David Cameron has been caught jumping a red light at a pedestrian crossing whilst cycling. Dizzy uses this a way into a diatribe against all cyclists. Whilst he has some point, he goes way too far with it all. Jonathan Sheppard also comments on this story, but in a less aggressive manner. But I agree most with Samuel Coates.

As a cyclist, I jump red lights occasionally. But only when it is absolutely clear and I know that no traffic or pedestrians will come across my path. If there are pedestrians waiting to cross, I stop. If they are already clear of my path, I will continue. This is simple common sense, and the only way that cyclists can use the roads in an efficient manner. However, pedestrians also need to be aware of cyclists, and treat them as they would a car, rather than ignoring the approach a cyclist at a crossing when the red light is showing to them.

I also, even, use pavements! Every day, in fact. Because the way I cycle to work, it is not possible for me not to without putting myself in great danger on a specific roundabout. There are also cycle lanes that use the pavement - which makes no sense. Either bikes should be allowed to be ridden on pavements, or cycle lanes should not be put there - because that endangers pedestrians when cyclists are using them because pedestrians always walk in the cycle lane bit, and it endangers cyclists as it is always hazardous to try and rejoin the road from such a cycle lane. Not to mention the fact that is is utterly hypocritical.

The problem is less cyclists and more idiot motorists and the complete failure to provide enough cycle lanes. Barely a day goes by when a car, bus, van or lorry does not cut me up or try and force me off the road, either on purpose or through sheer incompetence. The buses are, in fact, the worst. One bus very nearly drove me off the road twice in the space of two minutes.

What needs to be done is for motorists to actually understand the cyclists have the same rights to sue the road as they do. That means not pushing in front of me or pushing me off the road. Especially since you will not lose any time behind a cyclist during rush hour. Also, cycle lanes should be provided on all main roads. Most of the cycle lanes that are available for me to use on my way to work are either in the wrong place or literally just a couple of meters long. What's the point of them? Bugger all. Cycle lanes should all lead somewhere. And motorists should actually realise that they are not allowed to stop or park in them.

Cyclists also need to take care of themselves. I have lights and wear a hi-vis jacket whilst cycling. You can't miss me. Yet idiot motorists always seem to. And they get what they deserve - a mouthful of abuse and usually a hand gesture as well. What they deserve.

UPDATE: Mike Rouse adds his thoughts on the matter.

The idiot's guide to catching a bus is now here. It's so simple that even the most bone-headed person who has never ever used the bus or public transport before could manage it.

Someone who hasn't has to use public transport - and especially buses - before is a very lucky person, because public transport is shit. Slow, expensive, crowded, and usually dirty. I don't use it unless I absolutely have to.

Instead, I cycle.

Because buses in my experience are absolutely rubbish.

If bus companies want people to use their services, then there are two simple things that they need to do:

1. Be more regular and reliable.
2. Be cheaper.

They're really not hard. If I don't know that I am able to get to where I need to be on time, I won't use public transport to get me there. And if it costs as much - if not more - than the petrol in a car would cost, nobody is going to use it unless they have to.

If you want people to catch a bus, rather than releasing an idiot guide just improve the service you provide.

Westmonster, needing some entertaining, went looking around the 10 Downing Street e-petition site, coming across some amusing petitions that have been submitted by the great British public. One however is both amusing and, remarkably, quite a good idea:

Besides the rather painfully bad grammar, the idea is actually quite good. Cycle lanes should lead somewhere. Many of the cycle lanes provided country-wide are absurdly short and often in the wrong place - just added in for the sake of being able to claim a certain distance of cycle lanes. More cycle lanes would encourage more people to cycle, and make all cyclists much safer. I thought we were all supposed to be pro "green" and healthy things nowadays?

And one more thing - the person who decides on the links to these petitions is definitely amusing themselves on the job. Just look at the link to the petition above: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/bikes4justice/

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

How on earth can driving whilst using a mobile phone a bad enough offence to warrant jail time? Especially for two years! Yes, it's stupid and dangerous - nobody is claiming that it isn't - but it sure as hell isn't worth the potential sentence of two years in jail. Especially at a time when the prisons are so overcrowded that they are releasing real criminals early!

Even the idea of a custodial sentence for such a minor crime is ridiculous, especially considering the current state of the prison system. And two years is an absurdly long length of time in itself. People commit far more serious crimes than driving whilst using a mobile phone and get shorter jail sentences.

This is a policy aimed solidly at the middle-class, aiming to criminalise them. Just give larger fines and more points to the perpetrators, and raise the penalties for actual dangerous or reckless driving and it's results.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian

Bloody hell, the government really is just crap at looking after our data, isn't it!

My details were almost certainly among those lost, and I am by no means pacified by Ruth Kelly apologising for “any uncertainty or concern” caused, especially since sorry seems to be the easiest word for Labour minister to say under Brown.

They were lost in May for crying out loud! Why did they not at least tell us that they had lost it? This isn't however the fault of Ruth Kelly, who was only informed of this on 28th November. Stephen Ladyboyman most certainly can be, however, as he was told of this loss of data on June 4th, and whatever he did didn't tell people like me whose details are more than likely to have been lost and potentially in the hands of fraudsters. What is staggering , however, is that even though nothing had been done about this loss of data on the government's behalf, they only told the new Secretary of State after the government had lost the details of 25m other people.

I wonder, if that hadn't have happened, would she - let alone us - ever have been told?!

What this does is demonstrate categorically that the State cannot be responsible for any more of our personal data than absolutely essential. Even what it currently holds is too much, and certainly even the thought of this incompetent bunch of morons ever getting hold of enough information to make an ID card should make all intelligent people very, very scared.

UPDATE: Ladyboy defends doing bugger-all about this because he "assumed the new minister would've been told about it." Why didn't you do something about it yourself? Or would that have meant that you would actually have to had earned your pay? Read Mr Eugenides' comments on this issue.

I've just seen a report on TV saying that police drivers shouldn't pursue criminals because some cause deaths. This is utterly wrong. The police should always give chase to suspects unless it is obviously extremely dangerous to do so for themselves and innocent passer-bys.

The fact-file that comes with the report says that there were between 11,000 and 19,000 police chases in 2005/6 in England and Wales, of which approximately one in eleven led to a death. Whilst this is obvious tragic for the individuals and their families concerned, it is usually the suspect - who is running away from the police - who dies. So, really, I can't see it as much of a problem. If they hadn't ran away, they wouldn't have died.

If the police are restricted in the way in which they can give chase to criminals, then the criminals win. All they have to do is break the speed limit or do something considered dangerous enough to force the police not to pursue and they get away with it. This is obviously unacceptable. We cannot get into a position of policing by numbers, whereby criminals know all they need to do in order to escape the police is to run a few red lights.

Taking precautions to ensure that as few deaths as possible occur in police chases is obvious - but only so many can be taken. Such as training all police officers who drive patrol cars as highly as feasible, and have guidance on what sort of pursuits to continue, and which to back off from, but with the knowledge that these are guidelines not hard-and-fast rules. Also, helicopters could be employed - but they are expensive. But not everything can be done - for example, the skill of the driver being chased is, obviously, impossible to change.

But criminals must know that the police will pursue them. Otherwise they will have the ability to offend with impunity - so long as they have access to a car and are willing to take a few risks.

Source: BBC - article 1, article 2

Ha!
That is a transparent attempt to lessen the damage to his reputation.
So does he now consider himself a "serial potential killer"? Or is that definition just for the likes of us non-parliamentarians?
So even though he helped make the law, he decided to break it anyway! If he was talking before he started driving - why? If he answered the phone whilst driving - why? There is no justification for it. If he was talking before he started driving, then he did so willingly, and if he answered the phone whilst driving he couldn't have known that it was definitely an "important deportation phone call".

He has no defence, and his attempts to manufacture an excuse out of an impossible scenario just shows that he won't even accept real wrongdoing, despite calling others who do it "potential serial killers". I think we all know who the potential killer is now.

Source: BBC

I can't even act shocked at this:

Cycling is dangerous because motorists don't pay any attention to them. The number of cars who have come so very very close to knocking me off my bike is legion, and buses are just as bad - if not worse - since their very size makes them far more dangerous when driven badly. As too many are.

It really doesn't help that most cycle lanes are next to useless. They are almost all in the wrong place, plonked down where the road is wide enough for a bike anyway, just so that the council can claim to have this much cycle lane. This means that the areas in which cycle lanes are actually needed rarely have them. The worst kind of cycle lanes imaginable are those that go onto the pavement - dangerous both to the pedestrians and, since they are almost always designed about as well as a two-legged tripod, to the cyclist when he tries to regain the road.

Also, cars rarely leave enough space for a cyclist to get down the inside whenever there is a traffic jam - like in every rush hour - forcing cyclists to take risks by cycling on the right hand side or taking to the pavement. And then there are the idiots who park in cycle lanes.

Of course, it's not all the fault of motorists. Cyclists have to look out for their own safety - and jumping a reed light is an annoying and potentially fatal habit of many. Cyclists need to use their own brains and take responsibility for their own travelling.

I don't blame motorists, but do I think that, as a whole, they need to be more considerate of cyclists. Remember that they can't move as fast as you. Pay attention to them - we move around drains and potholes that you can't even see. And be courteous - you can make up any time you lose behind a cyclists in seconds. We can't make up the time we lose because you're too damn inconsiderate to leave enough space for cyclists to pass you in a queue.

Source: The Times

... hence I'm middle-class?

I'm amazed by the huge difference - richest fifth cycling 2½ times as far as the poorest fifth! It's quite shocking. Why don't "poor" people cycle? I wouldn't have thought that the possibility of being considered "socially inferior" would prevent people from cycling. It seems absurd to me. Cycling is an efficient, healthy, and environmentally friendly form of transport.

I cycle everywhere. I have to. I can't drive [and couldn't afford a car anyway] and hate the inefficiency, expense, and general crapness of public transport. Thus the only choice I have is to walk or cycle - and walking takes too long.

... and another for the rest of us.

So just because she's a minister she doesn't have to obey the law like everyone else? If she has broken the law, she's broken the law, and should be dealt with in exactly the same way as everyone else!

It is truly disgraceful that she should be allowed to get away with not paying any of the extra fine. The excuse that "she forgot to pay the fine because she was busy campaigning to become Gordon Brown's deputy at the time" is nowhere near good enough. Everyone has busy periods in their lives, and they get charged the extra fine for not paying within the 28 day time frame.

That she got away with this is truly disgraceful and stinks of hypocrisy. The law must apply to everyone equally, whoever they may be, or there is no point in having it at all.

via Guthrum
Source: Daily Mail

What this shows is that whilst speed cameras do have a purpose and a benefit, it isn't as much of one as the government claim. Yes, you can say that "injury is better than death" etc. and that "you only get caught if you're breaking the speed limit" but the extent to which speed cameras are used - and the amount which they generate in revenue - is excessive, and has led to the accusation that they are greed - rather than speed - cameras.

This undermining of the justification for the excessive use of speed cameras just strengthens that argument.

Speed cameras certainly shouldn't be got rid of, but more thought and optimisation needs to be put into where they are positioned.

Source: The Telegraph

Drive in a green way!

Lessons in "eco-driving"? What the hell is "eco-driving"? And why should the government give people lessons in it anyway?

Why won't they just leave us all alone? Trying to force us to drive in a "green" way, though driving lessons, has just got to be counter-productive in terms of carbon-output anyway, since the amount generated taking these lessons is bound to more than that saved by "eco-driving" itself. Not to mention that the Commission for Integrated Transport probably used more carbon in researching and making their report than will ever be saved by it. We'd probably all be environmentally better off if they hadn't done anything at all. We'd certainly be better off in every other way.

Source: The Times

This isn't a well thought out idea. There are no cars that are "zero carbon", and even the so-called "green" cars aren't as green as is claimed. £2,000 on "gas guzzlers" will not effect the rich who can afford them. People who buy these cars do so because they want to, and are willing to pay any extra for them.

Just having a 4x4/SUV seems to be enough provocation for some people, as shown in this video:

Really, most of their reactions are just disgusting.

This road tax policy of the Lib Dems is not a good one. There is already a graduated vehicle excise duty, introduced back in 1998, depending on emission levels. What they re proposing amounts to a huge increase - from a maximum of £300 to £2,000! A far better way to encourage people to buy "green", more fuel-efficient, cars would be to abolish road tax entirely and add the tax onto fuel costs.

That way, those who drive more and have less environmentally friendly cars pay more, and those who don't drive much pay substantially less. That way old Mrs Miggins who only drives to the supermarket once a week for her weekly shop doesn't have to pay for the right to have her car, but just for the fuel to drive it. Whilst the mother who drives her little darlings to school every morning in her huge "gas guzzling" SUV pays for it. Thus it's not owning a non-green vehicle that makes you pay, but driving it and thus polluting.

The Liberal Democrats need to drop this bad policy, and that of restricting runway capacity. That would do nothing but hold back, if not actively harm, Britain's economy. Doing that is just giving in to the idiots at the Heathrow eco-camp.

Source: The Times

I have just booked a Theory Test [for the third time, primarily due to time constraints on taking a practical test]. The time between now and my test is more than a month. More than a month! Absolutely absurd. Why are the waiting lists so long? This is even before the even longer waiting time for a practical test, which I have never seen to be less than six weeks.

Yes, I know it's the summer when more people are going to be wanting to take these tests, but the waiting time for a theory test should sure as hell not be more than a month! Especially when you can't book [or even look at the waiting list for] a practical test until you have it.

Why are so the DSA so useless, and unable to make these waiting times shorter? Hire more people, buy more computers. It's not all that hard, surely!

Yet another fine is proposed to be added to the motorists financing of the police, as more cameras are to monitor us in our daily lives. This plan is to increase the fine for motorists driving in a cycle lane from £30 - which is rarely given by police - to £120 to be awarded by cameras.

"Drivers will be fined £120 for straying into cycle lanes under plans to give local authorities powers to install yet another set of roadside enforcement cameras.
Even minor infringements, such as moving briefly into a cycle lane to pass a vehicle turning right, will result in a fixed penalty. Drivers will not know that they have been caught until the penalty notice arrives in the post a few days later.
The powers are initially being proposed for use by authorities in London but would be introduced later across the rest of the country.
The cameras would also monitor cycle boxes at traffic lights, known as “advanced stop lines”." (The Times)

Why are more bloody cameras needed? The level of surveillance in our society is already excessive, and this is aimed quite obviously at both punishing those to continue to "dare" to drive cars and to increase revenue.

The problem with cycle lanes is that they are usually shit. They are often in the wrong places, badly marked, poorly maintained, often pointless, and rarely linked up with one another. I rarely use cycle lanes for the simple reason that they are not in the right place. Councils often place them on pavements, which makes them both out of the way and potentially dangerous. Putting a cycle lane on the pavement when they are absurdly short - such as literally around a corner - is pointless. If I were to use it, I would not be able to get back onto the road safely at all.

Cycle lanes are all well and good, but not unless they are in the right place. Painting a few lines and calling it a "cycle lane" to fill up the quota isn't good enough. They need to be somewhere where they actually make a difference, and few of them are.

The draconian manner in which the fines are proposed to be applied is ridiculous. If it does not endanger any cyclist and is done briefly in order to keep traffic moving - such as moving briefly into a cycle lane to pass a vehicle turning right - shouldn't earn the driver a fine of any amount. Common sense has to prevail at some point, though considering the sort of people who think this crap up, I doubt it ever actually will.

On the other side of the coin, however, this is being proposed in order to "make cycling safer by sending a strong message to drivers that they cannot ignore the white bicycle symbols painted on the road." It does have a slight point, but not any extent that warrants this idea. But cycling would be made safer by having cycle lanes in useful areas, following well though out routes, and actually joined up. Also by stressing the responsibility of motorists to pay attention to cyclists. Even so, some cyclists are just terrible at following the road rules themselves, such as ignoring red lights, and thus put themselves in danger and deserve no sympathy.

Source: The Times

At what age should people be able to drive, and what restrictions should be put on them?

"The minimum driving age must be raised from 17 to 18 to stop young people "killing themselves and others", MPs have said.
The Commons transport committee also wants learner drivers to spread lessons over a year before taking the test and a complete alcohol ban for new drivers.
Novice drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night, the report adds.
The government said it would not rule out adopting the proposals." (BBC)

Why should the minimum driving age be 18? What is the point of making it older - and adding stupid new qualifications to the license? The proposals in the Transport Select Committees report include:

• people learning to drive from the age of 17, but not taking the test until they are 18

What is the point of this? Some learn fast, and are naturally good at driving and need very few lessons before they are ready [like my older brother] and some really aren't very good and need a lot of lessons [like me].

• drivers completing a set minimum number of lessons with a structured syllabus

See above. Some people need more lessons than others. Setting a "minimum" means that those who learn fast have to wait, and those who learn slower could be pushed into taking a test before they are ready.

• extending hazard-perception training using computer simulators to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be

The hazard-perception part of the theory test is really badly made, badly thought out, and doesn't work. I have taken the test [twice*], and it is pointless. It doesn't explain how you should tell the computer that you see a hazard properly - and there are far more hazards than the computer training could recognise anyway! Computer simulation doesn't "encourage better habits" at all. It does nothing useful - real driving on the road does that.

• a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test

Why? In my experience, new drivers very rarely drink at all when driving. It is the older drivers who do so, as they are more confident in their driving ability. Placing this sort of extra limit on new drivers is a stupid idea. Why should new drivers get singled out for this sort of discrimination?

• banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year after passing their test
  

No, no, no no no. You can't make new drivers second class motorists. Not only that, this sort of restriction is pretty much unpoliceable. Besides, what difference does this make to road crashes?!

The MPs' report also points out that:

"[A]lthough just one in eight licence holders is aged under 25, a third of drivers killed are under 25.
This rises to a half of all drivers killed at night." (The Telegraph)

And how is that particularly surprising? The under-25s tend to be less experienced drivers than the over-25s, so they are inevitably going to have more crashes and more deaths. They also tend to have older cars with less good, and fewer, safety features.

Don't pick on the young drivers in this way. It won't have any benefit in the long, and help no-one. More young drivers will continue to get killed in road crashes than older drivers. This will not change however much extra training you insist they have, or however many restrictions you out on their driving. When it comes down to it, new drivers tend to obey more road laws than the "experienced" drivers.

* Passed both times. Need to take it again, though, as this one has expired. I've only had one practical test, mainly because I don't have the time for lessons, and continual moving between towns means I don't have the chance to take the test, considering the absurd waiting lists - 6 weeks plus!
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times