snowy

anyway, keep posting laughably iill informed, inaccurate and ill conceived posts and I will keep laughing at them.

Calm down Lynn!

Timely reminder that Rockets defines anti car organisations as: The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA who all don't use the word accident. Lol, so common and frequent that Rockets can't differentiate between the two...

Great.

Hire bikes already have registration numbers and you need to provide ID to hire them when you set up an account.

No, many (mine included) has a specific first party property and third party liability sections. Even LCC offers full insurance for something like £10 - year as the damage caused by cyclists is so minimal. Also the precedent set by the Russell vs Smith court case will probably blow your mind

Simon Heffer The Telegraph Cycling The anti-cycling bingo card practically writes itself. What is the UK and Farage supporter saying? It's behind a firewall?.I bet license plates, something unresearched about insurance (which you're covered by home contents insurance), road tax, war on motorists etc? i'm unsure of his background as a road and traffic management expert, does he explan what makes his view more valuable?

Or will find any point to latch on to. A quick back of a fag packet calculation is that 1 family car in a year has the same emissions as 18 square metres of that Indian sandstone.

But apparently no punctuation.

That's lovely dear, but nothing to do with the conversation we're having - signaling- which is a should not a must. And you understand the legal difference don't you.

Please please go and re read the Highway Code if you're a driver. There are distinct differences in what it says cyclists/ horse riders should do from what vehicle drivers must do.

So this is a long winded way of saying yes, you do think your opinion is better than theirs and don't understand risk management.

So this is a long winded way of saying yes, you do think your opinion is better than theirs.

So we've reached the nub of it - you think that your opinion is better than that of the DfT etc.

Blinkered organisations according to you are: The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA

Actually it’s pronounced “jaslight” - you’ve been saying it wrong the whole time.

So after 3 days we are back to the issue that every authority involved in designing, building, maintaining and managing the road network disagrees with one mono topic poster...

Classic Alan Partridge!

So one the one hand we have the following organisations who no longer use the word accident as "Describing every crash as an ‘accident’ in effect makes excuses for serious incidents. Most crashes are not ‘accidents’ but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention.” Edmund King (the AA) The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA and then on the other hand we have some lone, out of touch poster called Rockets.

You clearly don't understand that junction then.

Are you aware of the work of Brent Lee?

And another interpretation (the report was published when the Conservatives were in power): "Analysis of the most popular social media posts on the subject between 2022 and 2023 reveals that the proportion classed as ‘disinformation’ – including conspiracy theories – rose from 5% to 28% year-on-year, the report by the cross-party think tank Demos and the Public Interest News Foundation found. In parallel, the proportion of the same posts that could be classified as anti-LTN rose from 48% in 2022 to 79% in 2023. Demos says that the stark rise in disinformation came in the year that “Rishi Sunak attacked councils for the introduction of the policy his Government had previously championed”. There were also concerns that councils failed to properly engage and consult communities as the Government funding was dependent on fast implementation of the schemes. Direct attacks on the infrastructure such as planters, cameras and bollards have followed, as well as death threats against local councillors, the study found."

Its only an odd tangent if you don't think people with different needs are somehow 'othered' as you have done with your list of generous exceptions. You have already made an assumption that the people you saw 'weaving in and out' (do you mean cycling?) weren't disabled and/or weren't following a non statutory sign that they are perfectly permitted to ignore. A charity yards away has been campaigning for its removal as people like you don't understand it: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/campaign-calls-for-action-on-discrimination-against-disabled-cyclists/ Its also not recommended as being used as per TFL LCDS as being 'unnecessary, or in some way compromising wider objectives of promoting safety' Ironically, the yellow sign you have posted as an example of what could be done, is not a standard sign - as you can see it's temporary and not mandatory (indicated by the fact its in yellow and not round). It's not part of the TSRGD or the TSM. It was used on Wandsworth bridge from memory. Look forward to hearing your lobbying of Lou Haigh on the matter and of your support of Wheels for Wellbeing.

How do you propose telling a disabled cyclist to dismount?

The police actively support it in certain circumstances. Cyclists dismount signs are advisory and not compulsory aren't they - as you point out. But generally for Risk and litigation management. The signs also indicate its not 'pedestrian' space but shared space. Given the amount of planning involved and the perception of a massive budget, if it was actually an issue they would have designed it differently.