"Sir Jeremy" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb, 15:33, Nick wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs .tc wrote:

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't get it.

Militant cyclist **** people off and turn all cyclists into objects of
hate

Which says much more about you than the cyclists you hate.

On Feb 3, 8:18 pm, wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
Would you not
agree with me that the militant cyclists who hate all other forms of
private transport (and care about that more than saving lives) are
tarnishing the reputation of you and other reasonable cyclists?

If you also hold the positions that
* fundamentalist suicide bombers are tarnishing the reputation of all
university graduates
* drunk people are tarnishing the reputation of all reasonable pedestrians
* militant feminists are tarnishing the reputation of all reasonable women
* people with made-up names who crosspost inflammatory crap on usenet
are tarnishing the reputation of all reasonable simian bipeds

But militant cyclists claim to speak for all cyclists. And because
they're so prominent (e.g. when causing trouble or jumping red
lights), many motorists make the mistake of thinking that the majority
of cyclists are like them. Furthermore, the spiteful measures that
they campaign for put all cyclists in danger. If you are a normal
cyclist, you must surely wish that militant cyclists would find some
other belligerent cause which didn't involve killing road users such
as yourself.

then I will at least grant that you are logically consistent. I
suspect, however, that you're probably just making **** up to try and
get a reaction.

Not at all. But everyone's entitled to their opinion (not that
militant cyclists would agree with that). What **** am I making up
anyway? Do you deny that these militant cyclists exist (despite
posting on a newsgroup containing them)? Or that they are tarnishing
the reputation of all cyclists, at least in some people's minds? Why
would what I say get a "reaction", except from the militants
themselves?

sigh As I said, all I want is for cyclists, motorists and everyone
else to share the roads in a peaceful, adult and tolerant fashion.
But it is quite clear that that is anathema to some. Those people do
not deserve to share the roads with anyone, just as the spoilt little
**** of a toddler who won't share toys doesn't deserve any toys at all.

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking
of minicabs?

I believe that minicabs can be hired by telephone or from the office,
while taxis can, in addition, be picked up at an authorised taxi rank.

I'm not aware of any kind of taxi that can legally be hailed in the
street, unless the rules have changed in the last few years.

So how come safely responding to a street hail is specifically tested in the
taxi driving test?

Taxis can legally respond to a hail nearly anywhere within their licensed
area. Exceptions include zigzags, clearways (not including red route
clearways), and a few short stretches of road in Kings Cross and Victoria
(marked with a thick red line by the kerb). They are subject to the same
laws on obstruction and dangerous driving as anyone else, which rules out
fast roundabouts and narrow slip roads. They can't pick up within 30 yards
of a (visible) rank which has a taxi on it - so the existence of a rank
creates an area where taxis can't pick up, rather than creating a place
where they can pick up. They are also not supposed to pick up in the few bus
lanes from which they are forbidden, however, there always seem to be taxis
stopped in the taxi-free bus lane in Bishopsgate by :Liverpool Street
Station, so I don't know how well this last one is enforced.

On Feb 3, 10:14 pm, "burtthebike"
wrote:
"Sir Jeremy" wrote in message

...
On 3 Feb, 15:33, Nick wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs .tc wrote:

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't get it.

Militant cyclist **** people off and turn all cyclists into objects of
hate

Which says much more about you than the cyclists you hate.

But it's not just him, it's lots of people. It's human nature to an
extent. Rather than telling people that they shouldn't react in such
a way to militant cyclists, wouldn't it be easier just to get rid of
the militant cyclists (who are after all in the minority)? They don't
help anyone, even other cyclists; they just cause danger, irritation
and resentment all round. It seems obvious to me that the best
solution is to nip the militancy in the bud. That way we're dealing
with the cause (the militant cyclists) rather than one of the many
symptoms (the way that some people react to them). Surely the only
people who would object to such a strategy are the militants
themselves, and their misguided supporters. You can oppose the
militants and still be every bit a "proper cyclist"; in fact, by
opposing the militants, you are helping rather than betraying your
fellow cyclists.

And please learn to quote properly. It's not that difficult.

On 3 Feb, 22:14, "burtthebike" wrote:
"Sir Jeremy" wrote in message

...
On 3 Feb, 15:33, Nick wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs .tc wrote:

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't get it.

Militant cyclist **** people off and turn all cyclists into objects of
hate

Which says much more about you than the cyclists you hate.


Its the militant internet warriors I hate, I've no problems in the
real world, but I don't live in London and haven't personally
encountered the motorist hating "critical mass". I like watching RLJ,
I live in hope of seeing one hit by a car.

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:58:20 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:


Speaking as a pedestrian who's never ridden a bike in my life, I think
TfL have made the right decision. I'm glad motorbikes aren't being
allowed in bus lanes. I just wish ordinary bikes weren't allowed in
them either.


I don't personally think cycles (small, lightweight, able to maintain
a constant but relatively slow speed) and buses (large, heavy, can
maintain a higher speed but need to stop frequently) are even slightly
compatible in traffic terms. The trouble is, where do you put the
bikes in London, where there isn't room enough for a wide cycle lane,
then the bus lane, then the car etc lane? I suspect the only real
option is to allow cycles in the bus lane as is the case.

That said, the vehicles causing the biggest disruption to bus
operations are taxis which frequently stop blocking bus lanes. I
believe this is permitted, but I strongly believe it should not be
permitted for any vehicle other than a bus to stop in a bus lane for
any reason other than mechanical breakdown, at any time.

Neil

Can you think of any difficulties that such a misguided policy would
cause for the drivers of taxis and and for their passengers?

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:


Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for it being
illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking of minicabs?


I believe that minicabs can be hired by telephone or from the office,
while taxis can, in addition, be picked up at an authorised taxi rank.

I'm not aware of any kind of taxi that can legally be hailed in the
street, unless the rules have changed in the last few years.

Then you are simply ignorant of the law on taxis.

There. That's settled. And so quickly.

We all know that people do it, and turning a blind eye to it is all
very well,

Street hails for licensed taxis are *completely* lawful. "Blind eye"
doesn't come into it.

but changing the rules around bus lanes to accommodate it
is a different matter.

What you seem to suggest *would be* "changing the rules". Taxis are
operating according the "the rules" as they have been since at least
as far back as the nineteenth century.

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

On Feb 3, 4:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:


Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking
of minicabs?

I believe that minicabs can be hired by telephone or from the office,
while taxis can, in addition, be picked up at an authorised taxi rank.

I'm not aware of any kind of taxi that can legally be hailed in the
street, unless the rules have changed in the last few years.

We all know that people do it, and turning a blind eye to it is all
very well, but changing the rules around bus lanes to accommodate it
is a different matter.


Hackney carriages (taxis) are governed by the TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847.
I've found nothing in that to indicate that it's illegal to hail a taxi.

Cambridgeshire County Council have gone so far as to introduce "taxi hailing
points" in certain areas.

http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/db...9?OpenDocument

London Cab Acts in London. Similar provisions. Same legality for
street hails.

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:

MIG wrote:

On Feb 3, 4:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking
of minicabs?

I believe that minicabs can be hired by telephone or from the office,
while taxis can, in addition, be picked up at an authorised taxi rank.

I'm not aware of any kind of taxi that can legally be hailed in the
street, unless the rules have changed in the last few years.

We all know that people do it, and turning a blind eye to it is all
very well, but changing the rules around bus lanes to accommodate it
is a different matter.

Hackney carriages (taxis) are governed by the TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847.
I've found nothing in that to indicate that it's illegal to hail a taxi.

Cambridgeshire County Council have gone so far as to introduce "taxi hailing
points" in certain areas.


"To give people more choice of where to get a taxi". More choice than
anywhere they like?

The point was whether bus lane rules should make allowances for dodgy
taxi-hailing behaviour.

I am hardly suggesting that punters or taxi drivers should be
prosecuted for hailing and stopping, but I don't see why bus lane
rules should make allowances for it.

I am often put at risk by taxis zooming into the kerb in front of me,
whether there's a bus lane or not.

Is this a frequent problem?

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous and
illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for it
being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking of
minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".


The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.

You're wrong. A taxi driver can operate without ever going to a rank
if he so chooses (and if he find enough street hails to mean that he
doesn't need to go to a rank, that'll probably be his choice).