Forms of transport, what are the alternatives.

[ReganAndCarter]

Wouldn't get too hung up about 20 MPH limits in towns. Bristol has had this for years, but I've never driven this slowly - mainly sticking to a max of 30ish. Not many other people tootle along at 20 either - you stand out if you do and the queue behind you soon grows. Would have to be very unlucky to be snapped by the law's camera van which moves around the city and pops up in various locations. Can go a whole year without spying it. Like a lot of this guff dreampt up by our 'leaders', it sound ok in theory.

 

[Avocet]

The thing is my bike is motorised, and I want best of both, I want a bike which is allowed on cycle tracks, so power output and speed is limited, we have 5 speeds it seems, 4 MPH allowed on the walkways, 8 MPH can have 4 wheels and used without a licence, 16 MPH can have 2 wheels and used without a licence, 28 MPH needs a licence but classed as a quad, so many items do not need to comply in the same way as vehicles over 28 MPH, seems the Citroen Ami falls into this category.

You need to be class as disabled for some vehicles, but a bike is allowed to travel at 4 MPH without peddling. Normally called walk assist. Not sure about three wheeled vehicles, but the quad can get away without the crash protection, so can be much lighter, as can a motorcycle, I assume this includes three wheel vehicles, but many old vehicles can't be permitted on British roads if they we ever scrapped, even if rescued and brought back to new condition.

The Scammell Scarab for example, a few were refurbished after being officially scrapped, but can only be transported to shows, they are not allowed on the road. No brakes on front wheel means can't be re-registered.

Visit The national waterways museum in Ellesmere Port and they have tow path tugs to put the narrow boats before narrow boats had motors built in, but most tow paths today would not permit their use.

I have seen Saturn one of the few horse drawn narrow boats have problems with anti motorbike barriers, which also stop horses. And many push bikes and their trailers.

For a push bike 24 kg is heavy, mainly due to having a motor and battery, wife's not quite so heavy as does not fold, but still 22 kg, putting them on their rear wheel to get through a kissing gate View attachment 291144 is not really an option, and lifting it high enough to pass through these View attachment 291145 is not really an option. It seems local authorities don't mind cycle tracks, as long as no one but a select few can used them, even pedestrians have problems View attachment 291146 they can size and crush motorcycles using cycle paths, which must surely deter people using them on cycle tracks, in Rhyl the barriers have a gate with a radar lock on them for wheel chairs, however only way my mother could unlock it was to give me the key, she could not unlock it without leaving the wheel chair, and as an amputee that was not an option.

Yes, the Ami is type approved as a "quadricycle". They're limited on speed and power but they do need SOME destructive testing, just not to the same standards as a car.
I'm surprised at the comments on the Scarab, as legislation is rarely (if ever) applied retrospectively. Assuming they were road-legal when built, they should still be road legal now. Steam traction engines, for example, are road legal, despite having no front brakes - as are some really old cars (like London-to-Brighton veteran cars). Likewise, you can still drive a Series 1 Land Rover on public roads, even though the headlights are too close together for modern regulations.

 

[ericmark]

If the vehicle has been continually registered, then in the main one is allowed to continue to drive it on public roads, but the vast majority of the Scarab's were officially scrapped, although not cut up, bit like the steam engines in Barry.

I remember there being a problem with seat belts with Relient three wheel cars as only place strong enough was the chassis, and the seat was fixed to body, so in a crash it cut occupant in half.

It is possible if is now classed as a motor cycle and side car, so the rule may have been dropped.

 

[Avocet]

If the vehicle has been continually registered, then in the main one is allowed to continue to drive it on public roads, but the vast majority of the Scarab's were officially scrapped, although not cut up, bit like the steam engines in Barry.

I remember there being a problem with seat belts with Relient three wheel cars as only place strong enough was the chassis, and the seat was fixed to body, so in a crash it cut occupant in half.

It is possible if is now classed as a motor cycle and side car, so the rule may have been dropped.

I'm pretty certain you can re-register a "barn find" classic that has been off the road for many years. It's a messy process with DVLA, involving the relevant enthusiasts' club to verify authenticity, but nothing would ever be required to comply with anything it didn't have to comply with, when it was new.

Having had plenty of Reliants in my time, I can assure you that's not true! If manufactured from 1965, they (including the 3-wheelers) complied with BS AU 48 on seat belt anchorages. The lower anchorages went down to the chassis, but depending on the car, the upper anchorage would be in the fibreglass (albeit with a steel plate laminated into the fibreglass to spread the load).
From the early 1970s, they could alternatively comply with EEC Directive 76/115 or ECE Regulation 14. ECE Reg 14 evolved from the old British standard, in fact.

 

[norseman]

Yes, the Ami is type approved as a "quadricycle". They're limited on speed and power but they do need SOME destructive testing, just not to the same standards as a car.
I'm surprised at the comments on the Scarab, as legislation is rarely (if ever) applied retrospectively. Assuming they were road-legal when built, they should still be road legal now. Steam traction engines, for example, are road legal, despite having no front brakes - as are some really old cars (like London-to-Brighton veteran cars). Likewise, you can still drive a Series 1 Land Rover on public roads, even though the headlights are too close together for modern regulations.

Two more examples of this .. RT London bus & a WW2 15cwt. truck I once owned. Both legal with just one rear light (on the offside) though in the case of the latter I used to hang a light board on the tailboard when on public roads.

 

[Brigadier]

I think that if we were to make such a large investment in cycling infrastructure, I'd prefer better segregation between bikes and motor vehicles though.

My proposal was completely separate metalled cycle routes, not sectioned-off parts of existing.

Preferably some distance from existing, to make the cycling experience as far removed from motorised transport as possible.

 

[norseman]

My proposal was completely separate metalled cycle routes, not sectioned-off parts of existing.

Preferably some distance from existing, to make the cycling experience as far removed from motorised transport as possible.

Agreed, as far away as possible

 

[ericmark]

My proposal was completely separate metalled cycle routes, not sectioned-off parts of existing.

Preferably some distance from existing, to make the cycling experience as far removed from motorised transport as possible.

That would be good, and for some routes already exists. Welshpool to Newtown is one example following the canal, also Shotton to Chester two routes one following river, and one following old railway line. That same route connects to the Wirral ring.

However most of the routes at some point join or cross motor vehicle roads. The crossing points on the Welshpool to Newtown route does not even have a sign on the motor vehicle road to say beware foot path crossing. The connection to Wirral ring from Shotton to Chester route, takes the cyclist the wrong way down a one way street, actually a good idea as it means cyclists don't need to go around the roundabout, but no except cyclists on the one way signs, and as one enters Shotton anyone with common sense would realise not a good idea to ride on the raised pavement for pedestrians, but again no sign to say end of cycle path.

And this is the problem, the people who have set up the cycle tracks have clearly not tried riding down them, Amaco barriers should always have a route which does not place the cyclist between the barrier and motor traffic.

But also cyclist seem not to read signs anyway, from Deeside to Ellesmere Port there is a cycle route, some on lanes, some on shared cyclist and foot path, but in the main except for a roundabout under the motorway, which one needs to negotiate to join the tow path to return through Chester, the cyclist is kept off the main roads.

However I see cycling clubs with groups of cyclists riding on the main road even when there is a good cycle track. OK Chester Sealand road the cycle track is silly with every few yards a drop for drive entrances, it is a real switch back, no one would ride on that. But even when there are good tracks, they are not used.

But I looked on the map, and I saw the tow path which went where I wanted, from Oswestry to home, some bits were good, some tree trunks resulted in needing to walk, and finally came to the stiles. So a section as yet not tried, but from Arddleen to Newtown it is a good route, on the cut, but unless you know that, would you try it?

Even that route would not want to have narrow racing tyres, the gravel used is too course, with mountain bike tyres it is good and even with hybrid tyres it is OK.

 

[Avocet]

It would be great to have totally segregated infrastructures, but I honestly don't see it happening. Even when you get to Holland, parts of old Amsterdam are impossible to segregate fully. (And in those areas, it's often motorised transport that loses out). We can't (or won't) even maintain the cycle paths we've got.

 

[JohnD]

Looking at the state of the rest of the country, I'm not sure we DO have the money any more, to be honest?

It's a funny thing, but when Conservative Prime Minister Truss cost the country £74billion, nobody said "can't afford it."

Kwasi Kwarteng's budget blunder cost UK an eye-watering £74billion

The head of the UK's debt management office said it was "not an insubstantial amount".

www.express.co.uk

Obviously, if it had been food for the hungry children of the poor, or a pay rise for nurses, it would have been "can't afford it."

In 1948 the country was far far far poorer than it us today. But we were able to create the National Health Service, and to build schools, hospitals, roads and social housing. It must have been because we wanted to.

 

[Avocet]

It's a funny thing, but when Conservative Prime Minister Truss cost the country £74billion, nobody said "can't afford it."

Kwasi Kwarteng's budget blunder cost UK an eye-watering £74billion

The head of the UK's debt management office said it was "not an insubstantial amount".

www.express.co.uk

Obviously, if it had been food for the hungry children of the poor, or a pay rise for nurses, it would have been "can't afford it."

In 1948 the country was far far far poorer than it us today. But we were able to create the National Health Service, and to build schools, hospitals, roads and social housing. It must have been because we wanted to.

Oh indeed. And when her predecessor "spaffed £37 Billion up against a wall on "Track & Trace", we could afford that too! Not to mention HS2, or indeed, Brexit - all of which have let the country measurably poorer. (We won't talk about what we wasted on PPE that didn't work, because that's just "small change" by comparison....).

However, you said it yourself - in 1948, the country was much poorer. It's often the poorest who are the most generous. In 1948, so many had lost everything, that there was a genuine desire, after two world wars in the first half of the 20th Century, to build a better future for everyone. Sadly, I don't detect that spirit today. As a society, we are immeasurably more selfish now. In fact, I think our society today has more in common with the Victorians than with the society that built the Welfare State.

 

[ericmark]

I have mixed feelings, the local Heritage railways route would be ideal for a bike track between where I live and local town, but we see 100's of visitors riding the railway, and maybe 2 cycles a week on the main road. Plus when the railway is running, £3.50 to carry the bike is cheap enough.

What would help is being able to carry the bike on a bus as well. The bus companies could put in a set of rules, be it must fold, or only between main bus terminals, or only when no prams being carried, I am not saying they should be forced to carry bikes, but on rural routes where there are no cycle paths, it would help connect the system.

 

[robinbanks]

So what's the solution on that specific example?

Get it delivered for a fraction of the cost of going and picking it up?

Who wants to spend 2 hours jostling for position with every bellend on the roads and in the aisles, week in week out, when they can get it dropped at their door at a time of their choosing, for 50p?

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

This is a rather interesting comparison of diesel off-roaders v an couple of converted Tesla powered Defenders[/url], after a day's mud-plugging in Wales. It is not entirely clear (to me) as to what charge remains in the EV's battery* but it appears remarkable that with this sort of vehicle you can completely dispense with gearbox/LT box and of course the substantial knowledge required for their operation. Reckon if I was in the outback I'd hanker for the oil-burner but it certainly confirms the EV's extraordinary versatility.

*Note: This video was produced by a company that carries out EV conversions so there could be some smoke 'n mirrors involved.

 

[Avocet]

This is a rather interesting comparison of diesel off-roaders v an couple of converted Tesla powered Defenders[/url], after a day's mud-plugging in Wales. It is not entirely clear (to me) as to what charge remains in the EV's battery* but it appears remarkable that with this sort of vehicle you can completely dispense with gearbox/LT box and of course the substantial knowledge required for their operation. Reckon if I was in the outback I'd hanker for the oil-burner but it certainly confirms the EV's extraordinary versatility.

*Note: This video was produced by a company that carries out EV conversions so there could be some smoke 'n mirrors involved.

The biggest problem (for me) with all these retrofit EV conversions, is the safety testing. None of these companies ever tell you what they've done, compared to what a mass-produced, type approved EV would have to do.