On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:01:09 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

You do indeed infer the wearing of the accursed violet jacket - does
that 'also' mean you're a survivor of that place yourself?

Yup. A long time ago. Left in 1969.

Yikes! Must have been 1998 in my case. I imagine things were pretty much
the same, though - it's hardly a hotbed of up-to-the-minute dynamism.

Still consistently right up the top of the league tables though. They
must be doing SOMETHING right.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:01:09 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

You do indeed infer the wearing of the accursed violet jacket - does
that 'also' mean you're a survivor of that place yourself?

Yup. A long time ago. Left in 1969.

Yikes! Must have been 1998 in my case. I imagine things were pretty
much the same, though - it's hardly a hotbed of up-to-the-minute
dynamism.

Still consistently right up the top of the league tables though. They
must be doing SOMETHING right.

Selecting pupils on the basis of exam ability, for a start!

tom

--
It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum

"Han Monsees" wrote in message
.. .






Every driver is taught that
he has to check thorougly for cyclists between them and the pavement
before turning left. If you're used to it, it's no problem at all.


And lethal if the driver isn't.

Agree. But it's an chicken-and-egg-story.
If there are not too many cyclists, drivers don't get used. And if drivers
don't get used to cyclists, cycling is dangerous and people will think
twice before they start cycling.



In continental Europe, rules have been adapted to give cyclists the
same rights as drivers (i.e. if a cyclist comes from the right, he has
priority over the driver).


Yep, same here.


IMO, this rule increases the average speed cycling and makes the bike a
more attractive mode of transport.


I think that's more to do with the, umm, flatness of NL...

Many area's in the UK are equally suited for cycling.
And besides, NL isn't as flat as you might think. The eastern part of the
country has its hills. They might not be high, but there are plenty of
short but steep hills. And cycling is popular in that part, too. Both as a
means of transport and for recreational purposes.

But London is far, far hillier than any part of the Netherlands

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:23:49 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

Still consistently right up the top of the league tables though. They
must be doing SOMETHING right.

Selecting pupils on the basis of exam ability, for a start!

Absolutely. Retarded kids get one-to-one support. Bright kids get
left to motivate themselves, if the parents can't afford private.
Hardly productive.

Adrian wrote:

Neil Williams ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Having a discussion in work on Friday a country was mentioned where
the basic third-party mandatory insurance for road vehicles was
provided by the state. We then went on to suggest the idea of having
this here, with the charge for insurance being on the price of petrol,
thus making it impossible to drive without insurance.

I think Aus and NZ do that - amongst others.

In Australia it's a state issue. South Australia has third party injury
insurance provided that way, but last time I checked, property insurance
was not part of the deal. However, there have been campaigns for it in
the past, so it may have changes since I last checked.

It's a part of the annual registration charge - akin to our tax disk, but
the plates themselves are issued by the authorities, and replaced every
year, closer to the model of the States.

No they aren't. Normal number plates (as opposed to custom number plates
which are more popular in Australia than in the UK) do not need
replacing regularly.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

On 15 Jan 2006 08:46:24 -0800, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

I fit a half hour walk from Waterloo to Green Park into my schedule
(and back again in the evening). I reckon I get an hour's exercise a
day for the net expenditure of around half that - I have to allow 20
minutes on the way home for the tube; walking, 35 minutes gets me
there easily.

Fair enough - looks like that works for you. I used to walk to work
when I lived about 2.5 miles from it; now I work further away (about
5.5 miles) I cycle or drive instead, as to walk would take something
like an hour and a half each way, which is a little excessive.

You're right - it works for me, your journey works by bike. I now get
a perverse pleasure every time I find I haven't used my Oyster all
week (this week I'll slip as I'll probably catch a bus back from Fleet
Street to Waterloo. It is walkable, but I'd rather be able to stay in
the pub for longer!)

Central London traffic isn't *that* bad on a bike, as you can usually
go faster than the rest of it, so speed isn't as much of a threat as it
is elsewhere. However, I can see why walking would be preferable, as
you do still need your wits about you!

There are plenty of places where the facilities for pedestrians are
poor, for example around Centrepoint. There's also two points on my
walking route that are not ideal - one is the front entrance to
Waterloo where you have to cross four roads and six lanes of traffic
to get to the Jubilee Bridge, and the central reservation on York Way
is far too narrow. The other is Trafalgar Square where the traffic
light phasing can mean it takes an age to get from one side to the
other, and this encourages pedestrians to nip across against a green
traffic light.

- compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to
pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them when the
cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake
illegally on the left coming up to a junction)

- mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with
the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel
with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in
front

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for
insurance. Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a
queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I
dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I
have never gone through a red traffic light or across a pedestrian
crossing that has people on it. But I think I'm very much in the minority
:-(


This only would make sense if all people had to have 3rd party insurance -
peds cause accidents too, especially small children. Why should the lorry
driver's insurance have to pay out just because some stupid mum lets her
toddler run out and make him damage his truck?

"Tim" wrote in message ...
- compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to
pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them when the
cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake
illegally on the left coming up to a junction)

- mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with
the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel
with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in
front

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for
insurance. Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a
queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I
dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I
have never gone through a red traffic light or across a pedestrian
crossing that has people on it. But I think I'm very much in the minority
:-(


This only would make sense if all people had to have 3rd party insurance -
peds cause accidents too, especially small children. Why should the lorry
driver's insurance have to pay out just because some stupid mum lets her
toddler run out and make him damage his truck?

Shouldn't the driver be looking out for such hazards? There are rules for
drivers, but not for pedestrians? Isn't that the case? (being serious
here - I don't know )

Tim wrote:

This only would make sense if all people had to have 3rd party insurance -
peds cause accidents too, especially small children. Why should the lorry
driver's insurance have to pay out just because some stupid mum lets her
toddler run out and make him damage his truck?

Most people do in the form of their household insurance which tends to
cover such things. Indeed, I believe it *is* mandatory in its own
right in some countries.

Household 3rd pary liability insurance also isn't unknown to cover
cycling accidents.

Neil

Whinging Courier wrote in message
:

In uk.transport.london, Tim amazed us all with this pearl of wisdom:

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for
insurance. Being responsible and considerate, I have never
overtaken a queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a
car, or else I dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past
the obstruction) and I have never gone through a red traffic light
or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it. But I think
I'm very much in the minority :-(

Cyclists like you are a PITA. The ones that wait at traffic lights
stop me getting in front and racing away from other stationary
traffic.

Are you being serious?

I would never try to race ahead of cars, because I know they'll only catch
up with me after a few yards, and I don't want to cause an obstruction to
them.

Ideally, I'd like to see all cyclists required to use segregated cycle
tracks and be kept totally separate from powered vehicles, but since this
isn't feasable on most roads, the least I can do as a cyclist is to keep out
of the way of cars and not impede them.