the bike was impounded or crushed, also a good chance to
> > look for stolen bikes, drugs etc.
>
> > Thinking about it, they will need a lot of officers in Cambridge, but at
> > least it could be self financing.
>
> Yes, the scheme could easily be self-financing.  In places like Cambridge, a
> significant amount of revenue could be earned this way.  And it will keep
> the streets safer for everyone.  I hope this scheme is applied in London as
> well.

You've been eating the bird-seed.

On Apr 18, 11:52 am, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Tim Ward wrote:
> > On 18/04/2012 10:40, Mr Benn wrote:
>
> >> Yes, the scheme could easily be self-financing.
>
> > Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
> > reason obvious to me why this should be any different.
>
> the very large number of miscreants that would pay (collectively) a very
> large amount.

Don't have to pay anything if they have no allegience to the crown.

On Apr 19, 6:25 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> considered Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:22:01
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >> "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:kJvjr.102515$Hp5.72214@fx12.am4...
>
> >> Yes, the scheme could easily be self-financing. In places like Cambridge, a
> >> significant amount of revenue could be earned this way.
>
> >  Which traffic lights in Cambridge have a large enough number of cyclists ?
>
> If the primary legislation was passed to enable this, it would have to
> apply to all red light offences, not just those committed by one class
> of vehicle.
> That would be difficult, as it would have to extend the power of
> non-police officers to include the enforcement of endorsable offences,
> which could contribute to a ban.
>
> Not a hope in hell.

Please wait for the consultation, I'm sure the Bollinger and Beluga
(caviar?)will help them come to the correct decision.

On Apr 20, 8:33 pm, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/04/2012 20:24, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps it would help if there was a doughnut or chip shop nearby.
>
> I have been in a police car with a policeman who nicked a cyclist for
> cycling across one of the crossings mentioned (a) with no lights and (b)
> across a red light. The policeman said that one or the other was pretty
> standard for cyclists, but doing both at once a few feet in front of a
> normal marked police car was taking the piss and thus deserved being nicked.
>
> He offered the cyclist a choice of whether he wanted the ticket for no
> lights or for the red light. I don't recall which the guy chose.


Halibut?

>
> This particular policeman did not stop for food throughout the shift,
> and said that this was his normal practice (I think the stopping for
> doughnuts every two minutes is something you might have picked up from
> US cop shows, rather than from spending time with UK cops). However
> before dropping me off at home he did stop at Renu so that *I* would get
> something to eat that evening.
>
> --
> Tim Wardwww.brettward.co.uk

On Apr 19, 6:21 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> considered Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:33:05
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >On 18/04/2012 21:18, Roland Perry wrote:
> >> In message <9v8l0hF99...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:03:29 on Wed, 18 Apr
> >> 2012, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
> >>>> Why waste money training new people from scratch, when there's a whole
> >>>> set of already-trained people already (the PCSOs).
>
> >>> If the PCSOs are currently not allowed to stop cyclists for cycling
> >>> over red lines then I sincerely hope that no money has been wasted in
> >>> training them in the procedures for doing so!
>
> >> You train them in law enforcement procedures. Adding an extra offence is
> >> just a memo.
>
> >No problem then. The council's enforcement staff are "trained in law
> >enforcement procedures" or they couldn't do their current jobs!
>
> But red light infringements are an endorsable offence, and are
> therefore restricted to enforcement by police officers (even if the
> vehicle being used at the time is not one for which endorsement is an
> option).
>
> The situation at Addenbrooke's is completely different.
> It's not a public highway, but a private one, over which there is
> permissive use allowed by the owner.
> The owner (or their agent) can therefore enforce pretty much any
> condition (such as "access only") they want - the only thing that they
> had to be enabled to do was access the DVLA database for tracing
> offenders from their registration numbers.
>
> Being able to enforce the law on a public highway is a whole different
> ballgame.
> A few laws can be enforced by people other than the police, but no

Yes, common law.

> endorsable offences can be, and it would certainly require primary
> legislation to allow this (and it would be strongly resisted).

Most notably by the police forces.  They have the monopoly on job
creation with imagined offences against the crown and don't want their
toes trodden on.

> It required primary legislation to allow even enforcement of
> non-endorsable offences by civil enforcement officers, and they still
> haven't got around to enabling all of the powers under that act, so
> the chance of any new offences being added is remote in the extreme,
> particularly endorsable ones.

thirty-six wrote:
> On Apr 18, 10:13 am, "Mr Benn"<Mr_Benn_use...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> This is very good news
>>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-180...
>>
>> Cyclists jumping red lights in Cambridge could be targeted by council
>> officers armed with controversial police powers.
>>
>> The move to stop cyclists flouting the law comes after the city council
>> learned PCSOs can only issue fines to cyclists riding on pavements.  It is
>> in talks with the Cambridgeshire force to acquire police powers for staff to
>> issue fines to cyclists jumping lights.  The Community Safety Accreditation
>> Scheme has already been rolled out to Addenbrooke's security guards.  They
>> were given the power to impose on-the-spot fines despite critics claiming it
>> would create a "private police force".
>>
>> Now the scheme could be extended to city council employees, if the go-ahead
>> is given by the police, who would have to train the enforcement officers.
>> Lynda Kilkelly, the council's safer community's manager, told the News: "It
>> was put forward and we will certainly pursue it if it helps prevent cyclists
>> going through red lights.  "This is not going to happen overnight, but we
>> have been talking to the police about what can be done."
>
> F - all.  Without a warrent issued by the crown they are not agents of
> the crown and so cannot lawfully withold or fine or whatnot a bicycle
> rider who jumps a red light.

What makes you say that?

I know whole scads of Crown Agents who aren't warranted or commissioned.
And I know loads of people who exercise the power of the monarch without 
such things either.

"Mr Benn" <Mr_Benn_usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:jmm0jr$i82$1@dont-email.me...
> This is very good news
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-18042012.htm

<snip>

> county councillor for.  He said: "Anything that can be done to enforce the 
> law at red lights is to be welcomed. Too many cyclists take unnecessary 
> risks which also impacts on others' safety."

<snip>

How are they going to actually catch the cyclists? 

In message <8bslr.178531$H11.125210@fx23.am4>, at 07:59:11 on Tue, 24 
Apr 2012, Mike Lewis <mike-at-home@deletethisbit.ntlworld.com> remarked:
><snip>
>
>> county councillor for.  He said: "Anything that can be done to enforce the
>> law at red lights is to be welcomed. Too many cyclists take unnecessary
>> risks which also impacts on others' safety."
>
><snip>
>
>How are they going to actually catch the cyclists?

The way they catch motorists sometimes to have one person as a "spotter" 
and a second (or multiple) person a bit further up the road stopping 
offenders.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 24/04/12 07:59, Mike Lewis wrote:
> "Mr Benn"<Mr_Benn_usenet@yahoo.com>  wrote in message
> news:jmm0jr$i82$1@dont-email.me...
>> This is very good news
>>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-18042012.htm
>
> <snip>
>
>> county councillor for.  He said: "Anything that can be done to enforce the
>> law at red lights is to be welcomed. Too many cyclists take unnecessary
>> risks which also impacts on others' safety."
>
> <snip>
>
> How are they going to actually catch the cyclists?
>
>
They'll do what they do in the winter months with lighting checks, 
station a few council people at a particular junction both sides of the 
lights and stop people who jump them.  (I would have thought.)

Oh sorry you mean physically catch them?  In a large net probably ;-)

PB

On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk>  wrote:
>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>
> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>
> --
> Simon Mason

The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee 
paid �x" where x > cost of issue.

-- 
Ed

On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>
>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>
>> --
>> Simon Mason
>
> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>
Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini 
Cooper Diesel pays zero?

On 24-Apr-12 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>
>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>>
>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>
> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
> Cooper Diesel pays zero?

See also:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285

-- 
Dona F

On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>
>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>>
>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>
> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini Cooper
> Diesel pays zero?

Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?

When did that happen?

On 24/04/2012 15:54, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>> reason
>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Mason
>>>
>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>
>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>> Cooper
>> Diesel pays zero?
>
> Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?
>
> When did that happen?
>
The discussion was about VED.

On 24/04/2012 15:54, Dona Ferentes wrote:
> On 24-Apr-12 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>> reason
>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Mason
>>>
>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>
>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>
> See also:
>
> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285
>
HeHe

On 24/04/2012 15:57, Andrew May wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 15:54, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simon Mason
>>>>
>>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>>
>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>> Cooper
>>> Diesel pays zero?
>>
>> Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?
>> When did that happen?
>>
> The discussion was about VED.

The average motor-vehicle users pays much larger amounts in fuel taxation. 
The Road Tax quantum is a more marginal issue.

Since cyclists use tax-free fuel (well, apart from the ones who measure out 
their fuel intake in tens of pints per diem, at least), the only remaining 
alternative for enabling cyclists to make a contribution to the provision of 
services similar to that made by drivers (for hospitals, schools, etc, 
according to Tony Blair) is a road tax.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:54:18 +0100, Dona Ferentes
<dona.ferentespadding@extrantlworld.com> wrote:

>On 24-Apr-12 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Mason
>>>
>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>
>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>
>See also:
>
>http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285

I've updated that photo of a bicycle to a family sized bike... just
for you.   ;-)

In message <9vnsv1FrbrU2@mid.individual.net>, at 15:51:14 on Tue, 24 Apr 
2012, Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini 
>Cooper Diesel pays zero?

Does it really?  So it's not just technology law which has unintended 
consequences.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2012 16:03, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 15:57, Andrew May wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 15:54, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Simon Mason
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying
>>>>> "fee
>>>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>>> Cooper
>>>> Diesel pays zero?
>>>
>>> Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?
>>> When did that happen?
>>>
>> The discussion was about VED.
>
> The average motor-vehicle users pays much larger amounts in fuel
> taxation. The Road Tax quantum is a more marginal issue.
>
> Since cyclists use tax-free fuel (well, apart from the ones who measure
> out their fuel intake in tens of pints per diem, at least), the only
> remaining alternative for enabling cyclists to make a contribution to
> the provision of services similar to that made by drivers (for
> hospitals, schools, etc, according to Tony Blair) is a road tax.
>
You can't expect the sponging freeloaders to grasp that Mr N.



-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 24/04/2012 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <9vnsv1FrbrU2@mid.individual.net>, at 15:51:14 on Tue, 24 Apr
> 2012, Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>
> Does it really? So it's not just technology law which has unintended
> consequences.

What are the unintended consequences? up to 100g CO2 / km and VED is zero.

No-one is seriously suggesting that bicycles should pay more.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:03:38 +0100, JNugent <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 24/04/2012 15:57, Andrew May wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 15:54, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Simon Mason
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>>> Cooper
>>>> Diesel pays zero?
>>>
>>> Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?
>>> When did that happen?
>>>
>> The discussion was about VED.
>
>The average motor-vehicle users pays much larger amounts in fuel taxation. 
>The Road Tax quantum is a more marginal issue.
>
>Since cyclists use tax-free fuel (well, apart from the ones who measure out 
>their fuel intake in tens of pints per diem, at least), the only remaining 
>alternative for enabling cyclists to make a contribution to the provision of 
>services similar to that made by drivers (for hospitals, schools, etc, 
>according to Tony Blair) is a road tax.

So you are happy that whenever a cyclist fuels up on warm Cornish
Pasties from 1 October they will be paying VAT?

In message <9vo1k0FmqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:40 on Tue, 24 Apr 
2012, Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>>
>> Does it really? So it's not just technology law which has unintended
>> consequences.
>
>What are the unintended consequences? up to 100g CO2 / km and VED is zero.
>
>No-one is seriously suggesting that bicycles should pay more.

I'd suggest a 100g vehicle should pay half what a 200g does. Or is that 
too simple?
-- 
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2012 17:16, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:03:38 +0100, JNugent<jenningsltd@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2012 15:57, Andrew May wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2012 15:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Simon Mason
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>>>>> paid �x" where x>  cost of issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why should a bike pay>  cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>>>> Cooper
>>>>> Diesel pays zero?
>>>>
>>>> Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?
>>>> When did that happen?
>>>>
>>> The discussion was about VED.
>>
>> The average motor-vehicle users pays much larger amounts in fuel taxation.
>> The Road Tax quantum is a more marginal issue.
>>
>> Since cyclists use tax-free fuel (well, apart from the ones who measure out
>> their fuel intake in tens of pints per diem, at least), the only remaining
>> alternative for enabling cyclists to make a contribution to the provision of
>> services similar to that made by drivers (for hospitals, schools, etc,
>> according to Tony Blair) is a road tax.
>
> So you are happy that whenever a cyclist fuels up on warm Cornish
> Pasties from 1 October they will be paying VAT?

East a cold one. It's just as nutritious.

Come to think of it, eat a chicken sandwich, which is better for you.

On 24/04/2012 17:25, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <9vo1k0FmqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:40 on Tue, 24 Apr 2012,
> Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>>>
>>> Does it really? So it's not just technology law which has unintended
>>> consequences.
>>
>> What are the unintended consequences? up to 100g CO2 / km and VED is zero.
>>
>> No-one is seriously suggesting that bicycles should pay more.
>
> I'd suggest a 100g vehicle should pay half what a 200g does. Or is that too
> simple?

Including the per-mile equivalent of the fuel duty and VAT, or just ignoring it?

And if the latter, why?

In cam.transport Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> I'd suggest a 100g vehicle should pay half what a 200g does. Or is that 
> too simple?

I assume they already do (approximately, especially if they run off the
same type of fuel) in fuel taxes.  The VED zero-rating for efficient
vehicles is merely an additional sweetener.  

For "classics" it's presumably there to remove the disincentive to running
the thing at all that would be posed by a high fixed VED on a vehicle that
most likely does a very low annual mileage.

-- 
Robin Stevens  <rejs@cynic.org.uk> 
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

On 24/04/2012 17:10, Andrew May wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <9vnsv1FrbrU2@mid.individual.net>, at 15:51:14 on Tue, 24 Apr
>> 2012, Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>>
>> Does it really? So it's not just technology law which has unintended
>> consequences.
>
> What are the unintended consequences? up to 100g CO2 / km and VED is zero.
>
> No-one is seriously suggesting that bicycles should pay more.

But they should pay something.

-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 24/04/2012 17:49, Robin Stevens wrote:
> In cam.transport Roland Perry<roland@perry.co.uk>  wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest a 100g vehicle should pay half what a 200g does. Or is that
>> too simple?
>
> I assume they already do (approximately, especially if they run off the
> same type of fuel) in fuel taxes.  The VED zero-rating for efficient
> vehicles is merely an additional sweetener.
>
> For "classics" it's presumably there to remove the disincentive to running
> the thing at all that would be posed by a high fixed VED on a vehicle that
> most likely does a very low annual mileage.
>
Since classics emit more CO2 than a thing emitting a huge amount of CO2, 
it shows what a load of old bollox VED really is.

The Green movement has allowed Guvmints to raise huge amounts of extra 
taxes.

And of course classics have paid years of Road Tax in the past.

-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

In article <9vo1k0FmqU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew May wrote:
>On 24/04/2012 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <9vnsv1FrbrU2@mid.individual.net>, at 15:51:14 on Tue, 24 Apr
>> 2012, Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>>
>> Does it really? So it's not just technology law which has unintended
>> consequences.
>
>What are the unintended consequences? up to 100g CO2 / km and VED is zero.
>
>No-one is seriously suggesting that bicycles should pay more.

It might be more accurate to say that no-one who suggests that bicycles
should pay more should be taken seriously.

In message <9vo3gbFevhU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:42:51 on Tue, 24 Apr 
2012, JNugent <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>> I'd suggest a 100g vehicle should pay half what a 200g does. Or is that too
>> simple?
>
>Including the per-mile equivalent of the fuel duty and VAT, or just ignoring it?
>
>And if the latter, why?

The 200g vehicle will be using twice the fuel of the 100g vehicle, so it 
all scales perfectly well.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2012 17:10, Andrew May wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <9vnsv1FrbrU2@mid.individual.net>, at 15:51:14 on Tue, 24 Apr
>> 2012, Andrew May <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>>
>> Does it really? So it's not just technology law which has unintended
>> consequences.
>
> What are the unintended consequences? up to 100g CO2 / km and VED is zero.
>
> No-one is seriously suggesting that bicycles should pay more.

  The existing VED rate for bicycles is more. Many times more.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:27:42 +0100, Phil W Lee <phil@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Bertie Wooster <bert@wooster.invalid.com> considered Tue, 24 Apr 2012
>16:19:27 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:54:18 +0100, Dona Ferentes
>><dona.ferentespadding@extrantlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24-Apr-12 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>>>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Simon Mason
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>>>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>>> Cooper Diesel pays zero?
>>>
>>>See also:
>>>
>>>http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285
>>
>>I've updated that photo of a bicycle to a family sized bike... just
>>for you.   ;-)
>
>Where's the trailer? :)

As it happens, I have just fitted a Carry Freedom Commercial trailer
hitch to the real axle of my tandem.

Clare and I plan to go cycle touring in the summer, and I have a 240L
aluminium box for my Y-Frame Large trailer. I paid the extra �30 to
have the ball and socket hitch fitted - it's far better than the
standard hitch.

On 25/04/2012 01:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andrew May<andrew_d_may@hotmail.com>  considered Tue, 24 Apr 2012
> 15:57:59 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 24/04/2012 15:54, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>>>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>>>>> discs that read "fee paid £0" on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Simon Mason
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>>>>> paid £x" where x>  cost of issue.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should a bike pay>  cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
>>>> Cooper
>>>> Diesel pays zero?
>>>
>>> Diesel is now zero-rated for duty and VAT, is it?
>>>
>>> When did that happen?
>>>
>> The discussion was about VED.
>
> I can and have run my diesel on fuel on which no duty or VAT were
> paid.  Legally.
> I don't pay VED or London congestion charge* for it, either, but
> that's because I can't walk.
> I don't recommend this last matter as a route to economy though.
> I'd much rather have better use of my legs.
>
> *Or, generally, parking charges or tolls at crossings.

Sponging freeloader.


-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

"Phil W Lee" <phil@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message 
news:gmhep7h05dlemfqele3trrln5l3kub2skc@4ax.com...

> Despite having no legal authority to do so?
> That would be obstructing the highway.
> Of course, it would be a waste of time anyway, as they also lack the
> authority to demand name and address, so if it ever comes to pass I
> would expect to see the likes of mickey mouse and donald duck having
> large numbers of unpaid fines recorded against their names.
> That'll give the bailiffs a laugh.
>>
>>Oh sorry you mean physically catch them?  In a large net probably ;-)
>>
> Nope, see my first point, and add assault.
> Not a good career move for any local government employee.

My mate once gave the name of John Menzies when he was caught by the fuzz 
one night.
Sadly the cop was Scots and was suspicious when he did not pronounce it as 
Mingis.

--
Simon Mason  

On Apr 25, 9:32 pm, "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in messagenews:gmhep7h05dlemfqele3trrln5l3kub2skc@4ax.com...
>
> > Despite having no legal authority to do so?
> > That would be obstructing the highway.
> > Of course, it would be a waste of time anyway, as they also lack the
> > authority to demand name and address, so if it ever comes to pass I
> > would expect to see the likes of mickey mouse and donald duck having
> > large numbers of unpaid fines recorded against their names.
> > That'll give the bailiffs a laugh.
>
> >>Oh sorry you mean physically catch them?  In a large net probably ;-)
>
> > Nope, see my first point, and add assault.
> > Not a good career move for any local government employee.
>
> My mate once gave the name of John Menzies when he was caught by the fuzz
> one night.
> Sadly the cop was Scots and was suspicious when he did not pronounce it as
> Mingis.

I've been asked for documentary ID despite being in the parish and
there only being 5 coppers on the beat, so to speak, at least 3 of
them know me by sight and it would take not a minute to ID me by voice
on the radio.  I will not now carry documents unless outside the
parish, and only as a "driver" outside the county. If they arrest,
it'll be a bigger problem to them than to me.  It really is a nice
lager i found at a £ for 500ml.  :-)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:32:42 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>"Phil W Lee" <phil@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message 
>news:gmhep7h05dlemfqele3trrln5l3kub2skc@4ax.com...
>
>> Despite having no legal authority to do so?
>> That would be obstructing the highway.
>> Of course, it would be a waste of time anyway, as they also lack the
>> authority to demand name and address, so if it ever comes to pass I
>> would expect to see the likes of mickey mouse and donald duck having
>> large numbers of unpaid fines recorded against their names.
>> That'll give the bailiffs a laugh.
>>>
>>>Oh sorry you mean physically catch them?  In a large net probably ;-)
>>>
>> Nope, see my first point, and add assault.
>> Not a good career move for any local government employee.
>
>My mate once gave the name of John Menzies when he was caught by the fuzz 
>one night.
>Sadly the cop was Scots and was suspicious when he did not pronounce it as 
>Mingis.

Oh - you mean exactly how the Scottish newsagents John Menzies is pronounced?

(Why do you make these things up?)

On 24/04/2012 15:51, Andrew May wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 15:16, Ed Weatherup wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 12:02, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Tim Ward<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Seems unlikely to me. Most such things are expensive, there's no reason
>>>> obvious to me why this should be any different.
>>>
>>> Agreed - it would be cash negative like issuing bicycles with VED
>>> discs that read "fee paid �0" on them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>>
>> The solution that that last problem is VED discs on bicycles saying "fee
>> paid �x" where x > cost of issue.
>>
> Why should a bike pay > cost of issue whereas something like a Mini
> Cooper Diesel pays zero?

MCD should *also* pay �x, where again x > cost of issue.

-- 
Ed

On 18/04/12 10:13, Mr Benn wrote:
> This is very good news
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-18042012.htm
...

I think it would be better if most pedestrian crossings were changed
to zebra crossings. It would be better for pedestrians because
they wouldn't have to wait for lights to change in their favour, and it
would be better for vehicles because they wouldn't have to wait at a
red light when the pedestrian is long gone, which is a very common
occurrence.

I know technology is meant to cancel the pedestrian phase after the
pedestrian has crossed, but it often doesn't work. It also doesn't
cope with the case where the pedestrian has pressed the button then
found a safe gap in the traffic and crossed before the lights have
changed in their favour.

Moving to zebras would also encourage drivers, cyclists and pedestrians
to observe and evaluate the circumstances of the road rather than focus
on the lights. Sometimes it isn't safe to cross when the light is in
your favour and often it is safe to cross when the light is against
you. And getting drivers/cyclists more used to judging the intentions
of pedestrians is a good thing too.

Oh, and in Cambridge they should remove the completely pointless
traffic lights they added on Grange Road at Adams Road/Burrells Walk.
I've gone past it hundreds of times and it is just a life-stealer.
There is no use for it whatsoever: it slows down traffic in all
directions.

On 30/04/2012 16:09, Alex Selby wrote:
> On 18/04/12 10:13, Mr Benn wrote:
>> This is very good news
>>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-18042012.htm
>>
> ...
>
> I think it would be better if most pedestrian crossings were changed
> to zebra crossings. It would be better for pedestrians because
> they wouldn't have to wait for lights to change in their favour, and it
> would be better for vehicles because they wouldn't have to wait at a
> red light when the pedestrian is long gone, which is a very common
> occurrence.

What I have never understood is why pedestrian crossings have a delay 
_before_ the lights change. If they changed as soon as the button was 
pressed the pedestrian would have no wait and the driver would still be 
stopped but would be far more likely to be stopped for a pedestrian 
crossing than for no reason at all. Then have delay _after_ the 
pedestrian has crossed before it changes for the next one.

On 30/04/2012 16:09, Alex Selby wrote:
> On 18/04/12 10:13, Mr Benn wrote:
>> This is very good news
>>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Council-staff-to-issue-fines-18042012.htm
> ...
>
> I think it would be better if most pedestrian crossings were changed
> to zebra crossings. It would be better for pedestrians because
> they wouldn't have to wait for lights to change in their favour, and it
> would be better for vehicles because they wouldn't have to wait at a
> red light when the pedestrian is long gone, which is a very common
> occurrence.

Correct and correct.

> I know technology is meant to cancel the pedestrian phase after the
> pedestrian has crossed, but it often doesn't work. It also doesn't
> cope with the case where the pedestrian has pressed the button then
> found a safe gap in the traffic and crossed before the lights have
> changed in their favour.

Correct.

> Moving to zebras would also encourage drivers, cyclists and pedestrians
> to observe and evaluate the circumstances of the road rather than focus
> on the lights. Sometimes it isn't safe to cross when the light is in
> your favour and often it is safe to cross when the light is against
> you. And getting drivers/cyclists more used to judging the intentions
> of pedestrians is a good thing too.

Correct.

> Oh, and in Cambridge they should remove the completely pointless
> traffic lights they added on Grange Road at Adams Road/Burrells Walk.
> I've gone past it hundreds of times and it is just a life-stealer.
> There is no use for it whatsoever: it slows down traffic in all
> directions.

Don't know the spot you mean, but such things are repeated all over the country.

In message <jnm9v9$gac$1@dont-email.me>
          Alex Selby <a.p.selby@REMOVE.pobox.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Sometimes it isn't safe to cross when the light is in your favour and
> often it is safe to cross when the light is against you. 

I quite agree and the above is a good reason not to blindly follow
Roland's good citizenship rule. Indeed there are many junctions where I
deliberately avoid crossing as a pedestrian using the provided light
controlled junction and instead I cross the road some distance away
where I only have to deal with two way traffic. A good example is where
Downing Street meets Regent Street by John Lewis. That T-junction is a
nightmare to negotiate as a pedestrian because so many cyclists and also
some drivers jump the lights during the supposed pedestrian phase. You
also have to vigilant for cyclists coming at you from several
alternative directions. The Cambridge Building Society presents a
blind spot preventing you from seeing cyclists turning from Regents
Street into Downing Street until the last second. So my strategy as a
pedestrian is to get on the appropriate side of the road well before I
arrive at that junction, so as to minimise the need to cross at the
junction. For example if approaching from Downing Street I'll cross over
to whichever side allows me to continue north or south when arriving at
the junction.

Mike
-- 
 o/ \\    //        |\   ,_ o      Mike Clark
<\__,\\  //   __o   | \ /  /\,   "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
 ">    ||   _`\<,_  |__\  \> | caving, antibody engineer and
  `    ||  (_)/ (_) |   \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

In cam.transport Alex Selby <a.p.selby@remove.pobox.com> wrote:

> I think it would be better if most pedestrian crossings were changed
> to zebra crossings. It would be better for pedestrians because
> they wouldn't have to wait for lights to change in their favour, and it
> would be better for vehicles because they wouldn't have to wait at a
> red light when the pedestrian is long gone, which is a very common
> occurrence.

It depends.  Zebras aren't suitable to all places - they're probably
unsuited to multi-lane roads, for instance.  Nor for places with a very
high volume of pedestrian traffic, as there would be few opportunities for
vehicle traffic to get through.  Though, perhaps, a neat reversal of the
situation many pedestrians are constantly facing :-)

> Moving to zebras would also encourage drivers, cyclists and pedestrians
> to observe and evaluate the circumstances of the road rather than focus
> on the lights. Sometimes it isn't safe to cross when the light is in
> your favour and often it is safe to cross when the light is against
> you. And getting drivers/cyclists more used to judging the intentions
> of pedestrians is a good thing too.

Unfortunately a big cultural shift would be needed and I wonder whether it
would actually work in modern Britain, or just end up being like trying to
cross at a zebra crossing in Rome. 

-- 
Robin Stevens  <rejs@cynic.org.uk> 
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

On 30/04/12 22:03, Robin Stevens wrote:
> In cam.transport Alex Selby<a.p.selby@remove.pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> I think it would be better if most pedestrian crossings were changed
>> to zebra crossings. It would be better for pedestrians because
>> they wouldn't have to wait for lights to change in their favour, and it
>> would be better for vehicles because they wouldn't have to wait at a
>> red light when the pedestrian is long gone, which is a very common
>> occurrence.
>
> It depends.  Zebras aren't suitable to all places - they're probably
> unsuited to multi-lane roads, for instance.  Nor for places with a very

Sure, I can see that. I was thinking of many places in Cambridge (which
has few multi-lane roads).

> high volume of pedestrian traffic, as there would be few opportunities for
> vehicle traffic to get through.  Though, perhaps, a neat reversal of the
> situation many pedestrians are constantly facing :-)

It's obviously true that if the pedestrian volume is high enough then
they would become a road block, so some kind of sharing would be needed.
But I reckon this point is further off than people sometimes say, and
I think it would apply at very few, if any, places in Cambridge.

>> Moving to zebras would also encourage drivers, cyclists and pedestrians
>> to observe and evaluate the circumstances of the road rather than focus
>> on the lights. Sometimes it isn't safe to cross when the light is in
>> your favour and often it is safe to cross when the light is against
>> you. And getting drivers/cyclists more used to judging the intentions
>> of pedestrians is a good thing too.
>
> Unfortunately a big cultural shift would be needed and I wonder whether it
> would actually work in modern Britain, or just end up being like trying to
> cross at a zebra crossing in Rome.

In my experience drivers actually seem to be quite good at respecting
zebra crossings.

Maybe they would be worse at it if there were more zebras, but on the
other hand maybe they would become even better since there would be
fewer traffic lights, less overall delay and no 'deadtime' where
no-one is going anywhere due no vehicles or pedestrians with the
signalled right of way.

In message <a0a19c8852.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at 
17:40:46 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>> Sometimes it isn't safe to cross when the light is in your favour and
>> often it is safe to cross when the light is against you.
>
>I quite agree and the above is a good reason not to blindly follow
>Roland's good citizenship rule. Indeed there are many junctions where I
>deliberately avoid crossing as a pedestrian using the provided light
>controlled junction and instead I cross the road some distance away
>where I only have to deal with two way traffic.

You are actually suggesting the same rule as I described!

My remarks about waiting for green men apply *if* you are using a 
crossing. But it's OK to cross the road somewhere else if you prefer, 
and my second "good citizenship" rule was about the minimum distance to 
put between yourself and a crossing, when doing that.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <jnmunu$u68$1@news.ox.ac.uk>, at 21:03:58 on Mon, 30 Apr 
2012, Robin Stevens <rejs@cynic.org.uk> remarked:
>> I think it would be better if most pedestrian crossings were changed
>> to zebra crossings. It would be better for pedestrians because
>> they wouldn't have to wait for lights to change in their favour, and it
>> would be better for vehicles because they wouldn't have to wait at a
>> red light when the pedestrian is long gone, which is a very common
>> occurrence.
>
>It depends.  Zebras aren't suitable to all places - they're probably
>unsuited to multi-lane roads, for instance.

Very often when a set of traffic lights breaks (say, at a crossroads) 
vehicles approach with caution and often flow much better than before. 
But that's because it's a short term exceptional situation. If there had 
never been traffic lights there, it would be chaos.

I think if traffic light pedestrian crossings were replaced by zebras, 
we'd very soon reach the situation where impatient motorists were 
playing chicken with pedestrians, and people would be clamouring for 
traffic lights again.

>Nor for places with a very
>high volume of pedestrian traffic, as there would be few opportunities for
>vehicle traffic to get through.  Though, perhaps, a neat reversal of the
>situation many pedestrians are constantly facing :-)

There's a zebra crossing adjacent to Nottingham Station which has an 
almost constant flow of pedestrians across it (much of the day). It's 
necessary for vehicles nudge their way across most of the day. This road 
will be closed as part of the current redevelopment, but at the moment 
is the only legal route for non-hackeys/non-buses to approach the 
station forecourt (although private hire cars often break the rules).
-- 
Roland Perry