91热爆

Does anyone have any comments to make about Nottingham City Transport putting the fares up? No doubt it's in response to "rising fuel costs"... What's the matter NCT? Not squeezing enough profit out of the humble bus user already?

Giles Metcalfe
Nottingham

and in reply...

Strange that, the government is doubling the subsidy to public transport to 拢10 BILLION (courtesy of the 拢35 BILLION in motoring taxes). And of course, what with all these new bus lanes making such a massive difference to journey times you would have thought: 1)driver costs per passenger mile must have dropped massively, 2)diesel costs per passenger mile must have dropped massively, 3)capital costs per passenger mile must have dropped massively, and 4)overheads costs per passenger mile must have dropped massively, (oh yes and don't let us forget that consequently 5) environmental costs per passenger mile must have dropped massively), musn't they? Or has someone made a slight miscalculation somewhere. Or even, god forbid, are buses taking so much longer, because of the general congestion caused by the bus lanes, that even a doubling of the subsidy won't compensate, and the bus lanes are being introduced for purely ideological reasons and the "benefits" were, shall ! ! we say, "spin?!.

Bogush
Nottingam

and in reply...

Sigh. You've really got a bee in your bonnet about public transport n'est-ce pas Bogush? You must agree it needs a subsidy in principle as we need to pay large sums to Railtrack (thanks Tories)?

Virtually all bus services do not get subsidies though. The only ones that do are tendered out by the local council as no companies will run them otherwise (a very small proportion of the total). As commercial businesses bus companies must make a profit (even NCT). Sometimes they have to cross-subsidize to keep loss making routes going (e.g. the Attenborough services from Trent/Barton). But they are not publicly owned nor get a subsidy so you can't really blame them if they pull the pull the plug on loss-making routes or put up fares. Don't forget, bus operators pay fuel tax, road tax and business taxes too. We need re-regulation + MORE SUBSIDY if we want to force them to operate services socially rather than financially.

Can we now hear the Bogush solution to the transport problem (you've rubbished the current proposals enough)? Presumably it involves a new 12-lane urban motorway through Nottingham, maybe through The Park and The Lace Market? Oh and let's build lots of lovely new concrete multi-storey car parks, subways and impose some barriers on those annoying pedestrians. Err... think we've been there already.

Stanley
Basford, Nottingham

and in reply...

In case you are wondering Stanley, I did reply, but it's not been posted.

In summary:

1) I only rubbish rubbish.

2) So where is the £10 Billion PA public transport subsidy going?

3)Where did you get that rubbish - not from any of my posts.

4) Spinning again?

6) Where have some of my older posts gone (the ones you're hoping no one will check back to?).

7) You're not the webmaster are you?

Bogush
Nottingam

and in reply to Bogush...

Your previous replies to Stanley were not printed as they were considered to deviate from the subject matter.

I must apologise for not printing your previous mail in paragraphs. I will now do so.

We have revamped the speakout section to speed up the download time of all the pages. Your previous messages can now be found in the archives, accessible from speakout's index page.

I can reassure you that Stanley is not on the payroll of 91热爆 Nottingham Online.

Dan Sinclair
91热爆 Nottingham Online

Stanley replies to Bogush...

It's probably not all that constructive for us to have this private two-way discussion (anyone else please join in!!), but in answer to your queries Bogush:

1)Rubbish in your opinion, ok, but I'd still like to hear some positive suggestions.

2)The ten billion quid probably goes mostly on Railtrack and the TOCs (Train Operating Companies). A small proportion will probably go on local transport projects such as NET and tendered (i.e. non-commercial) bus services.

3)I'm sure you don't propose flattening the Lace Market, but let's face it, you are pro-car. There's not enough capacity for current road use (even without your favourite bus lanes!), never mind the future - unless we make changes in our behaviour.

4)Spinning - for effect as you do yourself

5), 6) and 7) see above from Dan

Stanley
Basford, Nottingham

a relpy to Stanley...

"Sigh."

"Err... think we've been there already."

Again, you haven't read my posts, or are you again hoping that people won't find them? Anyone reading (finding? - where is the one on bike lanes in London 20 years ago?!, or bus lanes in Leeds 30 years ago) will see that I only rubbish rubbish, not sensible, practical, policies.

What I've really got a bee in my bonnet about is motorists being ripped off in "road" and "environmental" taxes, none of which goes on either of those, never mind actually subsidising a public transport SERVICE. They are then forced off highways by artificially low speed limits (often onto more dangerous roads with a HIGHER speed limit!), badly designed junctions (which often FORCE drivers onto residential streets), and bus lanes on roads barely wide enough for two lanes of cars. They are then forced to crawl along, creating noise and pollution, on "traffic calmed" "residential" streets, some of which are, or rather were, through routes.

"Can we now hear the Bogush solution to the transport problem?"

Where have you seen anything in any of my posts even vaguely resembling the following:

"Presumably it involves a new 12-lane urban motorway through Nottingham, maybe through The Park and The Lace Market? Oh and let's build lots of lovely new concrete multi-storey car parks, subways and impose some barriers on those annoying pedestrians."

Oops, sorry, you're right, I have indicated that pedestrians, when they break the law, especially when they cause an accident, should be prosecuted just like motorists!

But again, you have cleverly distracted me, and everyone else, from my point.

So again, why is it that if buses are being allowed to save so much time by all these 24 hour bus lanes, why isn't that time, and so cost, saving being translated into lower fares?!?!

Bogush
Nottingam

Bus lanes save, say, 5 minutes per bus. Whilst there may be a marginal saving in fuel, the only real way to make cost savings would be if the journey time was slashed so much they could cut the number of buses to run the timetable. Unlikely. The lanes are to encourage more bus users; bus companies sign a "quality partnership" with the council promising to improve the buses in return for the bus lane. So there is unlikely to be money sloshing around for fare cuts, but there should be an improved and more reliable service.

I think my previous post answers your other queries.

PS I've also lived in Leeds (2 years ago) and London (8 months ago) so keep the anecdotes coming.

Stanley
Basford, Nottingham

Oops, the above reply is the old reply which appeared not to have been posted prior to the reply with the numbered points. The further reply with the "alternative proposal" is still working its way through the system?

As for Leeds and Liverpool (oops, London, that was another anecdote, not yet posted, which reminds me of the bus priority settings on a traffic light controlled junction there - but that's another story!;-)- have you (re) read my original posts?

Or my new ones?

What is the point of messing up the entire road system (at a cost of £100's of thousands of pounds per bus lane!), and making motorists hours late 24 hours a day(= hours more pollution and wasted fuel) for a 5 minute (max) improvement on the most improved bus lanes, during the rush hour only. Especially as other bus users are DELAYED by those same "improvements". (Again see my post on bus lanes in Leeds!)

And, again as I have mentioned several times before probably, car use is actually going down, and has been for some years. Yet congestion is going up. And if you can't guess why, or can't be bothered to check back to previous posts, it's purely because of anti car measures like bus lanes, which slow up average buses as much as cars (see Leeds post), increase pollution, increase accidents, increase deaths, etc, etc, for purely ideological reasons.

No I'm not pro car/anti public transport: I'm pro common sense/anti ideological clap-trap, as I've ........

Bogush
Nottingham

PS

£10 BILLION PA SUBSIDY.

That's around £200 per person per annum (assuming it's only an american billion, not a real uk billion) for every man, woman and child in the country, ignoring the cross subsidies you refer to, and, of course, the fares collected.

But if we assume only half the population uses evil, polluting, cars, that's around £400 pa for public transport users, or nearly £2000 pa for the average public transport using family.

If you nationalised the taxi industry, sacked the drivers and took the 340% duty and tax off taxi fuel, you could probably afford to give the taxis to pools of public transport users AND pay for all the diesel they use, AND have change out of £10 BILLION PA. And you wouldn't need to collect any fares from the passengers.

Will that do as just one of many alternatives to the present system that I could come up with that would appear to be more cost effective, and more practical? And I'm not a transport professional or "expert"

So why can't you, the transport "professionals", or the "experts" (or the politicians), explain why, if all these wonderful 24 hour bus lanes are having such a dramatic effect on journey times, there isn't a resulting dramatic cost saving which can be passed on as cuts in fares.

Or is the dramatic effect on journey times that buses are actually being caught in the general increased congestion caused by the bus lanes, journey times are actually much longer, therefore costs have spiralled, and so fares need to go up despite a doubling in subsidy.

A much more likely scenario, as, despite the claims of the green/red lobby, car mileage has actually reduced in recent years, but congestion continues to increase. If anyone has failed to grasp the reason yet - let me give you a hint - it's purely down to anti car "green" traffic measures (bus lanes, illogical speed limits, traffic "calming" which actually increases pollution and accidents, etc, etc, etc) introduced by councils who fear that their funding from government will be cut if they don't toe the anti-car line.

And you wonder why I have a bee in my bonnet!?

Bogush
Nottingham

and in reply...

Bogush, nice to have you brightening our lives again. Interesting that you consider The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Times, The Sun, The Star all such government propaganda.

1)I don't agree with any of the groups you listed, so I don't know why they hold those beliefs either. But you know why we want high fuel taxes because I've told you before.

2)He's the prime minister for goodness sake. We pay the Government to run our country and visit other ones.

Let's get your energy figures in Joules/person eh? Electricity is not the problem, carbon-based energy is.

3)Petrol is important, and that's the problem. You've answered your own question.

Err... I did geography at university too, but I don't think you can blame the flooding of the rivers Severn and Ouse on isostatic rebound considering they're in the West and North. It was rivers, not the sea that flooded this time. Building on flood plains, whilst stupid, does not lead to the warmest and wettest years on record.

Stanley
Basford, Nottingham

and a new bus user enters the debate...

I know trhat NCT have to make a profit but why another rise in busfares. For me to travel to town with my family would cost 拢6 for a return trip. We can drive to the Park & ride and all go for 拢1.90. Even taking into account the cost of getting to the park & ride it doesn't make economic sense to use the bus. I beleive that NCT is not interested in the Casual (occasional) bus user and wants every passenger to have an easyrider ticket!!!

Plainsrider
Carlton/Mapperley

and in reply...

In phoenix arizona bus fare is a dollar twenty five cents for one hour. the bus runs every thirty minutes. a bus rider may have to change buses two or three times to arive where thay want. the time between buses is often more than thirty mintes because thay do not keep to schudels. however entertainment is provided, a nut on every bus.

PJ Lennox
Phoenix AZ usa

A note to all users: Unfortunately, the length of messages published on the 'Speakout' pages should not be over a page in length. We do not edit messages and therefore several entries under this topic have not been posted. Re: A reply from Bogush scrolling three pages.

91热爆 Nottingham Online

Well that's certainly brightened up my life!

How long is a "page" please?

And isn't there some way to stop people typing beyond "a page", twice!, (and the second knuckles of their index fingers), rather than just letting people type their fingers to the bone, and then trashing both their carefully crafted masterpieces?

Stanley, suffice to say, I proved you wrong, but you'll never know (sob) how right I am (not in the political sense of course).

Bogush
Nottingham

RIGHT, i think its just me in this world, who thinks technology is getting out of hand... i really believe that in the next 40-50 years technology is going to take over!!! Its going to far, wap phones... Digital tv, EG: in 2006 Terristrial TV will no longer exist, why???? We will live in a world like "Terminator", dont u all agree, i have a business where technology is a big thing, i love the technology we have put one day it will TURN AGAINST US.... I PROMISE U IT WILL..

Anon
Notts, england, World, Universe

and in reply to Anon...

Hummm I do not think that technology is getting out of hand, but the use's its being put to maybe. People who tend to make the statement "technology is getting out of hand" really mean I cannot accept the newer technology. Remember you use what was termed as technology yesterday is treated as a normal thing today. Having said that, it does raise concerns when deals with the human body, and the ability to modify the genetics of the human species. I accept that if it were to save a life and or make that life far better to live then I like many others would find it difficult to deny that hope to the person(s) concerned. We have used our technology to find better ways of destroying each other with greater efficiency with the minimum of effort, and found better ways of inflicting pain and misery on the other occupants of this planet, the animals. Maybe we deserve every thing that happens to us, or what will. I hope that the new technologies will be will be handled with far greater care, but a quick look to our past it does not seem likely.

John Foster
Arnold, Nottingham

I thought that clubs are for the over 18's only but time and time again i am confronted by 16 year olds asking for my number!!!!

Liam Sanders
Nottingham

in reply. . .

Liam Sanders that is a very good point well put. The number of under aged drinkers and clubbers needs to be cut down, but Liam do they really ask for your number? If so what's your secret! They never ask for my number but it's easy to spot the under aged girls because even in winter they wear really short skirts and low cut tops so that the bouncers can see everythng and therefore let them in the club. I think it's about time that pub and club managers realised this start to act on it.

William
Nottingham

Comments on cycle lanes:

in reply to LittleJohns most recent post...

"It seems that people only want to read what they want to read and make an issue of it." "In (YOUR) first message it ended with HOWEVER, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY - THEY SHOULD" However in ALL your posts you claim that: "Anyone using the road should adere to the Highway code but by law they do not commit an offence if they don't/A pedal Cycle is not a motor vehicle and if effect does not have to conply with road signs such as traffic lights/ I don't stop at traffic lights/giveway signs" In all my replies I have pointed out that you are wrong, I have told you where you can check this, I have even quoted the first paragraph for you to make it easy. For the avoidence of further confusion let me quote from the second: 'Many of the rules ... are legal requirements .... committing a criminal offence .... sent to prison ... Such rules are .... MUST/MUST NOT (in red)....' And the third: 'other rules ... may be used in evidence' And eg from: Rule 18 for pedestrians - You MUST NOT (in red - ie a LAW) loiter ... and Rule 50 for cyclists - You MUST (in red - ie a LAW) obey all traffic signs and and traffic light signals. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10 What were you saying about: "people only want to read what they want to read and make an issue of it"?

Bogush
Nottingham

It seems that people only want to read what they want to read and make an issue of it. In my first message it ended with HOWEVER, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY - THEY SHOULD. Anyone using the road should adere to the Highway code but by law they do not commit an offence if they don't, but Pugwash, whoops,(sorry) knows everything.

LittleJohn
Nottingham


We have spent pounds and pounds of taxpayers money on creating a cycle system complete with their own traffic lights, rights of ways etc. So why is it the everyday I encounter cyclists using the main roads around Nottingham including Clifton Lane, University Boulevard, Middleton Boulevard? These cycle paths have been built to allow these people to travel around the city safely, but instead they put their lives at risk aswell as other road users for no reason what so ever!!! Are these people real????

sue
nottingham

in reply...

Haven't we spent millions and millions on making provisions for car drivers who show no consideration for moderating their car use, even though the environmental impacts are huge - so why the griping over cycle lanes

Pot
Kettle Black

in reply...

No, we, the motorists, spend 拢35 BILLION pa in motoring taxes. The government keeps most of that. 拢10 BILLION PA IS GIVEN AS A SUBSIDY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT and "millions and millions on making 'provisions' (such as lower speed limit signs, double yellow lines, bus lanes, speed cameras, 'traffic calming', etc, etc) for car drivers" on the roads that "we" paid for when road taxes were used for roads. As for "who show no consideration for moderating their car use, even though the environmental impacts are huge" - cars are more environmentally friendly on average per passenger mile than buses, and produce less CO2 than cyclists!, in fact with a modern car the exhaust is usually cleaner than the bus and power station polluted air it takes in!! - so why the griping over car lanes Pot Kettle Black?

bogush
nottingham

in reply...

Less CO2 than cyclists Bogush? What about the rest of the pollutants you spew out? I suggest you park your environmental car in the garage, close the doors, leave the engine running and see first-hand the green-ness of your emissions.

Pot
Kettle Black

in reply...

Potty, if I may be so informal, I said cars are more environmentally friendly on average per passenger mile than buses, and produce less CO2 than cyclists (that's a car, driver and 4 passengers, by the way; and before you say anything, its because they are resting and not exercising). But having said that, I'll do your test, if you'll do mine: get two of your mates - one of you attach one end of a hose to a bus' exhaust and put the other end to your mouth, one of you stick your head into a domestic boiler chimney, and the third lower himself down a power station chimney (which would be pumping out more pollution in a week than all the cars in the UK do in a year!). Then lets see who comes out first?

bogush
nottingham

AH the assertion is the exertion, one recreational pedal pusher = 5 people + car as far as CO2 is concerned, forgive me if I sound credulous - a compromise anyway for your green mindedness Bogbrush - why don't you and your four mates get in your car and stay there - no exertion - no extra CO2 - and no other noxious gases as long as you don't start up the car. Take your computer in there and we can still keep in touch. Yours slothfully

Pot
Kettle Black

From the Editor

It is not sensible to test emissions in any of the ways suggested above.

Graeme
91热爆 Nottingham Online

PS I see from your post that you are not a trendy-lefty-anti-institutionalised-racism-greeny, just a common or garden greeny, as you see fit to insult my honourable name, and my venerable ancestors, after whom I was named, not to mention their revered religion and god, on which the name is based! What penence do you intend to make.

Bogush
Nottingham

Oh Honerable Bogush - for any insult caused I can only offer to turn from my wicked ways - to wit I promise to drop any premise of trying to conserve the environment, and will look to your example, and drive a large gas guzzler, ignore all traffic signs and speed limits as they surely don't apply to me and serve only to waste my tax pounds. In short I shall recreate myself in your illustrious image oh great bogush

your humble Pot
Kettle true blue

No Potty, you are not worthy. I have not transgressed once. But once, long ago, in a land far away, when my beard was but a few years long, I was held to account for traversing the land at a speed of 30mph in a place where the lawgiver had decreed men shall proceed at 35mph on the fabled Island of Guernsey two score years since. The enforcer of the laws, from the land of Avalon, in his roaring chariot, all burnished in gold and covered with flashing, shining jewels, had not studied the holy signs of the law giver, and had not espied the true location of the sign of the quarter century. Like you, he was not blind, but could not see. But if you wish to apprentice yourself to our order, we will teach you to read the holy book - the Code of the Higher Way. We will teach you how to seek out, and follow the secret posts of bogush, which many cannot, or will not, follow. We will show you how to diminish the race of the transgressors, preserve the primary innocents and cleanse the holy waters, and the! ! air that we breathe. Then, when we have lifted the veil from your eyes, and you too can see, you will be ready to venture forth into the world again, now with open eyes, and a mind no longer spun by the evil ones. Then you too can suffer with bogush, for trying to save the world, and be pilloried by the foolish ones. PS, so you've not actually read any of my posts then!

bogush
nottingham

A pedal Cycle is not a motor vehicle and if effect does not have to conply with road signs such as traffic lights, One Way Street signs and Stop/Giveway signs. HOWEVER, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY - THEY SHOULD.

LittleJohn
Mansfield

in reply...

To put it mildly. A pedal Cycle ...... DOES have to comply with road signs such as traffic lights, One Way Street signs and Stop/Giveway signs. And the rest. As do ALL road AND pavement users. Buy yourself a copy of the highway code. THEN READ IT. You might also come across a few interesting snippets of information which don't "apply" to you. Like how far a car will travel before the driver can react to you, and how much further it will go after he starts to brake. And they blame motorists for accidents!!!!!!!!!! PS If you have any trouble finding the bit which says it does apply to you, it's cunningly hidden away just after the contents page - first paragraph. PPS well I bet that came as a bit of a shock to all those greeny cyclists and pedestrians who keep complaining about getting run over on "public" roads by those nasty horrible drivers!!!!!!

bogush
nottingham

in reply

I'm a pavement user, I don't stop at traffic lights/giveway signs and I do go down one way street the wrong way and I'm doing nothing wrong. I've read the highway code and nowhere does a pavement users (assuming you mean a pedestrian) have to comply with traffic signs and I don't consider a pedal cycle a "Pavements User" either.

LittleJohn
Mansfield

in reply...

"I've read the highway code and nowhere does a pavement users (assuming you mean a pedestrian) have to comply with traffic signs and I don't consider a pedal cycle a "Pavements User" either." says LittleJohn Mansfield You wonder who lets them out unsupervised, and why there are so many pedestrians injured. I said: PS If you have any trouble finding the bit which says it does apply to you, it's cunningly hidden away just after the contents page - first paragraph. Get someone to explain this for you: "Its rules apply to ALL road users: PEDESTRIANS, horse riders, and CYCLISTS, as well as motorcyclists and drivers." So, if you are a horse, you are excused from reading it, but only because your rider is responsible for that and you.

bogush
nottingham

Up here in Redhill, Arnold we are not encouraged to seek alternatives to the motor car. There are no cycle lanes into the city even though on Mansfield Road there are huge empty tarmac areas for pedestrians. It is totally inappropriate that we cyclists be expected to share the roads with lorries and cars which threaten our very lives. On these frequent occasions where climate change makes it too wet to cycle I try to use the bus services. However there are no bus shelters here either so an intrepid spirit is still required. Come on Gedling Council, it wouldn't cost much to make alternative transport a realistic option.

John Cheall
Nottingham

All car owners pay a road tax (or should) to use the roads in the UK. All cyclists use these roads (and sometimes the pavement as well) plus there are now special cycle ways built for them. I would like to see some comments from both cycle owners and car owners as to whether or not it is time cyclists started to pay some form of road tax?

Thomas Courtney
Nottingham

in the same vein ...

Are cycle routes on footpaths a good idea or do they create more danger for pedestrians and cyclists?

David Armiger
Nottingham

and more on bicycles...

I am a cyclist that cycles to work (in all weathers)using the cycle routes around the Beeston & Toton area. Thomas Courtney comment about cycle road tax could never be policed & also it's against the current way of thinking of trying to get people out of cars. The cost of running the scheme would not cover the tax collected. My work colleagues whom cycle often mention that they would rather cycle on the road then cycle on the cycle path. Asked why, they normally say it is in areas where the cycle track crosses alot of side roads (i.e. Woodside Road in Beeston)so that they have to slow down for each junction. Also the cycle tracks are not cleaned so there is alot of glass etc & during the winter when it's icy they are not gritted. The problem with people cycling on the foot paths is that cycle tracks often just finish or the tracks take you around the houses. The example is by Chilwell Retail park. I always say it better to be slower & safer but most cyclist would disagree.

Graham Shenton
Toton, Nottingham

and more on bicycles ...

I am a car driver, and I strongly object to any-one who wants to take away my rights as a driver.I pay road tax..for extreemley ill - maintained roads, my road tax is also paying for the rights of busses to pass me on the left (I allways thought passing on the left was a crime)by providing 'bus only'lanes, it is also paying to allow cycle users there own private roads (do they pay any road tax?)but most of these weird creatures tend to use the pavements instead anyway. I am now given to understand that if my car is over a cirtain age, it's going to cost me more(than if I had a new one )to tax it.. we've also got to pay more for the MOT test as well...I also pay an extreemley high rate of tax for the fuel I use but, if I switched to a more ecconomic fuel, like deisel, then I'm going to be penalised again on the higher rate of road tax.Moan, moan winge winge..I Know,.. I'm only a driver....

Barrie Green
Hucknall

Barrie Green on Barrie Green

I noticed that in his written contribution to this column, Barrie Green of Hucknall needed a bit of assistance with his spelling. I hope people don't think I have had a grammar lapse. I am Barrie Green formerly of Bilborough and East Leake (Notts.) (no relation to the other BG - just a namesake) By the way I am in Australia. I did cycle to Melbourne, Derbyshire from East Leake a few times, but I usually take a boat or plane to Australia.

Barrie Green
Melbourne Australia

and more on bicycles...

(Wednesday 13th Sept.) I am a cyclist, I am also a motorist so I pay all the relevant taxes. When I use my bicycle I don't create as much damage to the road or enviroment I am therefore subsidising all the motorists by riding by bicyle as I get no reduction for using my car less. As to riding bicycles on the pavement, Although I am against this I can see why inexperienced riders will do this (and sometimes it is impossible to get across busy roads without going across crossing etc) Drivers pay no attention to the fact that the cyclist is vunerable whilst the motorist is encased in their steel cages. Surely the last few days should indicate to people that we are too dependent on a resource that will run out.

Craig Webster
Nottingham

and more on bicycles...

Everyday in Worksop I as a motorist see blatant non compliance with traffic lights by cyclists, old peoples' safety being put at risk by cyclists (mostly teen age youths)racing through our pedestrian shopping area, and regular riding on the pavements often at speed by cyclists. Recently cycle tracks have been constructed in the Manton area, still cyclists ride on the pavements and roads. The interesting thing about this state of affairs is that by and large the local constabulary ignore these offences. Insurance for cyclists should be mandatory. Wait while someone is sued for seriously injuring an OAP, or young mother with a baby in a pram, through sheer dangerous and illegal practices, something might then be done. (but don't hold your breathe) If a motorist jumps the traffic lights and be seen by a police man /woman I bet that would not be ignored, once again the motorist is an easy target. Before someone points out that children and teenagers cant afford insurance, fair point, but like most yobbish behaviour from youngsters the parents/ parent/ or guardian should be held responsible.

Ted Badger
Worksop Notts.

take a look at this ...

Ed.

and more on bicycles...

When I worked in London I used to drive along dual carriageways (with hardly any junctions!) and see great big cycle paths and pedestrian pathways and green verges along each side paid for by my taxes and rates. But I never, EVER saw a bike on the cycle path But what really made me angry, even more than the fact that the council would take out a car lane at bridges to make room for the empty cycle paths to continue through, was that when that happened, you hit a traffic jam - caused by the loss of yet another lane - because the cyclists were using the inside lane instead of the cycle path!!! That was twenty years ago in the days of Red Ken. Nothing changes! And why do bikes always race up to side roads if a car appears, then coast past, blocking it in; use zebra crossings and dawdle across; run red lights: if you don't cause an accident, at least you'll slow the traffic down! And who, when they invented Toucan crossings, decided that a cyclist needed 10 times as long to cross the road as a someone with a push chair, or wheel chair, or white stick or walking stick using a Pelican crossing?!?

Bogush
Nottingham

another comment on cycle paths...

Why don't you just charge people to walk on pavements too? Where would it end? Would you tax those with wheel chairs? mothers with prams? Perhaps we could even tax breathing too?

Craig
Nottingham