Do motorist even know what the blue cycle lanes are.

Sewinman

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think even WVM should be able to understand "There's No Such Thing As Road Tax"

It could also be a question on QI: "what is the current rate of road tax?", but we are only on G at the moment, so a way to go yet before we get to R.

Can we stop all these hackneyed arguments about Road tax/VED please.

That presumes that everyone has read the 'hackneyed arguments'

weak

Good stuff chaps - gang up on those with other opinions, tell them to not post those opinions and then ridicule them.

Clever Pun

Sewinman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think even WVM should be able to understand "There's No Such Thing As Road Tax"

It could also be a question on QI: "what is the current rate of road tax?", but we are only on G at the moment, so a way to go yet before we get to R.

Can we stop all these hackneyed arguments about Road tax/VED please.

That presumes that everyone has read the 'hackneyed arguments'

weak

Good stuff chaps - gang up on those with other opinions, tell them to not post those opinions and then ridicule them.

you think for a second I'm being serious?

you came across as aggressive after numerous people said it's about what you listen to not should you listen to... that opinion wasn't welcome there that's all

Porgy

rjsterry wrote:

Exactly, DDD. But to return to the original subject, does anyone know if/when the CSH route along the A24 will be completed (assuming of course that there is more to it than some blue rectangles)?

Will the current little patches be joined up into something more resembling a highway, super or otherwise (I can't see how without major road changes)?

Are the blue bits from a legal (or at least bylaw) point of view any different from the existing green paint?

This summer - I seem to remember it was May 2010 (edit - yep May 2010)

TfL:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/11901.aspx

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_re ... ycle-show-


Wandworth:
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/ ... 22gbp3vfet))/Published/C00000363/M00003194/AI00015476/$PaperNo1060CycleSuperHighways_v2.docA.ps.pdf

LCC's take:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1673

(not all of my links worked - so you'll have to cut and paste)

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

goco wrote:

daviesee wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

This hits one of my pet peeves on our attitiude to filtering vs overtaking though, we demand 3 feet of passing gap and then filter within inches of cars when it suits us - big mixed messages.

I know different speeds and circumstances but does that really impinge on a driver when we're weaving past his wing mirror at the lights and then waving a fist at him as he passes just as close 50 yards up the road.

I agree with the hypocrisy.
If there is room to overtake, that's fine but then I extend that to there being room to filter.
If there is not enough room I sit in the primary, no-one overtakes but I don't filter either.

Neither cyclists or drivers can have it both ways.

:roll:

Surely theres a key difference between filtering past a stationary car, and a car overtaking a moving cyclist - you don't require the same gap for both to do them safely.

This with a further +1.

You think there is enough room to filter. He thinks there is enough room to overtake.
When it comes to a physical examination there is only one loser.
I play it safe.

Porgy

Sewinman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think even WVM should be able to understand "There's No Such Thing As Road Tax"

It could also be a question on QI: "what is the current rate of road tax?", but we are only on G at the moment, so a way to go yet before we get to R.

Can we stop all these hackneyed arguments about Road tax/VED please.

That presumes that everyone has read the 'hackneyed arguments'

weak

Good stuff chaps - gang up on those with other opinions, tell them to not post those opinions and then ridicule them.

i've reported myself to the bullying hotline.

il_principe

Porgy wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think even WVM should be able to understand "There's No Such Thing As Road Tax"

It could also be a question on QI: "what is the current rate of road tax?", but we are only on G at the moment, so a way to go yet before we get to R.

Can we stop all these hackneyed arguments about Road tax/VED please.

That presumes that everyone has read the 'hackneyed arguments'

weak

Good stuff chaps - gang up on those with other opinions, tell them to not post those opinions and then ridicule them.

i've reported myself to the bullying hotline.

I know, Christine Pratt just rang to tell me.

rjsterry

Thanks Porgy, I should be less lazy and look this stuff up myself as it directly affects my route into work. Good on you for having the determination to get involved as much as you do. I fear I have been permanently put off by a bad experience with my local parish council in my teens. Still yet to see people more over-important than parish councillors.

holybinch

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

goco wrote:

daviesee wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

This hits one of my pet peeves on our attitiude to filtering vs overtaking though, we demand 3 feet of passing gap and then filter within inches of cars when it suits us - big mixed messages.

I know different speeds and circumstances but does that really impinge on a driver when we're weaving past his wing mirror at the lights and then waving a fist at him as he passes just as close 50 yards up the road.

I agree with the hypocrisy.
If there is room to overtake, that's fine but then I extend that to there being room to filter.
If there is not enough room I sit in the primary, no-one overtakes but I don't filter either.

Neither cyclists or drivers can have it both ways.

:roll:

Surely theres a key difference between filtering past a stationary car, and a car overtaking a moving cyclist - you don't require the same gap for both to do them safely.

This with a further +1.

You think there is enough room to filter. He thinks there is enough room to overtake.
When it comes to a physical examination there is only one loser.
I play it safe.

Fair, but I still don't see where the hypocrisy is.
It's 2 different cases here, clearly not the same.
And it's not because no one is filtering that the tw*t will not overtake with minimum space.
Not linked at all in my opinion...

daviesee

Fair, but I still don't see where the hypocrisy is.
It's 2 different cases here, clearly not the same.
And it's not because no one is filtering that the tw*t will not overtake with minimum space.
Not linked at all in my opinion...

The hypocrisy occurs when someone expects a car to give 3 feet of clearance when overtaking but will squeeze through gaps that a gnat would blanche at; mirrors knocked, panels rubbed etc.
Doesn't apply to everybody obviously but I see it happen.

Porgy

daviesee wrote:

Fair, but I still don't see where the hypocrisy is.
It's 2 different cases here, clearly not the same.
And it's not because no one is filtering that the tw*t will not overtake with minimum space.
Not linked at all in my opinion...

The hypocrisy occurs when someone expects a car to give 3 feet of clearance when overtaking but will squeeze through gaps that a gnat would blanche at; mirrors knocked, panels rubbed etc.
Doesn't apply to everybody obviously but I see it happen.

Are we to assume that motorists are some sort of subspecies not capable of making these obvious judgement calls?

They are human beings the same as us - and I expect them to be constantly evaluating the risk they are causing to other human beings through their actions, and choosing not to subject anyone to undue risk for any reason as stupid as a whim, or being a bit annoyed. Anything less is sub-human.

And that's where I draw my line.

Porgy

Sewinman wrote:

Good stuff chaps - gang up on those with other opinions, tell them to not post those opinions and then ridicule them.

Seriously though - noone said you couldn't post - you were just asked not to try to pick an (extremely tedious) argument, on that thread - as no-one else wanted it.

You'd said what you believed once - which was all that was needed.

DonDaddyD

Davisee wrote:

The hypocrisy occurs when someone expects a car to give 3 feet of clearance when overtaking but will squeeze through gaps that a gnat would blanche at; mirrors knocked, panels rubbed etc.
Doesn't apply to everybody obviously but I see it happen.

It's easier to move around a stationary object than a moving one. It's even more easier when doing so at slow speeds - ergo driving the car slow along a road packed full of parked cars on either side, which is also filtering of a sorts.

When reverse parking in a car park I do it at less than 5mph. If I was to do that at speed I would crash. If I was to do thataround moving objects I would crash. Why? Because I would have less chance at predicting their movements.

So, if traffic is stationary and showing no signs of moving why not filter, I'm not seeing the logic of your point.

Edit: Further more, the faster you go in any vehicle the greater the allowances you should give for things like braking, manouvres et al (partly because you have less control and have to factor in other moving objects). If your going round a corner at 30 you will take a widerline than 10mph.

AND TO ADD: Part of the 3 feet distance when passing has a lot to do with wind displacement and the vehicle making cyclists wobble due to their speed.

Porgy

rjsterry wrote:

Thanks Porgy, I should be less lazy and look this stuff up myself as it directly affects my route into work. Good on you for having the determination to get involved as much as you do. I fear I have been permanently put off by a bad experience with my local parish council in my teens. Still yet to see people more over-important than parish councillors.

I've sort of been handed the chalice on superhighways by my local LCC group.

I went to the TfL presentation given to the LCC in the summer and have now promised to keep up with the progress as the first two "superhighways" are rolled out.

There are going to be two 'superhighways' that will interest cyclists in Bexley (my group) and once the consultations start we're going to have to be ready to contribute.

prj45

The first time I get shouted at for not being in the "cycle superhighway where I should be" I'm riding to City hall and punching Boris square in the mouth.

shouldbeinbed

DonDaddyD wrote:

Davisee wrote:

The hypocrisy occurs when someone expects a car to give 3 feet of clearance when overtaking but will squeeze through gaps that a gnat would blanche at; mirrors knocked, panels rubbed etc.
Doesn't apply to everybody obviously but I see it happen.

It's easier to move around a stationary object than a moving one. It's even more easier when doing so at slow speeds - ergo driving the car slow along a road packed full of parked cars on either side, which is also filtering of a sorts.

When reverse parking in a car park I do it at less than 5mph. If I was to do that at speed I would crash. If I was to do thataround moving objects I would crash. Why? Because I would have less chance at predicting their movements.

So, if traffic is stationary and showing no signs of moving why not filter, I'm not seeing the logic of your point.

Edit: Further more, the faster you go in any vehicle the greater the allowances you should give for things like braking, manouvres et al (partly because you have less control and have to factor in other moving objects). If your going round a corner at 30 you will take a widerline than 10mph.

AND TO ADD: Part of the 3 feet distance when passing has a lot to do with wind displacement and the vehicle making cyclists wobble due to their speed.

we all know this from a cyclist point of view - I even said in so starting this interesting diversion (soz for the hijack) , but put yourself in the car - on the right side of the speed differential, safely cocooned & impervious to the wind displacement, having been filtered 3 inches from the car or maybe even heard their mirror clipped by a filtering cyclist and simply thinking what's good for them is good for me.

don't think it with biker logic, think it with driver logic.

DonDaddyD

I don't see a problem with cyclists filtering around my car as long as they do it at a safe speed.

Porgy

In all the years I've been driving around south London not one cyclist has managed to even slightly annoy me.

But then I guess we cyclists aren't the average motorists.

Canny Jock

Porgy wrote:

In all the years I've been driving around south London not one cyclist has managed to even slightly annoy me.

But then I guess we cyclists aren't the average motorists.

Same for me - but I only became a cyclist 5 months ago. I think most motorists don't have problems with cyclists, but for some reason a minority do.

daviesee

Porgy wrote:

In all the years I've been driving around south London not one cyclist has managed to even slightly annoy me.

But then I guess we cyclists aren't the average motorists.

And there-in lies the rub.

I'm done.............

Bassjunkieuk

Cheers DDD - I wondered what the hell the new blue paint job was about but had been fair to lazy to actually check!
As others have said (I didn't read all 4 pages, apologies!) these new "sightly" wider lanes aren't exactly what I'd envisaged when the Superhighways where described....

Also to add my 2c's on the whole filtering/overtaking debate and the relative distances my view is that generally when I'm filtering I'm either matching traffic speed or riding through stationary/crawling traffic. In those circumstances I'm relying predominantly on my own judgment to as to what is a comfortable gap given the circumstances.

When it comes to close overtakes I generally get annoyed when the passing cars fail to give me some space when there is obviously enough room or they race past at/before a pinch point. TBH I expect cars to pass within a hairs breadth of me and I've actually become used to it (part of cycling in a busy city I guess) but will generally try to acknowledge drivers who either wait for a same point to pass or give me plenty of space.

The other key difference with these is normally the speed differential. I can normally hold about 20mph on the flat and can have cars passing at between 25 and 35 (yeah, in a 30 zone.....) which means if a collisions occurs I'm going to be worst off. Compare this to filtering where I'm either matching the traffic speed or doing about 10-15mph (with a much smaller mass) then the potential for serious injury is greatly reduced.

Clever Pun

road users don't obey the yellow cross hatching as it is whats make people think another thing is going to make a difference?