From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 16:53
On 25 Jan, 21:42, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > On 25 Jan, 21:29, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> You be telling us next that "drivers" pay "Road Tax" [sic]
> >> The only "Road Tax" [sic] I pay is as the registered keeper of
> >> vehicles.
> >> You'll be telling us soon that "cyclists" dont pay it.
> >> If that's the case, I should get a refund huh?
> > I'd like that a rebate from something I've never paid, sounds
> > attractive.
> You miss the point.
> Drivers do not pay the Medway Road Tax.
> Cyclists do not pay the Medway Road Tax.
> The Medway Road Tax only exists in his mind.
Semantics again, you have previously displayed amply sufficent
intelligence to indicate that you fully understand what is meant yet
now you play dumb, either you are smart enough to understand what MH
meant or you really are dumb, which is it?
From: Brimstone on 25 Jan 2010 17:05
"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:06:52 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>>> I would prefer to dismount and catch a lift than either cycle over
>>> 2.5Km of ramp or be delayed everytime a yacht passes below.
>>What about it it's (say) a frigate or a destroyer?
> I'd still prefer to use a tunnel. But it's only once or twice a year
> that naval vessels moor higher up the Thames than Greenwich, and that
> would be tolerable. Yachts pass beyond Greenwich to St Katherine Dock
> or beyond several times daily.
Why do you object to people using the oldest highway of all?
From: Tom Crispin on 25 Jan 2010 17:08
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:21:20 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com>
>> The last time I crossed the Dartford tunnel in a car there was no
>> charge. Last time I crossed the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge in a car
>> there was no charge either.
>Then you must have been a passenger, there was a charge for the car,
>as a cyclist the second person on your tandem would not be charged in
>order to maintain parity.
Yes, it's true. I was a passenger. But the driver didn't pay a toll
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 18:06
Tom Crispin wrote:
> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> The older tunnel wasn't really built for traffic at 30mph. The bends are/were
>> necessary because of the geology of the ground and because of the places
>> where the terminations were needed.
> No. The bends are there to prevent horses bolting for the light, and
> because of the geography of the Greenwich Penninsular.
That's an additional - if far-fetched - reason you are proffering. It does
not militate against the two I gave (indeed, you support one of them -
probably both of them).
> It is ironic that riding a horse through the tunnel is prohibited.
Not really. The "horse bolting the light" story is highly likely to be an
urban myth (unless you can find an authoritative source for it), and there
would be nothing to stop the horses "bolting for the light" on the not
inconsiderable relatively stretches between the outer bends and the portals.
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 18:07
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:20:31 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com>
>> On 25 Jan, 07:48, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>>> On 25 Jan, 06:46, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:39:50 +0000, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk >
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:21:56 +0000, Tom Crispin
>>>>> <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>>>> The really good news is that the Blackwall Tunnel is to be tolled and
>>>>>> this may provide the funds to build cyclists their much needed Thames
>>>>> What on earth makes you think that the money from the tolls will be
>>>>> spent on such a thing?
>>>>> Is that some official policy - or just wishful thinking?
>>>> With the first of London's network of cycling superhighways, based on
>>>> the Copenhagen model, to open this year, Boris seems very keen to
>>>> provide quality cycling facilities for cyclists. Funding a fully
>>>> cycleable Thames Crossing downstream of Tower Bridge makes good sense.
>>>> Using toll money from the Blackwall Tunnel is a fair redistribution
>>>> after motorists acquired the Blackwall Tunnel from other road users.
>>>> Personally I would prefer a second bore at the Greenwich Foot Tunnel,
>>>> like the Tyne Foot Tunnel, the last photo in this slide show.www.britishschoolofcycling.com/tunnel/stairs
>>>> However the essence of your question is correct. It is a wish.
>>> No a second bore would still involve dismounting and lifts. Far better
>>> and fairer to have a cycle bridge as a companion to the 'drivers only'
>>> Blackwall Tunnel. Surely, if cyclists are expected to comply with the
>>> same rules of the road as drivers they should have the same privileges
>>> as drivers?
>> I can't see what is wrong with that idea, cyclists only toll bridge,
>> if there is the demand indicated it should be profitable quite
>> With tolls set at the same rate as a car on the Dartford crossing,
>> after all it's one soul across(under) the water in case of both cars
>> and bikes, the same objective is achieved so the same price should
> The last time I crossed the Dartford tunnel in a car there was no
> charge. Last time I crossed the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge in a car
> there was no charge either.
It'd probably be reasonable to charge a NIL toll for bikes on their
specially-built bridge for crossings between 22:00 and 06:00 too.