# Fixed Penalty Notice



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

If I'm going to get a ticket then I'd rather get one from bicycle cops.

Still a stupid place to be raising revenue.



View: http://youtu.be/ktFbgwTfrbE


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

I don't get your beef. Ride illegally expect it.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

[QUOTE 2553877, member: 30090"][/quote]

Squinting at your post I only red the first line. Thought I'd reply anyway!


----------



## byegad (18 Jul 2013)

Yup. Best thing to say was;
'It' a fair cop guv' you got me bang to rights this time, Cor Blimey!'


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2013)

I ride like this, so I can't get smug or censorious, but the Police seem perfectly reasonable, polite and constructive in this clip.

Not sure how it is a stupid place to be earning revenue. If you see it as a revenue-generating exercise, you may need to reflect a little. The authorities could earn far more, far more quickly in other ways.

They are trying to make the highways safer - and in their view (and the view of the Law) your riding in that clip was doing the opposite.

You were very polite and took your medicine, but to then go online with the comment "_Still a stupid place to be raising revenue_" smacks of teenage sulk more than anything.

It reminds me of speeding drivers (I have a dreadful track record of SP30s and big fines) who bleat about revenue-generation when really they just chose to ignore big roadside signs and a needle on their dashboard that points at numbers.

I'm glad you put the footage up, as it shows the Police in a good light. But it is not a stupid place to stop lawbreakers.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)




----------



## ianrauk (18 Jul 2013)

Raising revenue?
Fining someone for breaking the law you mean.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I ride like this, so I can't get smug or censorious, but the Police seem perfectly reasonable, polite and constructive in this clip.
> 
> Not sure how it is a stupid place to be earning revenue. If you see it as a revenue-generating exercise, you may need to reflect a little. The authorities could earn far more, far more quickly in other ways.
> 
> ...



If you ever cycle in London or have access to a map reflect on the geography of where I'm cycling and consider that perhaps I'm seeking the safest route to work. 

I'm happy to pay the fine and happy with the officers but extremely unhappy that a cyclist is forced to take a more dangerous route to avoid this stretch.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Raising revenue?
> Fining someone for breaking the law you mean.



By essence.


----------



## Leodis (18 Jul 2013)

I don't have sound on, was it for RLJ or cycling in a bus lane?


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Leodis said:


> I don't have sound on, was it for RLJ or cycling in a bus lane?



Just the bus lane. Was expecting to get done for both.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

To quote "I broke the law and legally deserved the ticket but morally I'm simply looking for a safe route to work."

Find one that doesn't break the law


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

fossyant said:


> To quote "I broke the law and legally deserved the ticket but morally I'm simply looking for a safe route to work."
> 
> Find one that doesn't break the law
> 
> View attachment 26418



Nope. I will continue to use this route.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

You are not forced to take a more dangerous route. To actually stay 'within the law' why didn't you hop off the bike and walk a few yards then ? Real cyclists take the long route !


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Nope. I will continue to use this route.


 
Folk like you give us cyclists a bad name. Just saying. Expect more fines if the boys turn up.

Don't know what's more stupid:-

1. Breaking the law by jumping the lights and cycling down a prohibited road (you got lucky with one fine)
2. Posting on a forum
3. Filming it
or
4. To intend to continue to use that route.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Jul 2013)

nothing stupid there... the no cycling sign will be there for a reason.


----------



## Leodis (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Just the bus lane. Was expecting to get done for both.


 

Very naughty, least thats a few more library books for poor old Timothy.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Nope. I will continue to use this route.


 


Then expect no empathy or sympathy from others for willingly flouting the law. It doesn't take much to find an alternative, safe route in London.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2013)

Is that junction of Bloomsbury Way/Southampton Row?

If so, you can very easily/legally/safely go beyond and up Great Russell St slightly further up on the left. Its only a few meters beyond and depending where you are utlimtaely heading, really not that much out of your way.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Is that junction of Bloomsbury Way/Southampton Row?
> 
> If so, you can very easily/legally/safely go beyond and up Great Russell St slightly further up on the left. Its only a few meters beyond and depending where you are utlimtaely heading, really not that much out of your way.


 
Come on, you can't expect folk to go the LONG way round can you ? Ooops.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

I'm bringing this:-


----------



## Bman (18 Jul 2013)

Im quite sure the funds generated through fines would not even cover those officers' wages for the day. 

Hardly a revenue earner.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2013)

[QUOTE 2553981, member: 30090"]That aside why is that particular bit of bus lane prohibited from being ridden on by bicycles - any ideas anyone?[/quote]
Well, based on the number of cyclists I see squeezing past teh buses waiting at the lights between metal railings, probably for thier own safety! 

his is based on the cyclist coming from the right at that clip and effectively going straight on where the OP was caught turning left.


----------



## Cycling Dan (18 Jul 2013)

I don't see any issue here. Its clearly signposted that you cant go there but you still did and got caught doing it. The police were very polite about it and made for a good interaction and showed them in a good light. 
If you think its a silly revenue generating scheme then the answer is simple. Don't do it and you wont be affected by it *shocker*. 
You didn't get a ticket for it but you also when through a red light. hmm...... 
In all


----------



## Leodis (18 Jul 2013)

I am more shocked at the RLJ, poor form.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

Argh, I actualy thought Cycling Dan's response was great - got a "like" from me.

Lock me up.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Then expect no empathy or sympathy from others for willingly flouting the law. It doesn't take much to find an alternative, safe route in London.



Good thing I'm not.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2013)

Yeah, no excuses. I work/cycle around there all the time. Plenty of safe alternatives that are barefly a few hundred meters more. The route I suggest up passed the British Museum is lovely as I think that buildng is great!


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

[QUOTE 2553993, member: 30090"]Is Veloevol the guy singing the second verse?
[/quote]

Actually I did backing vocals.


----------



## Leodis (18 Jul 2013)

8 pages


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Nope. I will continue to use this route.


 
And do you expect to receive further FPNs for your future offences? Don't bank on it.
You might find the cop remembers having ticketed you before and you'll find yourself without that option, being summonsed for court instead. Start putting a few quid away for that fine.

You really need to have a word with yourself.

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

fossyant said all I wanted to say. Aprt from:

The video casts the police in a most excellent light. I'm sure the older one is the guy who gave me a good talking to for riding a Boris Bike down the steps by the Duke of York Memorial last year.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Good thing I'm not.


 


No I think we all know that.

So you keep cycling in a self centred, selfish, anti-social manner. You continue to help give other cyclists a bad name. You keep giving motorist's and the general public ammunition to hate cyclists more then some already do.
As long as you are ok with that of course...


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

[QUOTE 2554019, member: 30090"]Then don't be posting any lame videos on here expecting sympathy, you broke the law, and you got ticketed. And it's not going to stop you doing it again so what is the point?

Either you're trolling or with all due respect, you're a bit thick.[/quote]

Shssh, he's obviously a bit 

What ever etc. etc. Fine. I'll just wait for the bus to come through the junction down the "no entry" bus lane just as you jump the lights in front of it, and get squashed. We'll enjoy the video. Don't come back here because we 'told you so'. 

As @Noodley would say 'Nobber' !


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I'm sure the older one is the guy who gave me a good talking to for riding a Boris Bike down the steps by the Duke of York Memorial last year.


 
He's obviously very 'reasonable'


----------



## gaz (18 Jul 2013)

Just so people are aware, there was a cyclist killed on monday just around the corner, it has been suggested that such a collision could have been avoided if cyclists are allowed to cycle down here. The reason being the other road is a busy 4 lane one way street that takes a lot of traffic, and cyclists jockeying for position is not easy.

The problem with this bus lane is that it is in a contra-flow, so either road user (bus or cyclist) must pass the other by going into the lane that has opposing traffic coming the other way. Now with this being a busy road, that is quite often. All it takes is one non-clued up cyclist to follow someone that knows what they are doing and there could be a nasty collision.

What should happen here is the one way system around holborn should be abandoned and all of the roads should be made to be 2 way with 2 lanes. one of which would be a bus lane. Easy solution that can be implemented in a short space of time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

fossyant said:


> He's obviously very 'reasonable'


He actually admitted to having done it himself!


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2013)

gaz said:


> Just so people are aware, there was a cyclist killed on monday just around the corner, it has been suggested that such a collision could have been avoided if cyclists are allowed to cycle down here. The reason being the other road is a busy 4 lane one way street that takes a lot of traffic, and cyclists jockeying for position is not easy.


 
But based on the OP video, he was coming from the direction of where that terrible accident was, the route taken would not have avoided it. The OP would have come from the right (where he turned left) should he be avoiding the nasty junction at Holborn.


----------



## gaz (18 Jul 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> But based on the OP video, he was coming from the direction of where that terrible accident was, the route taken would not have avoided it. The OP would have come from the right (where he turned left) should he be avoiding the nasty junction at Holborn.


I believe the video may have been made to prove the point about the police fining cyclists. This may not be the case but only the OP can say if it is or not.


----------



## jonny jeez (18 Jul 2013)

byegad said:


> Yup. Best thing to say was;
> 'It' a fair cop guv' you got me bang to rights this time, Cor Blimey!'


 

Do you know what though, sometimes its actually not. About 20 years ago I was stopped for speeding, quite rightly...because I was speeding.

Copper got out a book (it was white or yellow I cant recall which) and asked me if I knew why I'd been stopped. I replied, "yep, its a fair cop I was speeding", at which point the copper pulled out a different coloured pad (it was white or yellow I cant recall which) saying that as I'd admitted breaking the law it left him with no option that to stick me on. Told my dad about it later and he suspected the pad he originally pulled out was for a producer, to ensure I was eligible to drive (as my offence was minor, going 65 in a 60), the second pad was most likely a fixed penalty.

I gather if I'd shrugged my shoulders and said, "no idea guv" then I'd have been issued a producer and nothing more than a wag of his finger. 

DISCLAIMER
this post in no way condones Veloevol's actions and subsequent posts to which I shan't respond as Clearly Veloevol is now entrenched in his defence and has stopped listening to reasoned advice. Your house may be at risk if you leave all the doors open


----------



## Cycling Dan (18 Jul 2013)

gaz said:


> I believe the video may have been made to prove the point about the police fining cyclists. This may not be the case but only the OP can say if it is or not.


 
Ha, don't try and dig him out. We know from his comments this is not the case.


----------



## jonny jeez (18 Jul 2013)

gaz said:


> Just so people are aware, there was a cyclist killed on monday just around the corner, it has been suggested that such a collision could have been avoided if cyclists are allowed to cycle down here. The reason being the other road is a busy 4 lane one way street that takes a lot of traffic, and cyclists jockeying for position is not easy.
> 
> The problem with this bus lane is that it is in a contra-flow, so either road user (bus or cyclist) must pass the other by going into the lane that has opposing traffic coming the other way. Now with this being a busy road, that is quite often. All it takes is one non-clued up cyclist to follow someone that knows what they are doing and there could be a nasty collision.
> 
> What should happen here is the one way system around holborn should be abandoned and all of the roads should be made to be 2 way with 2 lanes. one of which would be a bus lane. Easy solution that can be implemented in a short space of time.


 


Meh...not sure about this Gav. From my recollection this always used to be a one way road and was made a contraflow for buses to take a short cut to Shaftesbury. Buses, not other road users

Its never been a road a car or cyclist can travel in that direction (not in the last 50 years or so I mean), so i cant see that the addition of contraflow adds any significant issue to those using the alternative (correct) route as far as using the opposing lane to pass, well, don't pass, or don't pass unless the lane is clear, surely that's no different to the rules and sense of using any carriageway.

Not sure I understand your point here. Also not sure why the OP insists on going that way, plenty of alternative routes, that offer much better riding with no fixed penalties.

All a bit daft.


----------



## SW19cam (18 Jul 2013)

Looks like there are two different issues:

1) Did the cyclist break the law ?Yes. This road is bus only and it looks like he was ‘taken care of’ proportionally and indeed he accepted the punishment.

2) Should this road be bus only ? Having recently been on the LCC protest ride I would say no. The obvious alternatives are hideous and I believe cyclists should be able to cycle on all roads (indeed, Kensington and Chelsea is trialling allowing contra flow cyclists on one way streets!).


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2013)

chrisk said:


> Looks like there are two different issues:
> 
> 1) Did the cyclist break the law ?Yes. This road is bus only and it looks like he was ‘taken care of’ proportionally and indeed he accepted the punishment.
> 
> 2) Should this road be bus only ? Having recently been on the LCC protest ride I would say no. The obvious alternatives are hideous and I believe cyclists should be able to cycle on all roads (indeed, Kensington and Chelsea is trialling allowing contra flow cyclists on one way streets!).


Sorry, but the route the OP took did NOT avoid the nasty Holborn junction, if so he would have ceom from the right at teh the junction the turned left. 

The fact he turned there and not 50 yards up the road at Gt Russell St is no excuse at all.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

gaz said:


> I believe the video may have been made to prove the point about the police fining cyclists. This may not be the case but only the OP can say if it is or not.


 
The video was made because I read somewhere that this FPN action effectively throws cyclists under the wheels of HGV's by making people share routes with heavy vehicles, I contend that. I felt that was unfair on this division of the police, who from my experiences are good reasonable police officers who happen to patrol on bikes.

Met police bosses and TFL put them there to counter bus drivers complaints.

However I still think it is a far safer route (providing you stay behind the buses).

Wither I'd do it again remains to be seen but to keep the good people of CC busy I'm saying I will.


----------



## Leodis (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> The video was made because I read somewhere that this FPN action effectively throws cyclists under the wheels of HGV's by making people share routes with heavy vehicles, I contend that. I felt that was unfair on this division of the police, who from my experiences are good reasonable police officers who happen to patrol on bikes.
> 
> Met police bosses and TFL put them there to counter bus drivers complaints.
> 
> ...


 

Thanks, better than the which bike threads though not quite on par with stolen bike ones.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> The video was made because I read somewhere that this FPN action effectively throws cyclists under the wheels of HGV's by making people share routes with heavy vehicles, I contend that. I felt that was unfair on this division of the police, who from my experiences are good reasonable police officers who happen to patrol on bikes.
> 
> Met police bosses and TFL put them there to counter bus drivers complaints.
> 
> ...


 
This is one of the most noble and selfless pieces of Head Cam Warriorness I've ever seen - and let me say I've seen a few!

This chap (and let us all stand for him) allowed himself to be hit with an FPN to save cyclists who are being thrown (yes, literally thrown) under the wheels of HGVs. And that's why he made the tape, but he modestly kept his true intent from you bad people until* after* you'd almost all called him a loony-tunes and an accident waiting to happen and some things I'd rather not write.

He rode* against* the flow of traffic, dangerously outside the solid line, into the path of oncoming vehicles, as a danger to pedestrians and to the likely annoyance of other road users, just to make an extremely valid point, which seems to be:_ "I shall ride where it is dangerous and illegal to show that by enforcing the law you are forcing us to ride where it is dangerous but legal"._

It is slightly more Sancho Panza than Pancho Villa. Not slightly; a lot. Most of all it is slightly Alan Partridge - and not in a good way. 

I know Holborn very well and I do not have a problem with the traffic system there. It is not ideal, but I'm not sure I know one that is.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is one of the most noble and selfless pieces of Head Cam Warriorness I've ever seen - and let me say I've seen a few!
> 
> This chap (and let us all stand for him) allowed himself to be hit with an FPN to save cyclists who are being thrown (yes, literally thrown) under the wheels of HGVs. And that's why he made the tape, but he modestly kept his true intent from you bad people until* after* you'd almost all called him a loony-tunes and an accident waiting to happen and some things I'd rather not write.
> 
> ...



You'll note I was issued with the FPN before the recent deaths on London's roads. 

But please re arrange the order of events to best suit your opinion.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

Which bike is best for riding in contra-flow bus lanes? I have £1000 to spend.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Further reading..
http://andywaterman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/death-on-holborn.html?m=1

The issuing of FPN without ID was something I also thought was worth sharing.


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Jul 2013)

It has all be said before but I will just add this: If you are willing to complain about other road users not being stopped by the police for offences, then you cannot complain what you yourself are caught breaking the law. It is not one rule for you and another for everyone else.
It is especially unwise to break the law in a city as big and populated as London where police can be around every corner (as you found out).

I commend you uploading the video because it shows that you know you did wrong and are willing to show yourself up for it. However, you still believe that you did nothing wrong, which is the worrying part. If your route is really that dangerous, then you would have time to be able to plan another route and save yourself getting stopped again.

Just try to be safe and LEGAL.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> It has all be said before but I will just add this: If you are willing to complain about other road users not being stopped by the police for offences, then you cannot complain what you yourself are caught breaking the law. It is not one rule for you and another for everyone else.
> It is especially unwise to break the law in a city as big and populated as London where police can be around every corner (as you found out).
> 
> I commend you uploading the video because it shows that you know you did wrong and are willing to show yourself up for it. However, you still believe that you did nothing wrong, which is the worrying part. If your route is really that dangerous, then you would have time to be able to plan another route and save yourself getting stopped again.
> ...


 
More worryingly where do I say I did nothing wrong? I'm questioning the moral sanity of fining cyclists who wish to take a quieter route away from 4 lanes of HGV screaming for the next lights. I think the resources of the Met Police should be directed at efforts to calm our streets and make them safer for all.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> More worryingly where do I say I did nothing wrong? I'm questioning the moral sanity of fining cyclists who wish to take a quieter route away from 4 lanes of HGV screaming for the next lights. I think the resources of the Met Police should be directed at efforts to calm our streets and make them safer for all.


Why not go up Gt Russell St just up the road? Safe and legal?


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> You'll note I was issued with the FPN before the recent deaths on London's roads.
> 
> But please re arrange the order of events to best suit your opinion.


 
I do not mention or even imply any connection between your ill-advised actions and any death in London or elsewhere.

I was mocking your suggestion that you'd made the video because you'd read somewhere about (see your own post above).

You may or may not see yourself as an unmockably heroic warrior of street justice for bicyclists.

Many readers of and contributors to these pages will see your cmments in the OP and what you've added since as beyond ridicule and an embarrassment to sensible road users.

A camera doesn't make you big, clever or right. You may be all of those, but there remains the suspicion that you may not be.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> I'm questioning the moral sanity of fining cyclists who wish to take a quieter route away from 4 lanes of HGV screaming for the next lights.


 
So long as it's legal. If you are that worried, take a detour, like a few miles ? Or give up cycling ?

We all have crappy road sections that it's wise not to ride, so take a longer route - we all do it, but legally.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

ianrauk said:


> No I think we all know that.
> 
> So you keep cycling in a self centred, selfish, anti-social manner. You continue to help give other cyclists a bad name. You keep giving motorist's and the general public ammunition to hate cyclists more then some already do.
> As long as you are ok with that of course...


 
I'm not ok with that and you're quite correct of course, here is a blatant example of RLJ which isn't helpful. I don't usually cycle in an antisocial way but that morning I was late, had overshot the previous junction and decided to take this cheeky left to get down to Tottenham Court Road.

Just so you know my commute is varied in the city as I have different offices to go to and take different routes.


----------



## gaz (18 Jul 2013)

jonny jeez said:


> Meh...not sure about this Gav. From my recollection this always used to be a one way road and was made a contraflow for buses to take a short cut to Shaftesbury. Buses, not other road users
> 
> Its never been a road a car or cyclist can travel in that direction (not in the last 50 years or so I mean), so i cant see that the addition of contraflow adds any significant issue to those using the alternative (correct) route as far as using the opposing lane to pass, well, don't pass, or don't pass unless the lane is clear, surely that's no different to the rules and sense of using any carriageway.
> 
> ...


You've confused me and I think you've misinterpreted my post.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do not mention or even imply any connection between your ill-advised actions and any death in London or elsewhere.
> 
> I was mocking your suggestion that you'd made the video because you'd read somewhere about (see your own post above).
> You may or may not see yourself as an unmockably heroic warrior of street justice for bicyclists.
> ...


 
Can you define 'making the video' please? Do you mean I intentionally looked to get a FPN or could it mean I decided to post the video of the incident to highlight what I think are inconsistencies in London's policing.

Mock away my friend. Shall we move onto segregated cycle paths?


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> More worryingly where do I say I did nothing wrong? I'm questioning the moral sanity of fining cyclists who wish to take a quieter route away from 4 lanes of HGV screaming for the next lights. I think the resources of the Met Police should be directed at efforts to calm our streets and make them safer for all.


You implied it by saying "I will continue to use that route". There is a reason it is for only buses. Its for your safety and others. I am not having a go because you did accept that you knew you were in the wrong but its worrying that you will continue to break the law.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> I'm not ok with that and you're quite correct of course, here is a blatant example of RLJ which isn't helpful.* I don't usually cycle in an antisocial way but that morning I was late, had overshot the previous junction and decided to take this cheeky left to get down to Tottenham Court Road.*
> 
> Just so you know my commute is varied in the city as I have different offices to go to and take different routes.


OH COME ON! NOOOOOOOOO!

_"I was late blah blah blah I don't usually do that blah blah blah"_

That's the same reason every speeding, RLJ'ing, white line crossing, close passing numpty in a car uses every time they narrowly avoid killing one of us.

You are actually the boss of Addison Lee and ICMFP


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> OH COME ON! NOOOOOOOOO!
> 
> _"I was late blah blah blah I don't usually do that blah blah blah"_
> 
> ...


 
Sorry am I not playing the part your expect from me?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Sorry am I not playing the part your expect from me?


It's okay. You're not a cyclist.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

But I still feel it is a safer route particularly if I'm coming from Greys Inn Road direction.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> It's okay. You're not a cyclist.


Exactly I'm a guy on a bike.


----------



## fimm (18 Jul 2013)

Is this the bus lane that someone was blogging about the other day where that alternative is four lanes of speeding traffic where the cyclist was killed last week?
Why are cyclists banned fromt that bus lane anyway?


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

fimm said:


> Is this the bus lane that someone was blogging about the other day where that alternative is four lanes of speeding traffic where the cyclist was killed last week?
> Why are cyclists banned fromt that bus lane anyway?


To avoid head-on collisions when overtaking buses. It is rather narrow.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> *Can you define 'making the video' please?* Do you mean I intentionally looked to get a FPN or could it mean I decided to post the video of the incident to highlight what I think are inconsistencies in London's policing.
> 
> Mock away my friend. Shall we move onto segregated cycle paths?


 
You began post #51 with the phrase "The video was made because..." I am using your definition of making a video.

I do not mean you intenitionally looked to get an FPN. 

I do mock and you do continue to swing away with that spade and dig an ever deeper hole, inviting further mockery.

I do not mention segregated cycle paths. I like London as it is. 

No more replies please, I broke a couple of ribs last year and laughing can make me wince.


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> You began post #51 with the phrase "
> No more replies please, I broke a couple of ribs last year and laughing can make me wince.


 
Hope your ribs heal up but if you insist in riding in the gutter they will only get worse.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> Exactly I'm a guy on a bike.


A guy on a bike with a point to prove and little cyclecraft or pride in his riding to prove it with.


----------



## Dan B (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> To avoid head-on collisions when overtaking buses. It is rather narrow.


I'm quite sure it's not the only road in London where buses need to cross the line into oncoming traffic to safely overtake a cyclist though. Every narrow two-way road in the city would seem to satisfy that criterion


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Jul 2013)

Hmmm I can't believe you all fell for it, he knew exactly the response and then you all tore in for the like fest!!!


----------



## Leodis (18 Jul 2013)

Just watched it with sound, the coppers really did a good job.


----------



## Schneil (18 Jul 2013)

http://road.cc/content/blog/88587-guest-blog-bus-lane-rules-and-death-holborn-andy-waterman


----------



## Hip Priest (18 Jul 2013)

Well done for taking the fine on the chin, 

If you intend on continuing to use that route as a short-cut, it'd be better for your wallet to hop off the bike and walk.


----------



## mr_cellophane (18 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> If you ever cycle in London or have access to a map reflect on the geography of where I'm cycling and consider that perhaps I'm seeking the safest route to work.


Why don't you ride on the pavement then ?


----------



## veloevol (18 Jul 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> Why don't you ride on the pavement then ?



I do when my 3 year old is on board.


----------



## stowie (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> OH COME ON! NOOOOOOOOO!
> 
> _"I was late blah blah blah I don't usually do that blah blah blah"_
> 
> ...


 

Yebbut the two aren't equivalent. The RLJing, white ine crossing, close passing numpty in a car is controlling 1 tonne of fast moving machinery, a cyclist less so. I know the point you are making, but it gets my goat when drivers go on about cyclists not sticking to the highway code and them having to (not least because it isn't true). Drivers are considerably more dangerous to others than cyclists. Of course they should be held to higher standards. In the same way that I would hope the average airline pilot is held to higher standards than a cyclist as well.

I can see why the bus lane as it is isn't really good for cyclists and buses together. I wonder whether the police are there for cyclist safety - in which case they might be also useful at making sure drivers are driving carefully through the one-way system - or if it because bus drivers tend to moan their arses off.

Taking the general traffic lanes from 2 to 1 and using the extra space to widen the existing bus lane or create dedicated cycle provision would sort it out. Simple.


----------



## EthelF (18 Jul 2013)

At first I thought you were advocating civil disobedience...


veloevol said:


> I'm not ok with that and you're quite correct of course, here is a blatant example of RLJ which isn't helpful. I don't usually cycle in an antisocial way but that morning I was late, had overshot the previous junction and decided to take this cheeky left to get down to Tottenham Court Road.


...but then you blew it.


----------



## Mugshot (19 Jul 2013)

Those poor coppers must have been roasting with all that clobber on


----------



## Leodis (19 Jul 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Those poor coppers must have been roasting with all that clobber on


 

They roasted, spit roasted the OP instead


----------



## veloevol (19 Jul 2013)

Leodis said:


> They roasted, spit roasted the OP instead



Flaccidly I'd suggest.


----------



## veloevol (19 Jul 2013)

From the twitter machine via @citycyclists: 

Evening Standard: why are cyclists banned bus lane that avoids killer Holborn junction http://t.co/3fqata3GcF


----------



## martint235 (19 Jul 2013)

I'm just confused and I must admit slightly irritated.

Irritated by the fact that people keep using an extremely tragic event just down the road from here to try to justify a blatantly illegal action. I am looking forward to the day when burglars start wearing headcams so they can post up on Housebreakchat.net.

Confused cos the OP repeatedly states that this is the safest route. It isn't. If you don't want to play with the big boys around there, there's a myriad of side streets, back alleys etc that criss cross the area. Oh what's that I hear you say, they are slower and longer than the route you wish to take? Oh. In that case, learn how to cycle legally and safely.


A first. I've never put someone on my ignore list before but the OP is just prime stupidity.


----------



## veloevol (19 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> I'm just confused and I must admit slightly irritated.
> 
> Irritated by the fact that people keep using an extremely tragic event just down the road from here to try to justify a blatantly illegal action. I am looking forward to the day when burglars start wearing headcams so they can post up on Housebreakchat.net.
> 
> ...



You're definitely confused if you dare to suggest I would use the death of Alan Neve to justify an illegal act.

Press ignorance now.


----------



## ianjmcd (19 Jul 2013)

in the words of rab c nesbitt esq you my son are a fanny and deserve the heckling your getting


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Jul 2013)

gaz said:


> You've confused me and I think you've misinterpreted my post.


 
I think I have too as I usually agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts on riding. I read it that you were suggesting the OP was taking this route because a change in the road planning had resulted in his usual route becoming less safe.

I was countering that the change had little effect as the road was always closed to cyclists (either as a one way or as a contraflow bus lane).

I suspect I am wrong.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

Good to see the police out and about and fining you for this stupid action.
They seemed amiable, polite and were clear about their actions.

It is a bus only lane for a reason, it is far too narrow for other traffic to be squeezing past buses against oncoming traffic, especially when you have two or three buses lined up together. You also inconvenience the drivers of the buses as they cannot get away cleanly with you going up the outside of them like that, they have their own job pressures as well as having to worry about you doing something silly in an unexpected place. When you are out you should think about other road users as well as yourself.

I used to commute into Holborn regularly and never felt the need to use that bus lane, and while the other more direct route is not ideal I have not had a problem there as yet. Yes, it is a big junction with some fast moving traffic, but you don't have to use it and can plan other routes, or take action via more legal routes.

If you really think this bus lane would be a safer route (I'm not so sure) then campaign to have it changed, or campaign to have the other route made safer, but stop with the illegal actions, it adds further negatvitiy towards cyclists and will not help to change things in a positive way.


----------



## Bromptonaut (19 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> .
> However I still think it is a far safer route (providing you stay behind the buses).


 
Trouble is they dont. Firstly, they squeeze past on the railings by Central St Martins risking being squashed. Then they try and pass stopped buses on Bloomsbury Way risking collision with oncoming traffic.


----------



## veloevol (19 Jul 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> Trouble is they dont. Firstly, they squeeze past on the railings by Central St Martins risking being squashed. Then they try and pass stopped buses on Bloomsbury Way risking collision with oncoming traffic.



Indeed but with patience I think it is still safer than tangling with HGV's on busier routes with no concessions to cycles.


----------



## gaz (19 Jul 2013)

jonny jeez said:


> I think I have too as I usually agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts on riding. I read it that you were suggesting the OP was taking this route because a change in the road planning had resulted in his usual route becoming less safe.
> 
> I was countering that the change had little effect as the road was always closed to cyclists (either as a one way or as a contraflow bus lane).
> 
> I suspect I am wrong.


I wasn't suggesting that, my post was abstract of that to the OP's and was just describing the situation and why cyclists might use it and why they can't.


----------



## Lyrical (19 Jul 2013)

Pretty sound police officers tbh.


----------



## veloevol (19 Jul 2013)

[QUOTE 2555941, member: 45"]Tangling? You're continuing to use unhelpful language.

I've lived and cycled in London, Birmingham and Bristol (area). I've never tangled with an HGV. I've never been forced to use a certain route. I've never needed to jump a red light.

And there are still other options for you. It's not a case of break the law or die at the mercy of a truck.[/quote]

It's not all about you and me. The options are not easy for a lot of people who don't feel comfortable in heavy fast flowing traffic.

A HGV ban at commuting times would help get more people riding in the inner city. As would a bike lane on some of these ample roads.


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> From the twitter machine via @citycyclists:
> 
> Evening Standard: why are cyclists banned bus lane that avoids killer Holborn junction http://t.co/3fqata3GcF



Oh for faks sake....


I'm annoyed now, not with you (solely) but with the fact that despite promising myself not too...i'm bloody engaging with you on this ridiculous argument.

Look, i get it, you've posted, you've taken a stance and you've committed yourself to it.

Thats all human nature and its admirable

But at some point you HAVE to, in some tiny way, understand that you are just wrong.

I've listened to your voice on the video and you seem articulate and intelligent ( apart from the pathetic attempt to inconvenience the frankly overwhelmingly patient copper, with a lie about carrying id...what you travel to work without a credit card, or a bank card a mobile phone with some contacts to verify your id...really)

So why the trolling, why keep insisting that a junction is to blame, or a past incident or road planning.

You are to blame

YOU.....just YOU, noone else, nothing else, no other history.

Take some well meant advice, please.

Dont jump reds
Dont ride up roads you are not entitled to
Dont insist on doing so even when proven wrong
Dont tangle with any bloody traffic, just ride

But most of all 

Dont continue on this pointless course of blaming everything else, insulting everyone else, insisting everything else is against you and that only you are right and everything else is wrong

Just sit back...for a few moments, think about it and stop being such a bloody arse.

Sorry shaun, profanity checker will need to do overtime on this one.

And in answer to your question above, they are "banned" because of people like you who cannot...or perhaps will not distinguish between common sense and bloody mindedness.

Right, i need a fag now ....and i don't even bloody smoke


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> A HGV ban at commuting times would help get more people riding in the inner city.


 
That is one thing that I am in two minds about, times and places to allow HGV's in London.

I was cycling through Oxford Street on a Saturday during a very busy time of day (around lunchtime or just after) and the number of taxis, buses and pedestrians was quite high.

Now down Oxford Street was driving a large tipper truck, I stayed behind as it was too narrow to pass and I value my health.
However it just seemed to me that no matter how skilled the driver, you have the summer heat, pedestrians all over the place not really paying too much attention, a minority of impatient people who may go down the left side of the vehicle, or those who may cross without looking.

Now I know these larger vehicles need to get about, but in my mind, do we need them travelling down places like Oxford Street on a Saturday where you have a large number of vunerable road users about?

Perhaps I am overthinking it, but it just seemed in my opinion that it would been better for that vehicle to have used a different route or gone down there at a different time of the day...


----------



## martint235 (19 Jul 2013)

To me, banning HGVs is kind of like banning mobile phone masts. All very well until you need one (or what's on one). I imagine the main logistics companies have thought long and hard about delivering in the middle of the night (quieter roads for them too, more progress made etc) and yet it just isn't cost effective. So ban HGVs but bear in mind that when Little Miss X wants a new playstation and there's no stock, part of it will have been your choice.


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Jul 2013)

Frood42 said:


> That is one thing that I am in two minds about, times and places to allow HGV's in London, banning HGV's at certain times on certain peak routes may help.
> 
> I was cycling through Oxford Street on a Saturday during a very busy time of day (around lunchtime or just after) and the number of taxis, buses and pedestrians was quite high.
> 
> ...


Whilst you were there did you happen to notice all the buildings on either side, or the road beneath your wheels, the lights, the pavements, the power,drains,services.

How do you think they all got there?

Do you think they were carried in by hand in buckets. Construction needs to go on to keep us happy and unfortunately, against almost everyones wishes (you can trust me as i work in a related industry) it needs to happen at weekends.

So yes, if an hgv was there, on a saturday you can assume it had pretty good reason to be, i doubt it would just poodle up oxford street for a jolly.

Sorry if i'm short, i'm still seething from my earlier post, its not you.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

jonny jeez said:


> Whilst you were there did you happen to notice all the buildings on either side, or the road beneath your wheels, the lights, the pavements, the power,drains,services.
> 
> How do you think they all got there?
> 
> ...


 
Oh, yes, I noticed the infrastructure, and while the road and general area was quite busy the surface was quite nice to ride on.

I agree with what you are saying, that is why I am in two minds, I am sure the people who do the logistics for these and plan the routes (or even the driver) will have had a good reason for being there.
Then there is the side of me that thinks, could the work have been done another time?
I'm sure that most of the time the answer is no, but as I have limited/no visibilty of that there is going to be doubt (and I will never have that visibility).

Reminds me of the tube upgrade, it is needed work, and the weekend is only the real time they can do it, otherwise it will impact on people's commutes, and potentially impact on business.

Maintenance does need to be carried out to keep things moving.


----------



## Amanda P (19 Jul 2013)

I'm pretty sure there are quite a number of European city zones in which large goods vehicles may not be moved during rush hour without a lot of paperwork and very good reasons. 

Presumably, it costs a little more to put up or maintain buildings in those cities, and to restock the supermarkets. But presumably, the residents of those cities allowed their leaders to put the HGV limits in place because they felt a little inconvenience, a few euros on the rent or a few cents on the price of a pizza, were a worthwhile price to pay for safer roads for everyone (including Martin's Little Miss X).

I've travelled through a few European cities where there were conspicuously few large lorries. Civilization appears to continue there, and a lot of it rather more civilized than here. (By gum, you Londoners can be an abrasive lot!)


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Jul 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Oh, yes, I noticed the infrastructure, and while the road and general area was quite busy the surface was quite nice to ride on.
> 
> I agree with what you are saying, that is why I am in two minds, I am sure the people who do the logistics for these and plan the routes (or even the driver) will have had a good reason for being there.
> Then there is the side of me that thinks, could the work have been done another time?
> ...


 
Now this is where my limited crossover knowledge runs out, I suspect that commercial companies are encouraged by all manner of cost restrictions, licenses and general faffing to NOT undertake works in these areas, at these times. However up until recently I believe civil firms (undertaking infrastructure works) could just pitch up willy nilly and create all manner of congestion. I'm pretty sure they are now financially punished for not liaising with other service providers to keep disruption to a minimum.

Seems to be that way at least, as it feels like there is less congestion caused by road works these days.

Apologies again for the snooty tone when I started my last. I'm sure you understand.


----------



## gaz (19 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> To me, banning HGVs is kind of like banning mobile phone masts. All very well until you need one (or what's on one). I imagine the main logistics companies have thought long and hard about delivering in the middle of the night (quieter roads for them too, more progress made etc) and yet it just isn't cost effective. So ban HGVs but bear in mind that when Little Miss X wants a new playstation and there's no stock, part of it will have been your choice.


I do believe that they are banned at night (this is the tipper trucks).


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

jonny jeez said:


> Apologies again for the snooty tone when I started my last. I'm sure you understand.


 
Yes, of course, the forums would be very boring if everyone thought the same!

Debate, passion and a difference of thought is always a good thing in my mind (of course you also need moderation otherwise these things could run on for more than 6 or 7 pages, like helmet and headphone debates or dominos pizza customer feedback threads   ).


----------



## Lyrical (19 Jul 2013)

Drama Llama


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jul 2013)

what a silly billy OP


----------



## Soltydog (19 Jul 2013)

Got to admit it as a fair cop! Both you being done & the officer charging you 
Cyclists taking no notice of traffic signals/signs are as bad & potentially as dangerous as motorists, but we are much more vunerable when we do take these risks. Must admit I'm not whiter than white, there's one particular spot on my regular riding that I take to the pavement as I consider it much safer & if I had an officer deal with me the way you were dealt with I'd take it on the chin, pay the fine & carry on 
As someone else mentioned though £16 fine hardly makes it a massive earner for the police


----------



## Bromptonaut (20 Jul 2013)

veloevol said:


> But I still feel it is a safer route particularly if I'm coming from Greys Inn Road direction.


 

So putting together two posts you were coming from Grays Inn Road bound towards Tottenham Ct Rd? 

Others mention using Gt Russell St. There is also a range of other options to swing westbound before you meet Holborn. These include roads in the Guilford St area and linking onto the Tavistock Way cycle route which is segregated and fully bike legal. It has its own hazards but if you prefer the road is available instead. 

The Police might have been better handing out advice leaflets showing alternative routes. OTOH they may have tried that already. The route has been open at least two years and signage was very quickly amended to clarify its status as bus only.

Given the number of cyclists who continue to use the route (I've had several near misses travelling Bloomsbury Way eastbound) nothing seems to have much effect. The only way to achieve that might be barriers operated by the approach of a bus.


----------



## Cooper645 (20 Jul 2013)

An interesting read if you have a spare five minutes, covering the law and cycling

http://blog.veloviewer.com/41mph-the-evidence-against-the-sunday-times-article/


----------



## Cyclopathic (20 Jul 2013)

I'll tell you what is stupid. This stupid hot weather, that's what's really stupid. There is just no point to it and no one has even tried to offer an explaination as to the motivation behind it. And why not? Because there is none, it's just stupid. Stupid, stupid heat.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jul 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'll tell you what is stupid. This stupid hot weather, that's what's really stupid. There is just no point to it and no one has even tried to offer an explaination as to the motivation behind it. And why not? Because there is none, it's just stupid. Stupid, stupid heat.


 
It was my idea. I thought of hot weather during a cold spell in 1996 and wrote a paper on it.

It was adopted by God and other deities as an ongoing desired strategic positive outcome for the summer months and was first rolled out in June 2001.

Even if you see no point to it, I thnk you might at least show some corporate buy-in and not slag it off around colleagus who may be more impressionable.

By the way, there is a point to it. It's for like growing wheat and stuff so we can, like, eat and stuff and get a tan and go swimming and that.

It's all in the paper I wrote. And then lost.


----------



## I like Skol (20 Jul 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> It was my idea. I thought of hot weather during a cold spell in 1996 ........
> By the way, there is a point to it....... and get a tan and go swimming and that. .......


 I went to the local pool for a swim last night with my wife and kids. She just laughed and laughed at me. She said I looked like I was wearing a white t-shirt, with my brown arms and brown head and neck. Luckily I was wearing swimming shorts so she couldn't see my matching white trunks!


----------



## Cyclopathic (20 Jul 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> It was my idea. I thought of hot weather during a cold spell in 1996 and wrote a paper on it.
> 
> It was adopted by God and other deities as an ongoing desired strategic positive outcome for the summer months and was first rolled out in June 2001.
> 
> ...


 Hmm, yes, I think I heard about this paper and IIRC it was witten up in "The New Scientist" with the ringing endorsement "This paper is stupid and rivals such psudo scientific twaddle as Nero Linguistic Programminng and Homeopathy for most debunked hypothesis of the modern age" National geograpic were more concise and simply said "Stupid".
You might want to read Newtons little known but much admired addendum to his theory of thermo dynamics entitiled "Why heat is stupid" for a more reasoned analysis of the subject. There is also a very revealing set of papers written up by the Shackleton expedition (again little known for some reason) on how to effectively grow a bumper harvest of pretty much anything in perma frost, under half a kilometer of ice and snow. It not only gives the lie to the notion that heat is somehow necessary for crop growth but also draws into question the role of light. (Not that light is stupid of course in and except where it is inneficient and produces much heat as a biproduct...Like the stupid sun) 
If you should doubt a single word of the above I would simply ask you to consider how "stupid" you may appear if you do so and I have to repeat myself with the word "FACT" at the end of each sentence.
Good day sir.


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Jul 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> Hmm, yes, I think I heard about this paper and IIRC it was witten up in "The New Scientist" with the ringing endorsement "This paper is stupid and rivals such psudo scientific twaddle as Nero Linguistic Programminng and Homeopathy for most debunked hypothesis of the modern age" National geograpic were more concise and simply said "Stupid".
> You might want to read Newtons little known but much admired addendum to his theory of thermo dynamics entitiled "Why heat is stupid" for a more reasoned analysis of the subject. There is also a very revealing set of papers written up by the Shackleton expedition (again little known for some reason) on how to effectively grow a bumper harvest of pretty much anything in perma frost, under half a kilometer of ice and snow. It not only gives the lie to the notion that heat is somehow necessary for crop growth but also draws into question the role of light. (Not that light is stupid of course in and except where it is inneficient and produces much heat as a biproduct...Like the stupid sun)
> If you should doubt a single word of the above I would simply ask you to consider how "stupid" you may appear if you do so and I have to repeat myself with the word "FACT" at the end of each sentence.
> Good day sir.


 
New Scientist? New Schmientist!

Shackleton? Schmackleton!

Of course I'm going to take seriously the ramblings of a so-called 'explorer' who crashed his ship into the biggest piece of ice EVER and then forgot where reverse was and got it stuck... For months!!

Permafrost? Schmermafrost!

I think you get the drift. As, in his own way, did Shackleton.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jul 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> Hmm, yes, I think I heard about this paper and IIRC it was witten up in "The New Scientist" with the ringing endorsement "This paper is stupid and rivals such psudo scientific twaddle as Nero Linguistic Programminng and Homeopathy for most debunked hypothesis of the modern age" National geograpic were more concise and simply said "Stupid".
> You might want to read Newtons little known but much admired addendum to his theory of thermo dynamics entitiled "Why heat is stupid" for a more reasoned analysis of the subject. There is also a very revealing set of papers written up by the Shackleton expedition (again little known for some reason) on how to effectively grow a bumper harvest of pretty much anything in perma frost, under half a kilometer of ice and snow. It not only gives the lie to the notion that heat is somehow necessary for crop growth but also draws into question the role of light. (Not that light is stupid of course in and except where it is inneficient and produces much heat as a biproduct...Like the stupid sun)
> If you should doubt a single word of the above I would simply ask you to consider how "stupid" you may appear if you do so and I have to repeat myself with the word "FACT" at the end of each sentence.
> Good day sir.


Frankly i'm a little disappointed at your lacklustre approach to research. You blatantly ignored feynmans paper on the subject, drawing his conclusions form decades of research in to quantum electro dynamics. He quite clearly argued that heat is indeed "stupid"... His words ...and i'm not talking the "floppy o ring" sense of stupid for which he demanded so much attention, nope, just plain old stupid.

Shocked that you missed that, do try to keep up.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jul 2013)

jonny jeez said:


> ...
> what you travel to work without a credit card, or a bank card a mobile phone with some contacts to verify your id...really
> ...


 
I travel to work without a cash card or mobile phone... or my passport... yes, really!


----------



## martint235 (21 Jul 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> I travel to work without a cash card or mobile phone... or my passport... yes, really!


 
Apropos to nothing much, I watched last Sunday's episode of Law and Order UK last night and was amazed that the young copper found it difficult to believe that a suspect didn't have a driving license. I've never had one and have no intention of getting one.


----------



## Slaav (21 Jul 2013)

Here goes.... (Waiting for theTdF and putting off washing the car )

I know the road/s and area pretty well; it is on my commute and if the route down through Endell St is sticky, I cut past the Museum and along teh stretch of road the OP was 'done' on. For those that do not know the road, Google SV does not do the situation justice in that the road was always Eastbound ONE way only against the direction that the OP rode down in.

As someone earlier has mentioned, a short few years ago, a lane (Eastbound) was sacrificed to make way for a contraflow bus lane. Now as you can imagine, priority/space was given to the bus lane and the other lanes were slightly 'squeezed' as one can imagine. The end product is quite a pain in the 4rse to be honest - at one point further back towards Tottenham Ct Road, I think Eastbound is ONE BL00DY LANE!!! (USed to be 3)

So, anything/one filtering in either direction is very squeezed. Cyclists simply do NOT wait in line behind buses at bus stops - please dont tell me you/they do. Cyslist filtering as you were attempting to do so are a total and utter pain in the bum even at low trafiic volumes. From memory, the traffic was hardly light and there were plenty of buses which would have kept you in the opposite traffic flow pretty much constantly. You may be comfortable with that, most wouldnt. Especially the other road users - i.e. motorists!! (Of which it may well be me )

As a check and balance, I could supposedly 'justify' that route for my own safety as in pleasant weather, I Boris Bike home reversing my route. Admittedly I come up Kingsway and then have to head West but that route would not even occur to me at all, ever! I assume (you mention Grays Inn Rd) that you came along High Holborn and turned right at the Holborn Tube? Where were you heading? Many on here will happily show/tell you a safer and legal route!

If I bring my bike into London (roadie) and am 'hoofing it' more than on BB, I would simply turn left at the Tube and head towards TCR taking my chances with the traffic rather than do what you did. (I actually cut through to Drury Lane and pop out nr TCR/Centre Point into stationary traffic which allows me to filter safely 

I am not sure quite what you were hoping to achieve with the OP/Video but I would suggest that whilst some may agree with the sentiment re Plod wasting their time (which I think is your aim) any feeling of empathy for your predicament is 100% blown apart by the RLJ and stupid route that you illegally insist on using!

Sorry, but I really cannot see any redeeming factors anywhere in this. And do bear in mind that I have plenty of experience (daily) of the junction/s in both my car and on a bike.

Apologies for the length but the background was to try and lend some more weight to my point vs a simple rant at the OP.

Hope no offence caused but please change your route and self justification


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jul 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> I travel to work without a cash card or mobile phone... or my passport... yes, really!


 
Fair enough and I dont want to wish ill well but....touch wood and all that...what if you were involved in a collision, or just had a medical issue, passed out, tripped on a step, walked in front of a bus.

How would they know who you were, what your medical condition was, what allergies you have, who to contact?. I don't tend to leave the hose for the day (on the bike or Motorbike) without an ICE number and form of identification (not proof of ID just a form of ID).

Having said that I don't know how long your journey is, Mine is around 20 miles in each direction (these days a fair bit more as I'm trying to train for an event) so there's a good deal of exposure to heat, traffic, fitness, peds.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jul 2013)

I'll make sure i have clean underpants too


----------



## Cyclopathic (22 Jul 2013)

User said:


> You go to work without your wallet? Really?
> 
> I find that hard to believe...


 
Not hard to believe at all. I used to work at the Royal Mint and at lunch time would just grab a handful of readies from the nearest pile to buy a sandwhich with. I always put the change back though.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Jul 2013)

You're not allowed to cycle down a bus route??


----------



## HLaB (22 Jul 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> You're not allowed to cycle down a bus route??


I dont know about the one in question but one near me has cycling prohibited despite it been shown on the local cycle map


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jul 2013)

User said:


> You go to work without your wallet? Really?
> 
> I find that hard to believe...


 
i don't use a wallet. It's pointless having a wallet to put a couple of tenners in when i've got perfectly good pockets. I have one cash card, no credit cards, no loyalty cards, no driving license, no utility payment cards or any of the other tat people pack their wallets with.


----------



## subaqua (22 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> To me, banning HGVs is kind of like banning mobile phone masts. All very well until you need one (or what's on one). I imagine the *main logistics companies have thought long and hard about delivering in the middle of the night* (quieter roads for them too, more progress made etc) and yet it just isn't cost effective. So ban HGVs but bear in mind that when Little Miss X wants a new playstation and there's no stock, part of it will have been your choice.


 and so have construction companies. however to comply with S61 notices we can't make a lot of noise between certain hours due to residents , so can't deliver what we need at night .

As i have said earlier, all that moving deliveries and large vehicles to night/evening deliveris is move a problem not solve a problem. akin to taking a paracetamol for a broken leg rather than getting the correct treatment.

MrPaul says quite rightly , that there are better routes that can be used. I used a better route through the area last week . and I didn't jump any red lights


----------



## ianrauk (22 Jul 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> You're not allowed to cycle down a bus route??


 


Some yes, some no, Mainly the contraflow ones you can't.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (22 Jul 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> I'll make sure i have clean underpants too


 
Commando surely?


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jul 2013)

Supersuperleeds said:


> Commando surely?


 
not if I might have an accident... surely!


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Jul 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Some yes, some no, Mainly the contraflow ones you can't.


 
hah, didn't know that. maybe i've not come across one that I can't. I just looked up the sign that would prohibit anything but a bus using a bus lane and I have to say, I honestly wouldn't assume from that that I couldn't use it.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...n/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191924.pdf

Given that many cyclists haven't necessarily learnt to drive and given that this sign isn't an especially clear one (not to me anyway), I can see a lot of people inadvertently breaking the law here.


----------



## martint235 (22 Jul 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> hah, didn't know that. maybe i've not come across one that I can't. I just looked up the sign that would prohibit anything but a bus using a bus lane and I have to say, I honestly wouldn't assume from that that I couldn't use it.
> 
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...n/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191924.pdf
> 
> Given that many cyclists haven't necessarily learnt to drive and given that this sign isn't an especially clear one (not to me anyway), I can see a lot of people inadvertently breaking the law here.


 I work on the simple principle that there's a road. I'm allowed to cycle on that. Anything that looks different to a road (pavement, bus lane etc) will either give me explicit permission to be on it or I'm not allowed to be. The sign for a bus only lane shows a bus only.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> I work on the simple principle that there's a road. I'm allowed to cycle on that. Anything that looks different to a road (pavement, bus lane etc) will either give me explicit permission to be on it or I'm not allowed to be. The sign for a bus only lane shows a bus only.


 
I can see the logic of it now I've looked it up and it's been explained to me, I think that's probably my failing but I also think that raises the issue of educating people better with regards to reading road signs and general good cycling.

Another (kind of related) example is that I know some motorcyclists genuinely believe those ASZ's are meant for them to use as well... Is this information imparted to people in their tests? Or maybe because ASZ's are a relatively recent introduction many motorists simply have never been told.


----------



## gaz (22 Jul 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> hah, didn't know that. maybe i've not come across one that I can't. I just looked up the sign that would prohibit anything but a bus using a bus lane and I have to say, I honestly wouldn't assume from that that I couldn't use it.
> 
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...n/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191924.pdf
> 
> Given that many cyclists haven't necessarily learnt to drive and given that this sign isn't an especially clear one (not to me anyway), I can see a lot of people inadvertently breaking the law here.


British Cycling did a study and something like 80% of it's members also drove.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jul 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I can see the logic of it now I've looked it up and it's been explained to me, I think that's probably my failing but I also think that raises the issue of* educating people better with regards to reading road signs* and general good cycling.
> 
> ....


 
what's wrong with just educating yourself?

The highway code is available from most good bookshops and post offices, and it's even free online.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Jul 2013)

gaz said:


> British Cycling did a study and something like 80% of it's members also drove.


 
I guess I'm one of the 20% then...


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Jul 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> what's wrong with just educating yourself?
> 
> The highway code is available from most good bookshops and post offices, and it's even free online.


 
No harm at all, in fact given that I'm a librarian, I thoroughly recommend it 

That being said, how many people that drive know every in and out of the Highway Code, let alone those that don't drive? It's also quite hard to learn something that you had no idea existed. I mean, I know now and that's great but prior to this thread I thought I knew what most signs meant and I had no idea that cycles were prohibited from going down a bus lane. If there was circular red sign of a cycle with a red strike through it or one that said 'No Cycles' then I'd definitely get it.

Anyway, as I say, I know now.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jul 2013)

being a non driver, it amazes me how little many drivers know about the highway code... anyone would think it's only purpose is to help them pass their driving test, then they can forget all about it.



Davidsw8 said:


> .... I had no idea that cycles were prohibited from going down a bus lane. If there was *circular red sign of a cycle with a red strike through* it or one that said 'No Cycles' then I'd definitely get it.
> 
> ....


 
or maybe just a circular red sign with a bike in it.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Jul 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> being a non driver, it amazes me how little many drivers know about the highway code... anyone would think it's only purpose is to help them pass their driving test, then they can forget all about it.
> 
> 
> 
> or maybe just a circular red sign with a bike in it.


 
Oh dear, I shouldn't be allowed on the roads  but some red circle road signs have lines through them, is that prohibiting an action by anyone rather than a type of vehicle?


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jul 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Oh dear, I shouldn't be allowed on the roads  but some red circle road signs have lines through them, is that prohibiting an action by anyone rather than a type of vehicle?


 
consult your highway code


----------



## campbellab (22 Jul 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> being a non driver, it amazes me how little many drivers know about the highway code... anyone would think it's only purpose is to help them pass their driving test, then they can forget all about it.
> 
> 
> 
> or maybe just a circular red sign with a bike in it.


 
Or a red triangle with a bike in it... Errr?!


----------



## Andy_R (23 Jul 2013)

There are no highway signs with circles with a red line through them. The reason for this is that if you are travelling at speed in excess of 30mph, you might not have enough time to see what you are not allowed to do if there is a red line through it. Red circles with lines through are for pedestrians, tube users, pub smokers etc. On the road, red circle means "DO NOT"... red triangle means "There may be lots of..."


----------



## Mallory (23 Jul 2013)

Frood42 said:


> That is one thing that I am in two minds about, times and places to allow HGV's in London.
> 
> I was cycling through Oxford Street on a Saturday during a very busy time of day (around lunchtime or just after) and the number of taxis, buses and pedestrians was quite high.
> 
> ...


 
Banning HGV's is going to be hard

However banning the "payment per drop" would make sense because it actively encourages the driver to race from site to site. Maybe stricter tachograph rules should apply within the M25/ Low Emissions zone? Less hours behind the wheel or maybe a restricted speed limit.


----------



## Mallory (23 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> Apropos to nothing much, I watched last Sunday's episode of Law and Order UK last night and was amazed that the young copper found it difficult to believe that a suspect didn't have a driving license. I've never had one and have no intention of getting one.


 
well that actor's always been a prat in whatever role i've seen him in.

But it probably got more to do with the thatcher quote about being in 30's and using buses = failure.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (23 Jul 2013)

Andy_R said:


> There are no highway signs with circles with a red line through them."


Incorrect. There are 3 to my knowledge - all to do with prohibited manouvres. Link


----------



## martint235 (23 Jul 2013)

campbellab said:


> Or a red triangle with a bike in it... Errr?!


Would someone be trying to make a point??


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jul 2013)

campbellab said:


> Or a red triangle with a bike in it... Errr?!


lets just have a look instead of guessing....

*http://www.direct.gov.uk/traffic-signs.pdf*


----------



## Andy_R (23 Jul 2013)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Incorrect. There are 3 to my knowledge - all to do with prohibited manouvres. Link


doh...forgot about those ones....my bad!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Jul 2013)

Andy_R said:


> There are no highway signs with circles with a red line through them. The reason for this is that if you are travelling at speed in excess of 30mph, you might not have enough time to see what you are not allowed to do if there is a red line through it. Red circles with lines through are for pedestrians, tube users, pub smokers etc. On the road, red circle means "DO NOT"... red triangle means "There may be lots of..."


No u-turn signs are often to be found on national speed limit dual-carriageways; they are circular with a red line running across the u-turn arrow. A red circle, on the road, is used for a give way to oncoming traffic instruction which I'm not certain I see as a DO NOT


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> A red circle, on the road, is used for a give way to oncoming traffic instruction which I'm not certain I see as a DO NOT


 
Red circles are prohibitions. What is the sign you're referring to? I can't picture it..

GC


----------



## Andy_R (23 Jul 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Red circles are prohibitions. What is the sign you're referring to? I can't picture it..
> 
> GC


It's the "give priority to oncoming vehicles" one, I reckon. Which is a prohibition, as you correctly say, as you are not allowed to procede until oncoming traffic has passed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Jul 2013)

Andy_R said:


> It's the "give priority to oncoming vehicles" one, I reckon. Which is a prohibition, as you correctly say, as you are not allowed to procede until oncoming traffic has passed.


That's the sign. What % of car drivers obey it when the oncoming traffic is a bicycle?


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> That's the sign. What % of car drivers obey it when the oncoming traffic is a bicycle?


a bicycle isn't traffic, it's a burden, every driver knows that


----------

