Cyclist damaged car because driver hooted

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:21:24 +0100, Judith wrote:

Porky, Porky Porky

They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private
detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and
attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information
about their victims.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

On Apr 5, 12:12*am, Phil W Lee wrote:


Why on earth they didn't put cycleways on the side like on the Severn
and Humber crossings, I have no idea - it would have added a trivial
amount to the build cost, as that is largely determined by the weight
carried, the span, and the clearance for shipping underneath.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here is an actual ride report of a trans Humber trip.

http://cycleseven.org/dannys-humber-bridge-cycle-ride

--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:57:44 +0100, JNugent put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On 05/04/2012 00:12, Phil W Lee wrote:

I've also crossed it with vehicles which are not allowed on motorways,
and it should be noted that the Dartford Crossing pre-dates the M25 by
a considerable period.
It was not motorway when it was opened, so they can't reclassify it
without providing an alternative route for non-motorway traffic.

Really?

How was (part of) the A6 St Albans Bypass converted into M25, then?

How was was (part of) the A21 Sevenoaks Bypass converted into M25, then?

How was A5032 (Ellesmere Port) converted to M531/M53, then?

Because in all those cases there are plenty of alternative non-motorway
routes available, as a quick glance at the map will readily ascertain.

An alternative doesn't have to be another primary route, or even a
classified road - a simple stretch of unclassified road is enough, given
that it will only be necessary for traffic barred from motorways. So pretty
much anywhere near a town or in a populous rural area will already have
plenty of alternative routes. But there isn't anything within acceptable
range of the Dartford Crossing.

Why on earth they didn't put cycleways on the side like on the Severn
and Humber crossings, I have no idea

Because the Severn and Humber crossings were designed as motorway from the
start, and hence had to have alternate non-motorway provision for cyclists
and pedestrians included in the design. The Dartford crossing wasn't
intended to be motorway, so no such provision was necessary at the time. It
wasn't even dual carriageway when originally built - the first crossing was
a single bore tunnel.

For that matter, construction on the first Dartford tunnel started in the
1930s, long before motorways even existed in the UK. A pilot tunnel linking
both sides of the Thames had been completed before war intervened. Shortage
of money after the war meant that construction wasn't restarted until the
late 50s, but when it was restarted it was completed to the original
pre-war design.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Apr 5, 8:05*am, Mark Goodge
wrote:


Why on earth they didn't put cycleways on the side like on the Severn
and Humber crossings, I have no idea

Because the Severn and Humber crossings were designed as motorway from the
start, and hence had to have alternate non-motorway provision for cyclists
and pedestrians included in the design.

The Humber crossing was never designed as a motorway from the start.
It is and always has been the A15 and has never been motorway status -
a circular "no cycling" sign is shown prior to the toll booths and you
are directed onto the parallel cycle paths on either side - no such
sign is needed on a motorway.

Pedestrian access is controlled by a rectangular sign which states
that nobody should walk past that point, although I can't see any
legal way that a pedestrian could be prevented from walking on the
main carriageway as they can with all other A roads. Might be a good
test case.

--
Simon Mason

On 05/04/2012 08:05, Mark Goodge wrote:

JNugent put finger to keyboard and typed:
Phil W Lee wrote:

I've also crossed it with vehicles which are not allowed on motorways,
and it should be noted that the Dartford Crossing pre-dates the M25 by
a considerable period.
It was not motorway when it was opened, so they can't reclassify it
without providing an alternative route for non-motorway traffic.

Really?
How was (part of) the A6 St Albans Bypass converted into M25, then?
How was was (part of) the A21 Sevenoaks Bypass converted into M25, then?
How was A5032 (Ellesmere Port) converted to M531/M53, then?

Because in all those cases there are plenty of alternative non-motorway
routes available, as a quick glance at the map will readily ascertain.

So cycling was originally allowed through the Dartford Tunnel, was it?

An alternative doesn't have to be another primary route, or even a
classified road - a simple stretch of unclassified road is enough, given
that it will only be necessary for traffic barred from motorways. So pretty
much anywhere near a town or in a populous rural area will already have
plenty of alternative routes. But there isn't anything within acceptable
range of the Dartford Crossing.

Nevertheless, cycling across the Dartford Crossing (tunnel, then tunnels,
then tunnels and bridge) has never been allowed. Just like at the Mersey and
Tyne.

Why on earth they didn't put cycleways on the side like on the Severn
and Humber crossings, I have no idea

Because the Severn and Humber crossings were designed as motorway from the
start, and hence had to have alternate non-motorway provision for cyclists
and pedestrians included in the design.

That's very bullish of you, but the Humber crossing is *not* a motorway. It
seems to be an extension of the A15 trunk road from the south. It certainly
doesn't have an M number.

The Dartford crossing wasn't
intended to be motorway, so no such provision was necessary at the time. It
wasn't even dual carriageway when originally built - the first crossing was
a single bore tunnel.

That's very bullish of you, but was cycling allowed through that tunnel?

Take your time...

For that matter, construction on the first Dartford tunnel started in the
1930s, long before motorways even existed in the UK. A pilot tunnel linking
both sides of the Thames had been completed before war intervened. Shortage
of money after the war meant that construction wasn't restarted until the
late 50s, but when it was restarted it was completed to the original
pre-war design.

I wonder when planning of the A6 St Albans Bypass and the A21 Sevenoaks
Bypass started?

For all the relevance any of it has, that is.

On 05/04/2012 08:16, Simon Mason wrote:

Mark wrote:

Why on earth they didn't put cycleways on the side like on the Severn
and Humber crossings, I have no idea

Because the Severn and Humber crossings were designed as motorway from the
start, and hence had to have alternate non-motorway provision for cyclists
and pedestrians included in the design.

The Humber crossing was never designed as a motorway from the start.

In fact, there's little difference (make that "no difference") between the
facility offered by the original (Aust) Severn Bridge, the Forth road Bridge
and the Humber Bridge. They are all dual two-lane roads with no hard
shoulders. So the design as experienced by the user is effectively the same
in each case. The classification varies (the Severn Bridge starting off as
M4), but not the design or capacity of the roads themselves.

It is and always has been the A15 and has never been motorway status -
a circular "no cycling" sign is shown prior to the toll booths and you
are directed onto the parallel cycle paths on either side - no such
sign is needed on a motorway.

Pedestrian access is controlled by a rectangular sign which states
that nobody should walk past that point, although I can't see any
legal way that a pedestrian could be prevented from walking on the
main carriageway as they can with all other A roads. Might be a good
test case...

....because it would *never* do to have the rules followed, would it?

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 03:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 4, 11:12=A0am, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:01:25 +0100

Bertie Wooster wrote:
The River Severn crossing has a shared use path, and that is a proper
motorway, M48. I has no problem cycling across it 8 years ago, and
there were some pedestrians using it too. The Dartford river crossing
is mearly an A road, A282.

That "mere" A road is 4 lanes in both directions and the bridge section i=
s
clearly a motorway. The public and other organisations call it the M25 bu=
t if
the DoT want to be pedantic thats up to them. But if you think because it=
s
called an A road that makes it somehow less dangerous then I invite you t=
o
attempt to cross it and see what happens!

What is wrong with crossing an A road?

Instead of asking stupid questions why not have a look at the road on
google maps/earth.

B2003

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 05:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
NM wrote:
It's an A road because of the lack of hard shoulder, no other reason
except maybe to allow learner drivers access.

Ah you'd think, but on the section of the A282 leading south to the bridge
there is a hard shoulder. The DoT really needs to sort its classifications out
especially given that we now have motorways that don't have a hard shoulder
in some places such as where widening has happened over bridges or where
the hard shoulder is periodically used as a traffic lane.

B2003

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

snip


Pedestrian access is controlled by a rectangular sign which states
that nobody should walk past that point, although I can't see any
legal way that a pedestrian could be prevented from walking on the
main carriageway as they can with all other A roads. Might be a good
test case.


Any chance of you trying it?

You infer that pedestrians are not allowed - that of course is not true - they
are.

On 05/04/2012 08:16, Simon Mason wrote:

Pedestrian access is controlled by a rectangular sign which states
that nobody should walk past that point, although I can't see any
legal way that a pedestrian could be prevented from walking on the

http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/media/HBB_Byelaws.pdf

main carriageway as they can with all other A roads. Might be a good
test case.

No, and no.