Ban bikes in cities

Hairy Jock

WyS wrote:

did you even watch the link?

No I have a research degree and have worked on climate change. I find people who think they know it all a the basis of one TV program rather tedious.

i know its real. it has happened naturally for millions of years. i know there are electric cars on the road, im not blind. my point was electric cars should be mandatory. they could have phased out petrol like they did with betamax and now vhs.

Ignorence? who put sand in your vag?

Making electric cars should be mandatory simply move the pollution problems elsewhere, there are no simple solutions to these problems. Reasoned discussion would be a good start, then again winding people up is more fun :twisted:

Hackbike 6

Ok so what is all this weather about then and climate change come to that?

Phil the Car

I did not like cyclists before, but having read your insults and inane comments I like them less. I wrote the feature not some BBC producer and I have a valid point. Bikes are a pain in city centres and on pavements. At least 12 people have been killed by cyclists riding on the pavements in the past 5 years. If you want exercise walk.
Regards
Philip Coppell

andyp

Phil the Car wrote:

I did not like cyclists before, but having read your insults and inane comments I like them less. I wrote the feature not some BBC producer and I have a valid point. Bikes are a pain in city centres and on pavements. At least 12 people have been killed by cyclists riding on the pavements in the past 5 years. If you want exercise walk.
Regards
Philip Coppell

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

:roll:

BentMikey

Phil the Car wrote:

I did not like cyclists before, but having read your insults and inane comments I like them less. I wrote the feature not some BBC producer and I have a valid point. Bikes are a pain in city centres and on pavements. At least 12 people have been killed by cyclists riding on the pavements in the past 5 years. If you want exercise walk.
Regards
Philip Coppell

Not really, no. That's because bicycles are actually good for everyone in cities. Here's some refuting:

• Cyclists actually improve traffic flow in cities, they don't obstruct traffic, because they break the cycle of accelerate violently from the traffic lights, and brake hard at the next queue that so many poor drivers follow. Instead they keep average and peak speeds a little slower, and the result is shorter queues and better traffic flow for motor vehicles.
• A bike in the traffic around you is one fewer car causing the queues you're waiting in. More bikes equals fewer and shorter car queues, equals better driving conditions for you.
• More people on bikes and fewer people in cars makes for better health of society. That means less cost to the taxpayer, less sick time for employers of cyclists, and a much better economy.
• Fewer motor vehicles makes for much more pleasant conditions in cities. Motor vehicle traffic is unpleasant, noisy, smelly, and polluting.
• Bikes don't actually slow cars down, even if you end up being delayed behind a particular cyclist for 30 seconds. That's because that 30 seconds is simply 30 seconds less that you'll be spending at the next traffic queue ahead. Car drivers often have the impression that this is a life-threatening amount of time, but that's mostly due to impatience and bad driving. When you both cycle and drive as I do, then you realise that this sort of driving impatience really gets you nowhere and saves no driving time.
• Bikes are faster than cars in cities, on average. It seems that it's cars slowing cyclists down, not the other way around.
• Sure, cyclists do kill people, but motor vehicles kill 10 people every day, or 3600 every year. Compare that with roughly 1 death caused by cyclists each year.
• As for bikes on pavements, I think you'll find most of us on here agree with you that it's wrong and should be stopped. Most of us ride on the road because that's where we should be, as vehicles, and because we want to travel fast and safely.

I should point out that I'm a driver too, and I love driving my fast and sporty car. Just not in London, it's not worth it most of the time given the queues.

BentMikey

andyp wrote:

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

:roll:

I'm betting it really is the chap, and that this is the result of a google. Let's see if we can change his delusions.

whyamihere

andyp: I'm going to leave this thread open to see if we can get some good discussion. If it starts to go downhill, then it will be locked.

Phil the Car

BentMikey you are correct. Google is a wonderful tool.

redddraggon

Phil the Car wrote:

At least 12 people have been killed by cyclists riding on the pavements in the past 5 years.

[sarcasm]This is really terrible, it really over shadows the few deaths caused by cars[/sarcasm]

Black Keith

redddraggon wrote:

Phil the Car wrote:

At least 12 people have been killed by cyclists riding on the pavements in the past 5 years.

[sarcasm]This is really terrible, it really over shadows the few deaths caused by cars[/sarcasm]

yes, but far more people have been killed by murderers, on foot.

we should ban murderers in the city, especially the ones walking everywhere.

Phil, you really are a most hubristic ignoramus

Gambatte

Anyone else from Cyclechat as well?


Anyone feel the potential for a 'nethalus/random' thread developing?

cooper.michael1

My response was pretty common sense i think:

This is what is never understand about Britain, why does there have to be such conflict between cyclists and motor car users.

Bike have their place in the transport system as do cars. Some journeys are simply more practical (if you a resonably fit!) to make by bike. A 5 mile trip across leeds at rush hour for example by bus or car is barely at walking pace because of congestion, on a bike i can average 10-15mph and there is alway a convenient free parking space within metres of my destination.

For some time i lived in Germany. Here you see all types of people riding bicycles in cities, children going to school, Mothers taking their todlers to the supermarket, students right up the the manager of the local bank. Here there is no stigma, no fight between the different modes of transport for rights to the road.

This is in one part due to the redesign of the traffic system to allow cars, bikes, tram and pedestrians to travel in harmony but more importantly the attitude of the people to co-exist and respect rules and each other lives.

Yes the attitude of some cyclists is less than desirable but so is that of many drivers. If we all showed each other a little more courtesy, and changed this attitude of conflict the nation would benefit.

dondare

This "12 people killed by cyclists in the last 5 years" came up a while ago. In fact none had been killed on the footpath, they were all killed crossing the road, just like most of the 3800 pedestrians killed by motor traffic over the same period.
Recently there was one pedestrian killed on the footpath by a cyclist. About 20 pedestrians are killed and over 3000 injured each year by motor vehicles in pedestrian areas. This is not an opinion, it is not bigotry or prejudice or loopy hippy car-hating twaddle; it is hard facts. Drivers, not cyclists, really do kill that many people.
Car exhaust poisons the air that we all breathe. That also kill people. Traffic congestion is caused by cars each with one person in, and eased by those who cycle instead of driving. There is no argument that a rational person could produce for having no bikes and more cars in cities, or anywhere else.
Unlike at least half the trips made by motorists, my journey is too far to walk. You walk, Mr. Toad, it'll do you, the public health and the environment some good. I'll continue to cycle.

dirk_van_gently

Clearly Philp Coppell is an idiot. The BBC are also Idiots for allowing this kind of "Tabloid" scam, aimed at getting irrational responses from normally responsible people. Look deeper, probably some BBC TV producer has recently had a run in with a cyclist and wants to flex his "Muscles".
It's the kind of shameful TV that made Esther Rantzen famous(ish). Now there is someone who should get a life! but that's another thread on another forum, alledgedly.
As to Electric cars, well they won't solve anything, they will still be stuck in traffic, the only thing they reduce is the pollution.

Cyclegent

I wouldn't worry about it. Let people like Mr Toad/Coppell fume while sitting in his tin heap in a traffic jam - if he's too dim to work out it's other motorists, not cyclists, that are blocking his way he's not worth worrying about. That's assuming he's not just the figment of a BBC hack's imagination.

BentMikey

Cyclegent wrote:

I wouldn't worry about it. Let people like Mr Toad/Coppell fume while sitting in his tin heap in a traffic jam - if he's too dim to work out it's other motorists, not cyclists, that are blocking his way he's not worth worrying about.

LOL, too true. I must have passed several hundred cars in my commute today, and I felt pretty sorry for the drivers stuck in the unusually bad traffic in SE London.

I wonder if Phil has the courage and strength of character to come back and defend his point of view to us on a post by post basis. Here's my question for you Phil: How far one way and where is your commute?

PhilTheFish

I ride into Liverpool every day....someone get me a photo of him and I'll keep an eye out for him.

Was his piece on TV last night or is it on tonight?

Might book myself on one of his tours and chuck him into the Albert Dock!!

cupofteacp

I think we've got it all wrong.

What we really need is to shut the tube system and get everyone into cars.

This would be brilliant

No need to reduce the speed limit you could increase it to 200mph in central London.

Come on everyone cars are the future, they make perfect sense, they work so well at the moment why would we want to change.

Gambatte

cupofteacp wrote:

I think we've got it all wrong.

What we really need is to shut the tube system and get everyone into cars.

This would be brilliant

This guys got a point.

Remove the tracks, bit of cement down the middle
Jumps down one side.
Humps down the other so you can pump rather than pedal.

Sounds good to me. Especially as we could still use the roads as well

Oddballcp

The Tube system is mostly ventilated by the movement of the trains. Get rid of those and it would be very hot and stuffy.
But if they did remove the trains and install forced ventilation in there then it could be set up so that it blew you along.

Phil the Car

BentMikey, . Here's my question for you Phil: How far one way and where is your commute?
By How far one way, do you mean the distance I commute? My commute is in Liverpool and it is a couple of miles.
I do not use public transport because being 6' 2" the seats on buses are so close to-gether that I find it very difficult to sit comfortably. The train is a long way from were I live.
The main reason I object to cyclists is the fact that in Liverpool we wasted £50 million, yes 50million pounds of public money "improving" the roads over a 2 year period and a large portion of that money was wasted on narrowing roads to install ctycle paths. The cycle paths only go for a short distance and are of no use to cyclists because they just stop and the road continues. The roads were very good and it was no problem driving about in Liverpool. I beleive that the congestion has been caused to enable the "quangoes" that run the transport network to introduce a congestion charge in Liverpool.
Also the cyclists I deal with seem to be single people who do not need to shop for a family. We have done away with local shops forcing most people to drive to supermarkets. I find that the policy on transport is so haphasad that each generation thinks it knows best. 30 years ago we were building fly overs and pedestrian under passes, that became too dangerous to use, now we are narrowing roads and putting in too many traffic lights, traffic lights use electritity 24 hours a day.
Also not everyone wants to or can use a bike.
The gentleman who wants to throw me in the Albert Dock is welcome to join a tour anytime.
Sorry if I have gone on a bit.

Trudester

Phil the Car wrote:

BentMikey, . Here's my question for you Phil: How far one way and where is your commute?
By How far one way, do you mean the distance I commute? My commute is in Liverpool and it is a couple of miles.
I do not use public transport because being 6' 2" the seats on buses are so close to-gether that I find it very difficult to sit comfortably. The train is a long way from were I live.
The main reason I object to cyclists is the fact that in Liverpool we wasted £50 million, yes 50million pounds of public money "improving" the roads over a 2 year period and a large portion of that money was wasted on narrowing roads to install ctycle paths. The cycle paths only go for a short distance and are of no use to cyclists because they just stop and the road continues. The roads were very good and it was no problem driving about in Liverpool. I beleive that the congestion has been caused to enable the "quangoes" that run the transport network to introduce a congestion charge in Liverpool.
Also the cyclists I deal with seem to be single people who do not need to shop for a family. We have done away with local shops forcing most people to drive to supermarkets. I find that the policy on transport is so haphasad that each generation thinks it knows best. 30 years ago we were building fly overs and pedestrian under passes, that became too dangerous to use, now we are narrowing roads and putting in too many traffic lights, traffic lights use electritity 24 hours a day.
Also not everyone wants to or can use a bike.
The gentleman who wants to throw me in the Albert Dock is welcome to join a tour anytime.
Sorry if I have gone on a bit.

Phil, I think you'd find that most of the cyclists on here would agree that many/most of the cycle paths out there are fairly useless not only causing a disruption to drivers but often dangerous for cyclists to use.

Also, I don't really understand your point regarding cyclists being single?? I have a family therefore don't have a huge amount of time to keep myself fit and healthy. I find by using my bike to commute a 12 mile round trip through the city centre the only way to get a decent amount of exercise.

You mention traffic lights using too much electricity yet you frown upon us for choosing a 'green' mode of transport?

Gambatte

Another one out of your stated demographic Phil, 40+ with 2 toddlers and another on the way. Commuting a round trip of approx 30 miles 3 times a week.

Another point, all these young single people.....assuming they don't drive, maybe they can't afford to? it ain't cheap, especially if you've still to build any NCD

BentMikey

Well yes, I'm in complete agreement with you on the stupid and dangerous cycle lanes. I don't want them either, I simply want to cycle on the road as part of the traffic. That's the best way of co-existing with motor vehicles, it's safest, and is the quickest way to get around, as well as making it easier for car drivers too.

A couple of miles? That would be an incredibly easy cycle commute. Why don't you try it? Here's an article on why it's far better than car and public transport, at least in my opinion:
http://www.londonskaters.com/cycling/wh ... icycle.htm

My current commute is a 30mile round trip, and I'm about to move to make it 42 miles or so. This is not even out of the ordinary, but it is a high average journey length.

Yes, the shopping thing is more difficult on a bike when you have a family, but not impossible. You can carry an amazing amount in a set of panniers or even a bike trailer. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with keeping the car and using that for shopping. I used to cycle-shop all the time at our previous place, and will do at our new one.

dazzawazza

However, and I don't know how this can be achieved, society must consider cyclists as a positive influence on congestion.

I wonder how much MORE suffering motorists would incur if every cyclist drove an X5 to work??

John Stevenson

Phil the Car wrote:

The main reason I object to cyclists is the fact that in Liverpool we wasted £50 million, yes 50million pounds of public money "improving" the roads over a 2 year period and a large portion of that money was wasted on narrowing roads to install ctycle paths. The cycle paths only go for a short distance and are of no use to cyclists because they just stop and the road continues. The roads were very good and it was no problem driving about in Liverpool.

Then you have chosen the wrong target. It's not the fault of bike riders that council planners and civil engineers are clueless muppets when it comes to building cycle facilities. What you want - and this happens to be what I want too - is good roads that we can all share.

Calling for banning bikes from cities because facilities designed by idiots inconvenience you is like calling for the banning of cars because a few of them are driven badly. What we all actually need, I believe, is for all road users to behave like traffic and for none of us to assume we have special privileges.

This might in fact mean fewer bike facilities. There's a school of urban planning called 'naked streets' that believes (with some solid evidence from European towns that have tried this) that mixing different traffic types freely reduces accidents because people look out for each other rather than assuming that their mode of transport takes precedence.

I also question whether there's any demonstrable causation between the road changes you've seen and congestion. I'm willing to bet that an increase in car use over that period has far more to do with it. That's the deep problem all cities face, and more bike use is part of the answer because a cyclist takes up so much less space than a car.

Phil the Car wrote:

Also the cyclists I deal with seem to be single people who do not need to shop for a family.

Again, not a reason to ban cyclists, just a reason to make sure the road network caters for everyone's needs.

Phil the Car wrote:

Also not everyone wants to or can use a bike.

I don't see anyone trying to force anyone else to ride. If we cyclists get a bit evangelical it's because riding bike is actually rather good fun, though many of us seem to forget that!

baudman

Another one here too - 38. Commute every day and have a kid and a partner. She commutes about 1/3 of the time.

We CHOOSE to support our local greengrocer etc. 5 min walk, or 1 min ride. We also sometimes take the (kid's) bike trailer to the local market and stack it up (about 5 km away from home).

I've read up on 'Naked Streets' before and it does make a lot of sense. Here in Melbourne, the planing is all 'separation is safer'.

John Stevenson

It's happening in Bendigo, though, and Clover Moore is even considering it for Sydney. Crikey!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 59161.html

dondare

Phil the Car....2 miles?! Never mind cycling, that's easy walking distance. Can there possibly be a bigger nuisance on the roads than someone who drives 2 miles?

Cyclists don't want cycle-lanes. Councils build them to meet Government Targets, not because cyclists asked for them. The Government is trying to encourage cycling in order to reduce the number of cars on the road and so reduce congestion and pollution. They carried out a survey amongst motorists and asked "Why don't you cycle?" And nearly 90% of those polled said "We would, if cycling were safer. Build us cycle-lanes and we'll use them instead of our cars".
Cycle-lanes are built because motorists asked for them!!
Now you don't use them because you were lying and we don't use them because they're crap.

Phil the Car

Dondare, I commute to the centre of Liverpool were I am usually meeting a group to take on a tour. I drive from point to point, unless it is a coach tour. I do not drive in and leave the car parked all day, even I would agree that that was stupid.