Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:IMO, the only reasonably fair form of income-based subscription is to make it dependent on evidence of receiving means-tested benefits eg income supprt, earnings-based jobseekers or pension credit. The real plus with this is that the govt has already gone through the odious and onerous admin of the system. AFAIK<, It's also what most organisations use as their definition of entitlement to "concessions."

You are assuming the gov. systems are sensible. I am unwaged, and get nothing from the gov. and, having recently filled in my tax return, found my income way below basic JSA. I did try to get JSA a couple of years ago but my situation basically "slipped through their net" and it ended-up I could jump through all their hoops in a futile attempt to find work (which they pretty well admitted would be futile) and all I would achieve is they would effectively maintain my NI record.

So, I think "unwaged" if a far safer "catch-all". And I would never have joined if I had had to pay full price because I was not "recognised" by the government as being in their pre-defined categories.

Also, not all organisations follow the government categorisations. I also maintain "professional membership" of the society for my (professional) discipline and they also follow the "unwaged" definition. My own experience (being somewhat "sensitive" to the financial impacts for membership fees) is that more and more organisations are "breaking" with the government categorisations and moving to a simple "waged/unwaged" system.

Ian

Another e-mail address from the comments to to the Guardian article:

ASA Head: [url]guyp@asa.org.uk[/url]

Ian

mjr wrote:I can't sign change.org petitions because their site is broken in my firefox (it demands cookie and javascript permission but does a white page of death of you give them).

Edit the #share of the end of the link provided here and it might work better. I initially got the "white screen" but did this and got the page OK.

Ian

I can get complex. Low wage in some areas might be considered different from low wage in other areas (e.g. "I live in London/Oxford/Bristol/..."). Then you could find people who whilst above the threshold e.g. have a large family to support (i.e. low disposable income).

And as somebody else has pointed out, at what point does the bureaucracy cost get too expensive ?

What about a "reduced benefits" membership option for those on less than some threshold income ? e.g. no 3rd party insurance, magazine available through electronic download (pdf) rather than printed/posted ...

Ian

As a new member (1st issue I have received) I was well impressed. I am also a member of the national body for another (water based) sport and their magazine (similar 6 issues per year) takes around 1 minute to skip through and find nothing of interest. CTC mag very worthwhile and impressive.

Ian

I think everybody should wear one of "the T-shirts". And we can see how many drivers recognise sarcasm. (I'm sure a lot will because I suspect most cyclists are also drivers; I am.)

Ian

I have not watched Top Gear for some time (in fact I have not "watched" Top Gear, just that the TV has been on the wrong channel when turned-on at the wrong time - just bad luck I guess), and I thought most 9 year olds would have been more mature than that.

Ian

Draft question (sorry - there must be an obvious answer) but ... what would you do with such a case once you have arrived at your destination airport and cycle off into ...

Ian

ukdodger wrote:Do you have to pay for updates or buy new maps?

I can only speak for my (limited) experiences with ViewRanger. With Open Street/Cycle Map (and variants), as they are free anyway, you can just select any previous download and "refresh". As for OS premium maps, whilst I am not 100% sure, you can "transfer" maps between e.g. iOS devices. If you e.g. lose your phone, you can re-load the software and re-download the maps (using the same iTunes account) so I assume that the re-load will be using the latest maps (and thus effectively update those on the device). But that is an "assumption".

How often do OS update their published maps anyway ? And how do you stand being charged for updates to printed maps ? I found buying the S maps for ViewRanger far far cheaper than the printed maps. But they are not appropriate for the same use (or rather they are not as well suited to the same uses - maybe better on an iPad but not so much on an iPhone).

Ian

mattsccm wrote:Got the app. Orux which is apparently the thing to have for my Motorola Defy.

I've not used Orux (looked like too much "grief" to me, using its proprietary map format, manually copying to directories, etc., etc.).

I use ViewRanger (available for Android or iPhone, both free) where you just select OSM, OCM, whatever, get an overview map where you select which tiles you want to download for offline use and it downloads them. There is a limit to the number of tiles you can download at any one time (mainly because OSM, OCM, etc. don't lie having their tile servers overloaded), so a large offline area might take a couple of downloads.

Another I have used is BackCountry Navigator (free trial for 1 month, then pay) for Android. Similar. I prefer it to ViewRanger (partly because you can download the Bing maps (Ordnance Survey)), but I have an iPhone and BCN is only for Android.

There are many others.

Ian

mattsccm wrote:Would anyone like to explain just how to get OSM maps to my phone. I can find the website on the Pc but there is no "how to do it" page or anything.
Trying via the phone I get the world map which I can zoom in on but that's it.
Just how does it work?

You ned a mapping app on your phone. What is available depends on what sort of phone you have, what you are looking to do with it (and spend/free) and your personal preferences (for some reason some people like some apps and not others whilst some are the other way round).

Ian

Nothing like so serious but for me it's problems of cold weather. The strut/piston thingy that holds the boot open on my hatchback car does not work so well in the cold so I "fling" the boot door open, don't notice it has not gone to the full up position, I lean in and crack my head on the edge of the "bit too low" boot. Not serious but it hurts and I end-up with scabs and a bruised area, all ready for next time.

Ian

gaz wrote:IMO you've misinterpreted. That is referring to a broken white line to the left of a solid white line, not to a double solid white line.

thirdcrank wrote:FWIW, I'm with gaz on this. The "safe and necessary" bit is a general condition applying to all the exceptions listed subsequently.

It's worth a lot to me .

You are correct - I got it wrong.

But:

thirdcrank wrote:

BigFoz wrote:(2) The requirements conveyed by a road marking mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be that—

(b)subject to paragraph (6), every vehicle proceeding on any length of road along which the marking has been so placed that, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, a continuous line is on the left of a broken line or of another continuous line, shall be so driven as to keep the first-mentioned continuous line on the right hand or off side of the vehicle.
...
(6) Nothing in paragraph (2)(b) shall be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so—
...
(b)in order to pass a stationary vehicle;

On the assumption that a cycle is a vehicle, 6(b) suggests that a cyclist can cross the lines (as can a car) to pass a stationary vehicle - not qualifications about the reasons for it being stationary. (Or have I got it wrong again ?)

Ian

thirdcrank wrote:(7) The warning conveyed by a road marking mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be that no vehicle while travelling next to a broken line placed on the left of a continuous line, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, should cross or straddle the first-mentioned line unless it is seen by the driver of the vehicle to be safe to do so.

Suggests that anything can cross the solid white lines for any reason provided they can argue that they thought was safe to do so. Which sort of makes them "advisory". Or have I mis-interpreted. And (if my interpretation is correct), the Highway Code sounds somewhat "stricter" - so what should road users apply, the legislation or the Highway Code ?

Ian

I suspect that part of the problem with the quote might be the insurers "cost of sale". They need to employ people to answer your phone call for a quote, pay for offices, their own overheads, etc., credit card fees, sending out paperwork, etc. And those costs would be comparable for a full 1yr policy as for a 1 week policy. So the shorter policies are likely to be disproportionately expensive. That is not to say I think £50 is good value, just that I can appreciate them charging higher premiums than you might expect for a short low risk cover.

Ian