Cranking it in the UK

Last week this article (http://cars.aol.co.uk/2013/04/03/government-promises-action-on-dazzling-bicycle-lights/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter)  appeared about bike lights dazzling motorists and the potential for the UK Government to give time and effort to investigate this hazard with a view towards possible future legislation which could see lights which are brighter than dipped headlights banned.

The suggestion of legislation is a ridiculous and immoral proposal, second only in nonsense to the fact that any kind of control might be considered in the first place.

It would be interesting to see what data there is that bright lights on bikes cause any kind of credible hazard to drivers. It’s hard to credit the hazard to drivers as being any greater than say another driver with a mis-adjusted headlamp or driving with full beam or fog lights on by accident. The original Sunday Times article makes the point that a large proportion of bike lights on sale have the potential to dazzle, yet we don’t seem to have a spate of drivers swerving uncontrollably across the streets shouting “I’m blind, I’m blind”.

If a driver is slightly dazzled by a cyclist’s light, pretty much the worse that might happen is that they would slow down. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that drivers have a strange aversion to slowing down when their vision is obstructed be it by dirty windscreens, low winter sun fog or other inclement weather conditions. So the problem seems to be that the drivers do not want to slow down when they are flashed by a cyclist, rather than there being an actual hazard.

However, if a cyclist is not seen by a driver, they can die. The risks here are asymmetric. Risk is a measure of both frequency and consequence. In terms of consequence, in this debate, on one side, someone has to slow down, on the other someone dies.

The article also suggests that lighting levels are outdated thanks to improvements in street lighting. That may be the case on many streets, but plenty of people ride bikes in the UK along roads that have no street lights, and even within cities there are plenty of areas where street lighting is not sufficiently bright enough to ensure cyclists do not hit obstacles such as badly aligned drain covers, pot holes, litter and the such like.

It is interesting to note that the image which accompanies the article shows someone riding off-road, at night. Mountain biking in the dark has recently seen a huge increase in popularity. It’s a great way for busy people to fit biking into their daily routine and it’s great fun, turning the meekest of forest trails into a gnarly beast. To ride off-road at night you need good lights. To be fair, some of the recent mega-bright lights are excessive in all but the most extreme of riding, but as this variation of mountain biking has become more popular so the technical grade of the trails being ridden has gone up, necessitating brighter lights.

So there is a perfectly legitimate reason to buy bright lights for a bike, and why should cyclists have to buy separate lights for commuting compared to cycling off the road? All the very bright lights come with multiple settings (to preserve power) and so can all readily be dropped well below the level of a car headlamp. If however, a commuting cyclist feels the need for a brighter setting due to weather conditions, road conditions or simply fear of being struck by an on-coming vehicle (or perhaps one turning across their lane) then so be it, they can crank up the light level.

It’s also worth noting that many cyclists don’t restrict their illumination accessories to bike specific units. A lot of cyclists use a head torch for example, an item that makes a huge difference in terms of confidence when riding at night as you can see what is ahead as you turn around a corner. How would any ministerial interference address this matter? Would shops be forbidden from selling a light used for hiking, camping and pot-holing in case a cyclist used it?

So the risk level isn’t relevant, there is a legitimate need for selling bright lights and even if a cyclist was stopped for having a “too bright” light, then how is the average policeman going to administer the law? Will the police be issued with light meters? Or will it be down to the policeman’s perception of the situation? That’s a bit of a farcical idea given the technical challenges measuring light levels due to focus zones, influence of dirt on lenses, light wavelength and distance between source and measuring point.

Besides, if the police did stop a cyclist, all they have to do is push the button on the lights and change the light level down to a lower setting. All evidence of the ‘crime’ disappears.

Despite the ridiculous notion of legislation for this sort of thing, the most odious feature of the article is that it exists at all. The notion that a little bit of light dazzle to motorists should be given credence by a Government minister and that any ministerial time should be wasted on such a matter only goes to demonstrate the asymmetric nature of the driving lobby vs. cyclists in the UK.

Instead of wasting time addressing unpoliceable, pseudo concerns relating to a legitimate cycling accessories, perhaps our transport ministers might like to consider spending time on some of the following (in no particular order):

• Removing the defence of “death by dangerous driving” and “causing death by careless, or inconsiderate driving”. It’s manslaughter, or murder and should be treated as such. Someone wandering through a crowd with a chainsaw running would not get off on a “by dangerous operation of machinery” defence. It’s a cop out and a disgrace that motorists can mow down cyclists (or pedestrians) and get a small fine and a short driving ban.
• Enforce parking fines for people who park in cycle lanes. That causes cyclists to have to swerve into traffic, making everyone’s life a misery.
• Require councils to fix pot holes and require councils to include a “make good” clause in any road works contracts that they let. This would be a ridiculously simple thing to do and make cyclist’s lives so much safer and remove a key bar to people who want to cycle but don’t because of the state of the roads.
• Require train operating companies to provide proper bike spaces on their trains and require them to make bicycle booking an integrated part of the ticketing process. Again, incredibly simple to do, all you have to do is put it in the tender requirements for the train company contracts. They will do all the hard work for the government.
• Enforce the ban on using a mobile phone whilst driving, and also ban smoking, eating, drinking and any other distracting activity whilst driving. By definition someone smoking and driving is not in full control of their vehicle and is distracted.
• Introduce a hierarchy of presumptive blame in all incidents where a cycle hits a pedestrian and where a vehicle hits a cyclist.
• More cycle lanes. Remove car lanes if you have to, but more priority for cyclists.
• Require schools to provide cycling parking and set targets for local authorities to get kids on the streets. That might sound like we are putting kids at risk, but the evidence is that the more we swamp the streets with bikes, the safer it gets.

Once any or all of the above receive the same sort of attention that the minor whinges of car drivers achieve from our transport ministers, then and only then should they expel time or energy bothering cyclists about their lights.

If you read the brochure for the Bridgewater Canal, you might easily be mistaken into thinking that this traffic free, flat, well drained, compacted towpath provides an ideal route into the centre of Manchester from the well populated, cycle loving south western suburbs of Manchester. But it seems that you would be wrong.

It would be an easy mistake to make, after all, the maps in the guide to the Bridgewater Canal (http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/bridgewaterbrochure.pdf) shows a route called the Bridgewater Way and then The Cheshire ring making their way into the city centre linking from Lymm through Altrincham, Sale, Stretford and Trafford Park to Castlefield Basin. The Cheshire Ring is technically a walking route, but it shares much of its routing with the cycle route for the Bridgewater Way and there is no clear distinction in the literature published by those promoting the Bridgewater Canal as a multi-mode resource.

You might well think that the Bridgewater Canal is an extremely sensible cycle route. After all, the South Western suburbs of Manchester are full of cyclists. The easy access to the Cheshire Plain from that part of Manchester makes cycling a very popular recreational activity. This is boosted by the Trans Pennine Trail which passes through the area and which could link with the Bridgewater Canal into Manchester.

Many of the cycle loving suburbanites commute into Manchester, you can see them mixing it up with busses on the busy Chester Road, or risking their lives and their wheel rims on Talbot Road. So you would think that a completely traffic free route which links into the very centre of Manchester would be a blessing, a potential jewel in the crown for the home of British Cycling.

A treasure, a fantastic resource for commuting and recreation is exactly what I thought the Bridgewater Canal tow path was until I used that route today and discovered some relatively new signs erected stating “No Cycling”.

As you can see from the link above, cycling is promoted along the canal, but once you get passed Stretford Marina, the love seems to stop. You wouldn’t know this from the brochure, or from the OS Map, which clearly shows a “National Trail” that ties in with the brochure produced for the Bridgewater Canal. It also shows a “Traffic Free Cycle Route” (the orange dots) which uses parts of the canal tow path where “No Cycling” signs have been erected and then seems to go off the canal through an area of derelict docks which is not signed at all from the tow path.

So why wouldn’t this route be available to cyclists? And who exercises the authority to close off part of a cycle route which is marked on an OS map?

Admittedly, in places, the route is not as wide as other parts of the tow path, but there are several parts of the Bridgewater Way which are as narrow if not narrower than the tow path. Maybe the concern is over the clash between pedestrians and cyclists? That argument doesn’t really stand up to inspection. The foot traffic along the stretch of the Bridgewater Canal from Trafford Park spur of the Bridgewater Canal into the city centre is virtually non-existent. The route bypasses residential areas and generally only reasonably serious runners or cyclists venture along this stretch of the canal. Admittedly, at Castlefield Basin, there is more foot traffic, but this is not even close to the congestion found in places like Sale Waterside and yet that seems to be perfectly manageable.

So why is the Bridgewater Canal route truncated? Why is no traffic free link provided into Manchester from the South, when a perfectly good route is available? I don’t know the answer, but I would love to hear from Manchester City Council, Trafford Metropolitan Council or Peel (the canal owners). So please feel free to pass this link on and encourage an explanation, and maybe we can seek to change this situation?

Owen Jones bleats on about watching a loved one die. He claims that “Tory Ideology” is behind this death and that the current NHS reforms will bring in privatisation, a horror he seems barely able to comprehend.

I don’t think I have ever read so much ideological twaddle in all my life. How Jones has the gall to criticise or blame ideology when the reform of the NHS is without a doubt a cross party supported notion is beyond me. The details of the process may provide opportunity for political point scoring, but no-one with any understanding of the challenges the NHS faces truly believes it could go on in the form that it has for the last 60 years.

The only ideological discussion is between the deluded Jones and the cold hard facts.

He talks of people’s lives being at risk, he quotes Andy Burnham’s bold claims to roll back the latest reforms. This is surely a bit awkward given the complete and utter slating of Andy Burnham’s stewardship of the NHS by Sir Brian Jarman recently (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/16/ignored-nhs-hospital-warning-claims). He was warned of unacceptable death rates and did nothing. Of course, the left leaning press said that this couldn’t possibly be true in 2008 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/18/health) sadly they were wrong.

In 14 hospitals reviewed by Jarman, “tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths occurred” . Just reflect on that for a minute, Jarman only looked at 14 hospitals, ones he could easily identify as having unacceptable death rates because the basic statistics red flagged them. Basic analytics ignored by a health secretary who was too scared or too stupid to act.

There are 358 NHS hospitals in the UK. Jarman looked at 14. Even if you accept that many hospitals have reasonable mortality rates, a bit of basic statistical analyses would put the total number of unnecessary deaths in the order of 150,000 to 200,000 as a conservative estimate.

That is the result of the dogmatic ideology of Owen Jones. The ideology that in 2008 rejected the facts, the ideology of his beloved Andy Burnham which in 2010 rejected the facts and the ideology that has, and continues to kill tens of thousands of UK citizens. If Owen Jones wants to talk of the murder of the NHS, lets perhaps talk instead of the left wing dogma that has massacred our daughters, wives, brothers, sisters, parents, grand parents and babies.

I watched as the NHS care for my Grandmother left her in pain, a brittle shell of the strong independent woman that she once was. Doctors refused to listen to her or her family and spent tens of thousands of pounds, robbing her of her dignity and inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering. My Grandmother is one of those statistics Mr Jones.

Like my Grandmother, the NHS has had it’s time. Left wing dogma and fear of the union backlash from the UK’s largest workforce has kept us from intervention for too long. Labour fear the NHS because it wields extraordinary power, the kind of power that through its political wing (Unison) handed Ed Miliband his current job (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10712139).

The NHs should die or undergo radical reform. So long as the arrow of time continues to point in one direction, all institutions must change or die. Left to politicians the pace of NHS reform will be too slow. The reins need to be handed over to the private sector to inject some much needed imperative into the process of change. Private companies re-invent themselves, they care about the future and work hard to understand their clients. Private companies divest, they stop doing things that don’t work and they do new things that do work. What is really so wrong with that?

When private companies change it may lead to short term harm to individuals, that is often the case when change is delayed for too long. But the long view is not so bleak. Consider for example British Industry. If you believed the left wing dogma of the 70’s, 80’s and ever since, the end of mining, the closing of steelworks and the shutting down of poor quality car manufacturing would leave Britain a post industrial wasteland. Far from it, we live in an era of low unemployment and high industrial output.

In short, privatisation is feared by the left because it represents change and as a dogma driven movement, the left cannot handle change. The left is like a religion, strapped to the deadweight of its idols. It cannot change, it has no forward projection, only he past to look back upon. The left tried to drop these shackles under Tony Blair, but lost it’s nerve and once again skulked back to its relics of the past.

The NHS is almost unique in the world. It was a shining light, a phenomenal social achievement in a post war era that seemed so bleak. But it grew beyond its remit, it outstripped its resources and moved from icon to relic. It is time to bury that relic and move forward with a National Health Service that is able to save lives, not cost lives.

The future of the NHS lies in privatisation. Labour politicians fear this because it will cost them power, but we must break free of the dogma and think instead of the best way to save lives.

No-one is suggesting that we remove healthcare. Owen Jones and his deluded pilgrims cannot see any alternatives between the monotheistic NHS of today and the pre-war private care system. Blinded by dogma they cannot appreciate that the function of the NHS is to deliver the best healthcare at the financial cost the country is willing to bear. Instead, they see the NHS as a living organism in its own right, a godlike supernatural that is beyond question and beyond reason.

Anthropomorphising the NHS is like caring for a loved one. We want them to be the younger person that we remember, smiling, full of life. But the NHS isn’t a person, it’s a machine, a process and one which is outdated and needs to be replaced.

The majority or Britons no longer believe in supernatural beings, we have replaced religion with reason. The sooner we accept the need to apply this reason to the NHS, the better. Change must come and people like Owen Jones should shut up and get out of the way. His steadfast defence of the cult of the NHS costs hundreds of thousands of lives. Enough is enough.

I have just answered the door to a man from Royal Mail who handed over my latest purchases from Amazon. Yeah, you can unfollow me for using those tax dodging scumbags if you like, but let’s face it, who can really be arsed to drag themselves round the local shopping centre or even town centre with it’s hoards of great unwashed and miserable shoppers who really wish they’d stayed at home and logged in to Amazon?

I digress, my point was I am working from home today as I have a stinking cold and see no reason to infecting my fellow workmates or aggravating my cold by riding through the wet and cold to my office. Because I happened to be at home, the Royal Mail man could hand me the parcels rather than the usual situation which goes like this:

1. Parcel arrives at local depot.

2. Postie puts my parcel in the back of his van.

3. Postie drives to my house.

4. Postie takes the parcels from his van and walks to my door.

5. Postie ignores “bell” sign and timidly raps on the door.

6. Postie waits about 2 seconds and then fills in a “sorry you were out” card.

7. Postie puts parcels back into the van.

8. Postie repeats this process for most of the morning.

9. Postie returns to depot.

10. The next day, I go to the depot and pick up my parcel.

You can probably guess where this is going already.

Why on earth can I not tick a box on the Amazon website which says “Collect from depot” as a postage option? Would that not be a good idea?

A great many people work during the day, I suspect most of Amazon’s demographic are not at home during the day because of work commitments. So why are so many parcels being dragged around towns and cities unnecessarily?

Amazon could get the parcel to my local Royal Mail depot, then I can go and get it from there. There is no need whatsoever for the “man in the van” bit in the middle. I even end up being less inconvenienced because I can get my parcels a day earlier.

All we need is to be able to tick an option on Amazon (and other sites) to say “don’t bother, I won’t be in, just leave it at the depot and drop me an email to let me know it is there and I will get it myself”.

Would it be that hard?

I have had enough of f*cking motorists. Car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers, vans, taxis the f*cking lot of you. Basically you have left me with pretty much no option but to assume that every single one of you is a self righteous c*nt with no regards for the laws of this country who lack the fundamental regard for the safety of other human beings necessary to enable you to be considered anything other than an utter w*nker.

From now on I take the fight to you. The battle is joined and this is a call to arms to all cyclists to exploit the full power of the law and the highway code to f*ck over the motor vehicle c*nts and by force take the necessary action to achieve and maintain the safety that is by rights ours.

Drivers, stop harping on about “cyclists jumping red lights”. Come back when you no longer speed. Come back when you no longer jump red lights or gamble on amber. Come back when you stop parking on double yellow lines, when you stop blocking cycle lanes and when you stop cutting cyclists up.

And yes, you c*nts, you can stop complaining about us using headphones when we cycle. F*ck you. What, you think a deaf person could not ride a bike, or that for some reason we have to listen out for you hammering up the road behind us as you sing along to you f*cking stereo? Come back and complain when you no longer eat whilst driving, when you no longer treat your sh*tty car as a mobile beauty salon, when you stop smoking whilst driving, when you no long listen to music whilst driving and most of all, f*ck the f*ck off until you learn to stop using you phone whilst driving. How f*cking thick are you?

Finally, you can stop moaning about paying “road tax”. You haven’t paid road tax since 1937. You don’t pay anywhere near enough to cover the cost of building or maintaining roads, it comes out of the general taxation you f*cking morons. Cyclists pay the same income tax as every other road user, the same VAT and every other tax including council tax. You raise a paltry contribution from your sh*tty little tax disk which gives you f*ck all rights compared to a cyclist. If anything, cyclists are the ones being ripped off, you love those f*cking motorways don’t you, speeding all over the place, well we can’t use those can we? Yet we pay for them. We get a tiny sliver on a tiny fraction of the roads called a cycle lane that you totally disregard anyway. So f*ck off moaning about your subsidised roads, that we pay for.

So what action do I intend to take. Well, given that the c*nts in cars continuously forget that a cyclist has every right to be on the road, they need reminding. It isn’t “your” lane you ignorant c*nts, it’s just “the lane” and if I am in front of your sh*tty car, you can f*cking get behind me and wait. If I choose to move over and give you some extra room, consider yourself lucky for the consideration I have shown you, but as you all seem to want us dead you can go f*ck yourselves.

I have every right to take the lane, the whole lane and leave you no room. If I want, I can cycle alongside my mate two abreast and there is f*ck all, f*cking f*ck all that you can do about it. So f*ck you. You can beep your horn, flash your lights and shout abuse. I do not give a f*ck. Get behind me and stay there until it is safe to overtake.

Being safe to overtake doesn’t mean swerving round me like a c*nt. It means giving me the same room you would any other road vehicle. That means leaving the lane, moving into the next and going round me properly.

I am advised to use cycle lanes and the cycle boxes at junction, so you can get the f*ck out of those. And yes, I will f*ck you over by pulling in front of you at junctions and traffic lights and taking as long as I like to pull away. You can stop the f*cking revving and the tutting. You don’t want me getting ahead by jumping the lights, so you can f*cking wait.

So f*ck you. Go read the f*cking highway code. Try rule 140 w*nker https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/multilane-carriageways-133-to-143, that’s the one that tells you to keep the f*ck out of cycle lanes, at all times, all the f*cking time. Or try these , which reminds you that you are responsible for taking extra care to look out for me, you are the one supposed to give me room and that you are in the f*cking wrong every f*cking time https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213  or this https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169.

So you c*nts in cars, when you comply with all of that, come back and moan about jumping red lights until then. F*ck off.