M48 cyclepath

wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
burtthebike wrote:

Be warned: motorcycles on cycle path.
The Severn Bridge, the first one, is closed for maintenance, apart from
the cycle path. Motorcycles under 50cc are allowed on the cycle path,
since they are not allowed on the main carriageway, which is motorway.
This morning I was passed by four motorcycles, very definitely not under
50cc, unless Harley-Davidson has started making mopeds, two singly and
two together. This was quite frightening and dangerous, I don't expect
to be passed by a motorcycle doing 30+ on a path from which they are
banned, with notices saying so. The path is used by many cyclists and
pedestrians who are being put at considerable risk by motorcyclists
blatantly breaking the law. They appear to think that since the bridge
is closed, they can use the cycle path, rather than go to all that bother
of going back a mile to the Second Severn Crossing.
Interesting.

I take it that they also avoid the toll (assuming one is payable by
motor-cyclists)?
For some reason beyond my comprehension, motorcycles don't pay a toll on
these bridges.

There's a very simple reason for that, any motorcyclist with normal
(i.e. sensible) motorcycle clothing takes a *long* time to get to cash
to pay the toll. At busy toll booths the "powers that be" decided
that the wait wasn't worth the toll and decided to make it free for
motorbikes.

Clearly, it would be to the eventual advantage of all other motorised
road-users if they habitually kept the change for payment of tolls in a purse
or wallet inside a locked cash-box (opened by one of those awkward little
"toothed" keys) in the most inaccessible part of the boot, under the spare
wheel and ten items of heavy and bulky luggage, all of which had to be
removed from the vehicle to gain acces to the money and stowed (carefully)
away again before setting off after payment.

Paul Boyd wrote:
On 21/09/2008 15:15, JNugent said,

I take it that they also avoid the toll (assuming one is payable by
motor-cyclists)?

The toll structure on both bridges is a little bizarre, to say the
least, but motorbikes don't pay.

The argument put forward by motorcycling organisations and accepted by
some toll bridge operators is that motorcycles use up less road space
than a car and wear the road surface etc. on account of wheel weight
far less, so should be encouraged compared to cars. Those are also the
reasons why some local authorities provide free motorcycle parking in
areas where cars have to pay for parking.

In the minds of what for want of a better word we call the authorities
these sensible considerations battle against the view that
motorcyclists are annoying road scum and every opportunity should be
taken of discouraging them with annoying legislation.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

Tom Crispin wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:06:39 +0100, "burtthebike"
wrote:

The Severn Bridge, the first one, is closed for maintenance, apart from the
cycle path. Motorcycles under 50cc are allowed on the cycle path, since
they are not allowed on the main carriageway, which is motorway

How do you feel about low powered motorcycles being allowed on the
bike path?

The reason I ask is that there has recently been a debate in London
about allowing motorcycles into bus lanes. I was gently flamed in the
local cycling groups' Yahoo! groups for saying that I felt that
allowing low powered motorcycles - under 50cc - into bus lanes was
reasonable.

In my reasoning I cited the M48 bike path as one which allows low
powered motorbikes without any major conflict with cyclists. Of
course traffic volumes on the M48 bike path and some of London's bus
lanes are not comparable.

certinaly there is a argument that motorbikes help conjestion thus why
not allow them into bus lanes, advance stops etc.

out on the edge of SW london i certinaly have no issues with motorbikes,
the scooters arriving and stopping just neatly covering my line of sight
if in the wee car, is sometimes anoying but momentry.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote:
On 21/09/2008 15:15, JNugent said,

I take it that they also avoid the toll (assuming one is payable by
motor-cyclists)?

The toll structure on both bridges is a little bizarre, to say the
least, but motorbikes don't pay.

The argument put forward by motorcycling organisations and accepted by
some toll bridge operators is that motorcycles use up less road space
than a car and wear the road surface etc. on account of wheel weight
far less, so should be encouraged compared to cars. .....

Though the removal of toll charges the main issue was a combination of time
taken to pay and accident risk whilst paying. There were a couple of
accidents at Dartford when a dozy vehicle driver rear-ended a motorcycle at
the toll booth, which increased the pressure to remove the tolls for
motorcycles.

A previous poster explained how long paying in a reasonably safe manner
could take (even without the slight farce of asking for a receipt).



- Nigel (now retired from motorcycles).



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Chris Malcolm wrote:

In the minds of what for want of a better word we call the authorities
these sensible considerations battle against the view that
motorcyclists are annoying road scum and every opportunity should be
taken of discouraging them with annoying legislation.

A bit like the nutters in here view car-drivers, then?

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote:
On 21/09/2008 15:15, JNugent said,
I take it that they also avoid the toll (assuming one is payable by
motor-cyclists)?
The toll structure on both bridges is a little bizarre, to say the
least, but motorbikes don't pay.
The argument put forward by motorcycling organisations and accepted by
some toll bridge operators is that motorcycles use up less road space
than a car and wear the road surface etc. on account of wheel weight
far less, so should be encouraged compared to cars. .....

Though the removal of toll charges the main issue was a combination of time
taken to pay and accident risk whilst paying. There were a couple of
accidents at Dartford when a dozy vehicle driver rear-ended a motorcycle at
the toll booth, which increased the pressure to remove the tolls for
motorcycles.

A previous poster explained how long paying in a reasonably safe manner
could take (even without the slight farce of asking for a receipt).


You want to see a farce about receipts, you should have seen the line of
traffic when , in the first week that I could , I asked for a reciept in
Welsh!

On 22/09/2008 09:14, Chris Malcolm said,

The argument put forward by motorcycling organisations and accepted by
some toll bridge operators is that motorcycles use up less road space
than a car and wear the road surface etc. on account of wheel weight
far less,

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that the fact that motorbikes don't pay
is bizarre, but the fee structure is bizarre. What I really meant was
that the toll is supposedly based on the amount of wear and tear that a
vehicle causes to the structure of the bridge. So a dinky little Fiesta
that happens to have the rear side windows blocked out pays £10.60,
whereas a two tonne 4x4 only pays £5.30...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote:
On 22/09/2008 09:14, Chris Malcolm said,

The argument put forward by motorcycling organisations and accepted by
some toll bridge operators is that motorcycles use up less road space
than a car and wear the road surface etc. on account of wheel weight
far less,

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that the fact that motorbikes don't pay
is bizarre, but the fee structure is bizarre. What I really meant was
that the toll is supposedly based on the amount of wear and tear that a
vehicle causes to the structure of the bridge. So a dinky little Fiesta
that happens to have the rear side windows blocked out pays £10.60,
whereas a two tonne 4x4 only pays £5.30...

Want to see someone really annoyed?

Look out for someone in an A30 ( or Mini) pickup following a Rangerover
with a trailer?

Marc wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote:
On 22/09/2008 09:14, Chris Malcolm said,
So a dinky little
Fiesta that happens to have the rear side windows blocked out pays
£10.60, whereas a two tonne 4x4 only pays £5.30...

Want to see someone really annoyed?

Look out for someone in an A30 ( or Mini) pickup following a Rangerover
with a trailer?

I have used the M6 toll road precisely once, assuming, as everywhere
else, our Daihatsu Hijet would be charged as a car. (FYI, it was shorter
than a Mini, had a 3-cylinder 998cc engine and was known, with some just
cause, as "the tonka toy"). Nonetheless, because the M6 toll operators
charge according to body height above the front axle, and the Hijet is
slab-fronted, we were charged the same as a 48-seater coach!

Needless to say, they wouldn't back down despite my complaints, and so
we've boycotted them ever since.

Colin

Colin Langdon wrote:
Marc wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote:
On 22/09/2008 09:14, Chris Malcolm said,
So a dinky little
Fiesta that happens to have the rear side windows blocked out pays
£10.60, whereas a two tonne 4x4 only pays £5.30...

Want to see someone really annoyed?

Look out for someone in an A30 ( or Mini) pickup following a
Rangerover with a trailer?

I have used the M6 toll road precisely once, assuming, as everywhere
else, our Daihatsu Hijet would be charged as a car. (FYI, it was shorter
than a Mini, had a 3-cylinder 998cc engine and was known, with some just
cause, as "the tonka toy"). Nonetheless, because the M6 toll operators
charge according to body height above the front axle, and the Hijet is
slab-fronted, we were charged the same as a 48-seater coach!

Needless to say, they wouldn't back down despite my complaints, and so
we've boycotted them ever since.

How long did you gum up the works arguing? The answer is " not long enough"