>Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>didn't properly project manage the works.
Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No Cycling"
notice.
Is that another of your good friends?
I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and what the
penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
(uk.legal added)
--
Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.
>It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
>(uk.legal added)
>--
>Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
>He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
>Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
>can't see what a tosser he is.
>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>> didn't properly project manage the works.
> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No
> Cycling" notice.
> Is that another of your good friends?
> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and
> what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
> It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
> (uk.legal added)
There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through the greenwich foot tunnel.
The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle in the tunnel.
Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>>> didn't properly project manage the works.
>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No
>> Cycling" notice.
>> Is that another of your good friends?
>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and
>> what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>> It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
>> (uk.legal added)
>There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through >the greenwich foot tunnel.
>The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis >Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle >in the tunnel.
>Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
>> There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through
>> the greenwich foot tunnel.
>> The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>> The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
>> Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>> Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle
>> in the tunnel.
>> Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
If the penalties are specified in an act from 120 years ago, it could be something fixed in monetary terms, which would now be tiny in value given the effect of inflation.
Are you sure that these old acts weren't repealed by The Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965?
>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No
>>> Cycling" notice.
>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>> It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
>>> (uk.legal added)
>> There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles
>> through the greenwich foot tunnel.
>> The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>> The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
>> Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>> Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other
>> vehicle in the tunnel.
>> Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
As the original states 'forty shillings' I imagine there must be a modern update to bring it up to modern standards.
If the cyclist refuses to give name and address to a constable's satisfaction then it is an arrestable offence.
>>> There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles
>>> through the greenwich foot tunnel.
>>> The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>>> The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the
>>> Metropolis Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated
>>> in 1903. Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or >>> other
>>> vehicle in the tunnel.
>>> Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
>> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
> If the penalties are specified in an act from 120 years ago, it could
> be something fixed in monetary terms, which would now be tiny in value
> given the effect of inflation.
> Are you sure that these old acts weren't repealed by The Local Law
> (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965?
>>>> There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles
>>>> through the greenwich foot tunnel.
>>>> The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>>>> The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the
>>>> Metropolis Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated
>>>> in 1903. Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or >>>> other
>>>> vehicle in the tunnel.
>>>> Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
>>> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
>> If the penalties are specified in an act from 120 years ago, it could
>> be something fixed in monetary terms, which would now be tiny in value
>> given the effect of inflation.
>> Are you sure that these old acts weren't repealed by The Local Law
>> (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965?
>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>> You could try dialling 999.
>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
> them and one scooting.
>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
> pedestrians.
5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>> them and one scooting.
>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>> pedestrians.
>5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>> them and one scooting.
>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>> pedestrians.
> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
-- 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, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>> them and one scooting.
>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>> pedestrians.
>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
>>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>>> them and one scooting.
>>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>>> pedestrians.
>>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>> Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
> Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
> signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
> the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
What a shame all those traffic light & speed cameras don't agree with you.
The 6,000 + speed cameras only caught 5% of the motoring public.
-- 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, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
<g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through >the greenwich foot tunnel.
>The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis >Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle >in the tunnel.
>Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
There are also similar laws about cycling or even driving on Footpaths
(as opposed to footways, pavements etc) but nobody enforces the laws
and even if you take a complaint to the police it will not result in
action against anyone. LA are as guilty as most where I live as they
have even built car parks on Footpaths:-)
>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>> them and one scooting.
>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>> pedestrians.
>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
What, all in the Greenwich foot tunnel? After all, this is what the thread is all about. Or did you decide to bring in some completely irrelevant info to provide a smokescreen(as usual)?
>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No
>>>> Cycling" notice.
>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>> It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
>>>> (uk.legal added)
>>> There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles
>>> through the greenwich foot tunnel.
>>> The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>>> The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
>>> Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>>> Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other
>>> vehicle in the tunnel.
>>> Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
>> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
> As the original states 'forty shillings' I imagine there must be a modern
> update to bring it up to modern standards.
All specified fine amounts were re-valorised and standardised some decades back. That penalty will now be interpreted in court as a "a fine not exceeding £nnnn on the standard scale".
>>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>>> them and one scooting.
>>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>>> pedestrians.
>>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>>Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
>Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
>signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
>the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
>What, all in the Greenwich foot tunnel? After all, this is what the thread >is all about. Or did you decide to bring in some completely irrelevant info >to provide a smokescreen(as usual)?
No, it was plankwit who started talking about the road instead of the
foot tunnel.
>>>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>>>> them and one scooting.
>>>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>>>> pedestrians.
>>>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>>> Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
>> Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
>> signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
>> the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
>> What, all in the Greenwich foot tunnel? After all, this is what the thread
>> is all about. Or did you decide to bring in some completely irrelevant info
>> to provide a smokescreen(as usual)?
> No, it was plankwit who started talking about the road instead of the
> foot tunnel.
Comprehension skills failing you again Cwispie?
It is perfectly clear to anyone but a retard, that " Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?" refers to cyclists. So you introduced roads & motorists.
-- 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, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
On Oct 23, 7:16 am, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> plankwit
Tell me, what do you say to pupils at your primary school who have
been name-calling? Do you perhaps tell them that it is immature and
unacceptable? If so, don't those things also go (to a far greater
extent) for a middle-aged adult, especially one who (god help us) is
charged with educating the next generation?
> >>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
> >>> didn't properly project manage the works.
> >> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No
> >> Cycling" notice.
> >> Is that another of your good friends?
> >> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
> >> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and
> >> what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
> >> It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
> >> (uk.legal added)
> >There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through
> >the greenwich foot tunnel.
> >The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
> >The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
> >Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
> >Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle
> >in the tunnel.
> >Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
I think we need URC/URCM's best Lee-gal mind to answer that one.
Mine's an espresso.
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:59 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through
> >the greenwich foot tunnel.
> >The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
> >The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
> >Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
> >Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle
> >in the tunnel.
> >Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
> There are also similar laws about cycling or even driving on Footpaths
> (as opposed to footways, pavements etc) but nobody enforces the laws
> and even if you take a complaint to the police it will not result in
> action against anyone. LA are as guilty as most where I live as they
> have even built car parks on Footpaths:-)
>>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>>> them and one scooting.
>>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>>> pedestrians.
>>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>> Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
> Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
> signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
> the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
Lets think about that, according to you only one third (aprox) of motorists stop at red lights, if that was true there would be thousands of collisions every day at light controlled junctions.
As that is not the case your observations must be wrong.
>>>>>>>>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if
>>>>>>>>> they didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>>>>>> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the
>>>>>>>> "No Cycling" notice.
>>>>>>>> Is that another of your good friends?
>>>>>>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>>>>>> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling
>>>>>>>> and what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>>>>>> You could try dialling 999.
>>>>>> Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
>>>>>> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>>>>>> Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the
>>>>>> tunnel - and 2 out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.
>>>>> Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
>>>>> them and one scooting.
>>>>>> Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?
>>>>> Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
>>>>> lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
>>>>> pedestrians.
>>>> 5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.
>>> Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?
>> Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
>> signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
>> the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.
>> What, all in the Greenwich foot tunnel? After all, this is what the thread
>> is all about. Or did you decide to bring in some completely irrelevant info
>> to provide a smokescreen(as usual)?
> No, it was plankwit who started talking about the road instead of the
> foot tunnel.
"Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits."
Those are your words, you brought up motorists into this thread.
