Cyclist prosecuted for not using a cycle-path

man2wolf

sirmy wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

It would be quite fun to put up photos of the most nonsenscal cycle lanes.

Have a look at the Facility of the Month section of the Warrington Cycle Campaign site http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

The one in the archive for June 2010 is near where I live. This used to be a through road from Farnworth Road to Fiddlers Ferry Road, hence the raised section and bollards. Not sure why they put one in the cycle lane though!

electric_blue

mrodent wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I understand what the "segregationalists" are saying but there's no way that London could have segregated cycle facilities on every road, there just isn't the space without razing the entire city and starting again.

Rong. London's roads are wide enough. Question is, for what?

Every segregated path gained is motor vehicle territory, motor vehicle sacred space (as an anthropologist might put it), lost.

Every *significant* improvement along these lines would imply a need to make more motor vehicle roads one-way. The squeals from the motor-driving air-heads and taxi-drivers would be deafening. The political pressure just isn't there yet. And may never be. Vast acres of muppet media coverage would be devoted to the supposed "damage to the economic fabric" were any such ideas even to be publicised.

Fact is, most people in London DO NOT NEED A MOTOR VEHICLE. If you are bringing up a family you have a case, although it actually doesn't take that much imagination to see that low-rise London, with its many broad streets, could be a place where mums could safely cycle to school with their kids. With *real* cycle paths and *real* segregation. Not to mention *real* long gaol terms for motor vehicle murderers.

The poison here, the venom, that I would be hoping those on this site at least would be seeking to recognise, and challenge, is the pernicious car propaganda perpetrated year-in year-out by the road industry lobby, through TV adverts and the like.

A London with massively restricted motor vehicle movements relative to the current situation could be wonderful...

There's no better way of restricting vehicle movements than having lots of cyclists on the road all the time.

Tucking them away off the road will allow cars to go faster, will remove our rights of way at junctions, will reduce space for pedestrians and make cycling less enjoyable, more congested, and slower.

mrodent

... OK!

I have to laugh... in fact my agenda is to make cycling lanes wider and wider... until the use of motor vehicles in our Town in fact becomes basically impractical!

So, in my vision of how things *could* be, they would be ever wider, and ever less-congested. As for junctions, what we need is a 3-way traffic light system (pedestrians/cyclists/motorists) as practised for many years in Hamburg, Copenhagen, etc.

I couldn't agree more that these pathetic London pieces of *SH*T* which pass for cycle lanes here (& I'm not even thinking about the pathetically laughable "on-road" green-painted bits of road, no, I'm talking about the existing segrated CR*P) are a sort of opium of the masses of cyclists, but actually benefit motorists more than they do cyclists.

I think what your view of things implies is that we should develop a religion of cycling, a bit like Islam, where it doesn't matter that much if a certain proportion of less savvy cyclists die on the road, because they're gonna go to the cycling pleasure gardens in the sky, and enjoy 7 x 77 virgins cycling on Penny Farthings ... or whatever. At least they will know that they died in the noble cause of slowing down ignorant slobs in motor vehicles, who were probably off their heads on crack, smack, weed and alcohol, while phoning a friend on a hand-held mobile to find out the result of last night's X-Factor.

The point is, masses of cyclists *do* indeed slow down traffic, but there is a price to be paid: a rate of attrition (the good, and the stupid, and the goodly stupid, bless 'em, die young on our roads).

It's a point of view. I say squeeze the motorists off the roads, by financial measures, by really stuffing them royally with £££ costly costly costly £££ parking regulations, and by restricting the physical area of road space actually available for them to use.

The trouble with your point of view is that motor vehicles, including big ones, like artics and so on, are left on the road. I'd like horses to return to the streets of London. And I'd like motor vehicles gone... just gone. I sincerely believe our city would be no less economically successful, and much happier!

briantrumpet

sirmy wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

It would be quite fun to put up photos of the most nonsenscal cycle lanes.

Have a look at the Facility of the Month section of the Warrington Cycle Campaign site http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

Thanks for that, sirmy - have only just found this, and it illustrates very nicely the lunacy of many cycle lanes.

electric_blue

mrodent wrote:

. I'd like horses to return to the streets of London. And I'd like motor vehicles gone... just gone.!

Glad to hear you're being realistic then.

mrodent wrote:

The point is, masses of cyclists *do* indeed slow down traffic, but there is a price to be paid: a rate of attrition (the good, and the stupid, and the goodly stupid, bless 'em, die young on our roads).

Have you got evidence of that?

The viewpoint I support is the one currently held by the LCC - a mass organisation including many different types of cyclists. So you think they support death to cyclists? No - because the evidence does not back your ludicrous claim up - more cyclists = less deaths. couple that with traffic reduction measures, education and proper law enforcement and you soon have a situation which rivals cities in Europe. I believe we're on our way there.

Even if segregated cycle lanes were possible, there's no evidence they'd be safer than what we have now - cars would still have to cross cycle lanes. Or are you serious about banning cars. I'd love to ban cars - but will never happen.

mrodent

Hi there,

To allude once again to Islam: your argument to me is a bit like Islamic women claiming that the veil/burqa/niqab is in fact a means for women's liberation. When in reality the situation is the complete opposite, and one is forced to lament the cynicism by which a patriarchal discourse in Islam has produced such a twisted line of reasoning... and convinced women that they're freer when they are less free.

I think that behind your line of reasoning stands a highly professional lobby (in the UK), the motor vehicle lobby. Their twisty cynicism and cynical twistiness has persuaded you, and the LCC if what you say about them is true, and 000s more, I've no doubt, of the complete opposite of the truth, perhaps because it is the line of least resistance. Segregated cycle lanes are a massive political choice, needing massive political will to push the agenda for them.

Roads are designed and used as technical areas for motor vehicles. It is not appropriate, or safe, for such vulnerable users as cyclists to be using them, particularly given the fact that when we are cycling we in fact, as far as the law is concerned, we have the rights not of a human being, but effectively of a dog or a cat: we all know, or should know, just how laughable the penalties are for motorists who kill or maim cyclists, or who risk doing so, by driving too close to us and by driving at too high a speed in our vicinity. Optimism that this might change one day has to be underpinned by realistic analysis of where change is going to come from.

As for the proof that segregated cycle lanes are safer: no, I have absolutely zero statistics. But I don't need them. Go to Copenhagen and talk to cyclists there, then come to London with a Copenhagen cyclist: they would give you a funny look if you sought to promote the attitude, so prevalent in this country: "everything's OK really, you know, most people are nice really, even motorists... so cycling on the roads with motor vehicles is OK really."

Nonsense. However, we live in the real world and part of the real world involves vast numbers of people like you and the LCC being "suckered" into believing that cyclists routinely cycling in the midst of motor vehicle traffic is OK and, for that matter, that one day the law will be properly enforced, or made stronger. This gullibility is part of the reality. I acknowledge that, and I ain't holding my breath as regards cycle lanes... or horses.

So we are "on the way" to rivalling European cities? Where is *your* evidence for that assertion, and just how long is this "way"?

electric_blue

mrodent wrote:

Hi there,

To allude once again to Islam: your argument to me is a bit like Islamic women claiming that the veil/burqa/niqab is in fact a means for women's liberation. When in reality the situation is the complete opposite, and one is forced to lament the cynicism by which a patriarchal discourse in Islam has produced such a twisted line of reasoning... and convinced women that they're freer when they are less free.

I think that behind your line of reasoning stands a highly professional lobby (in the UK), the motor vehicle lobby. Their twisty cynicism and cynical twistiness has persuaded you, and the LCC if what you say about them is true, and 000s more, I've no doubt, of the complete opposite of the truth, perhaps because it is the line of least resistance. Segregated cycle lanes are a massive political choice, needing massive political will to push the agenda for them.

Roads are designed and used as technical areas for motor vehicles. It is not appropriate, or safe, for such vulnerable users as cyclists to be using them, particularly given the fact that when we are cycling we in fact, as far as the law is concerned, we have the rights not of a human being, but effectively of a dog or a cat: we all know, or should know, just how laughable the penalties are for motorists who kill or maim cyclists, or who risk doing so, by driving too close to us and by driving at too high a speed in our vicinity. Optimism that this might change one day has to be underpinned by realistic analysis of where change is going to come from.

As for the proof that segregated cycle lanes are safer: no, I have absolutely zero statistics. But I don't need them. Go to Copenhagen and talk to cyclists there, then come to London with a Copenhagen cyclist: they would give you a funny look if you sought to promote the attitude, so prevalent in this country: "everything's OK really, you know, most people are nice really, even motorists... so cycling on the roads with motor vehicles is OK really."

Nonsense. However, we live in the real world and part of the real world involves vast numbers of people like you and the LCC being "suckered" into believing that cyclists routinely cycling in the midst of motor vehicle traffic is OK and, for that matter, that one day the law will be properly enforced, or made stronger. This gullibility is part of the reality. I acknowledge that, and I ain't holding my breath as regards cycle lanes... or horses.

So we are "on the way" to rivalling European cities? Where is *your* evidence for that assertion, and just how long is this "way"?

1. there's a lot more cities than Copenhagen who have high levels of cycling. I tend to think of the Dutch experience who in the last 30 years have virtually segregated cycling from the roads and according to one prominent dutch writer - cycling times of any reasonable distance (20 -30 miles) have been doubled.

2. I have not been suckered. and until you accept that my viewpoint is valid, and is my own, and that I have good reason to hold those views then I cannot argue with you.

3. Try telling the LCC they have been suckered. Let me know when you're going to do this - I want to watch.

4. I enjoy cycling in the traffic as do many many cyclists.

5. No cyclist is vulnerable if they learn how to cycle well - and there are plenty of courses and good advice out there.

And on the subject of comparions to Islam - going back to the horses on the streets is medieaval, backward looking, ridiculous, unrealistic & stupid - just like fundamentalist Islam.

I will continue this argument if you can give me the detail of how you can achieve the following without banning cars which as I said, will never happen.

a) arrange junctions so cars don't go across cycle lanes
b) ensure cyclists right of way at all points of intersection
c) find space on narrow roads for cyclists, pedestrians and cars
d) prevent the sheer mass of infrastructure, and crowding on the cycle lanes from slowing cyclists down
e) ensure pedestrians don't lose out when space is reallocated
f) find the money to build this huge network all across London
g) create the political will to build this huge system across London
h) stop cars from parking on it
i) ensure the surface is kept clear of debris
j) ensure the network is of sufficient quality that cyclists can continue to achieve speeds of over 20 mph - and prevent overcrowding
k) deal with the flack from motorists and their lobby groups when you try to severly restrict the motorist - I'd like to see it, so good luck with that.

May I suggest that you have been suckered by the road construction industry into believing such a thing may be possible - they stand to make billions from such a scheme - and think of the poor taxpayer.

Nonsense. However, we live in the real world and part of the real world involves vast numbers of people like you and the LCC being "suckered" into believing that cyclists routinely cycling in the midst of motor vehicle traffic is OK and, for that matter, that one day the law will be properly enforced, or made stronger. This gullibility is part of the reality. I acknowledge that, and I ain't holding my breath as regards cycle lanes... or horses.

so you admit that what you want will never happen - that makes your claims even more ridiculous - why stick your oar in to the debate when you clearly have no practical ideas to contribute?

We're "on the way" to rivalling European cities? Where is *your* evidence for that assertion, and just how long is this "way"?

It's a long long way to go - but cycling numbers have been steadily rising for over a decade - and I remember what it was like in the 1980s - it's like a different city now thanks to the LCC's campaigns.

Boris is an idiot who claims to support cycling but is putting all the hard won achievements at serious risk - but he may well be history in two years - another genuinely pro-cycling mayor and some support from central government may set us backl on the course for European level cycling in London.

Fortunately Ken Livingstone's initiatives are still holding sway - the cycle hire scheme has pushed cycling up to yet higher levels - I'm looking forward to record cycling figures sometime next year.

Keep dreaming matey - in your head it may be a wonderful car free world - but in the real world it's us campaigners - or suckers as you put it - who are changing the world.

mrodent

Umm, let me put it this way: I definitely think you're mistaken to believe that cycling in traffic is OK. At the same time I see how many people are mistaken in this way. I myself certainly want "road cycling" conditions to improve, and I want far harsher penalties and enforcement for motorists who take risks with other people's lives.

But I am adamant that the London "solution" is a lazy, dangerous approach. Unfortunately I can see that that's what we're stuck with. There is absolutely not the political will to go for a big cycling lane change in London. But your implication that I shouldn't even have the temerity to say this is one I reject.

Part of your objection seems to be something to do with speed. You also have the curious line

I enjoy cycling in the traffic as do many many cyclists.

… well for my part, I don't really give a monkey's about cycling 5 mph faster - it'll always take me about half an hour to get into and out of Town - and I certainly don't "enjoy" cycling in traffic, and find the idea a bit nutty. The risk involved is a real one and a terrible one (death, quadraplegia, etc.).

You say that things have changed in London since the 1980s. Actually I first started cycling in London in 1980 as a student, and things were indeed different then... it is yes better to see many more cyclists. But this doesn't change my view that safety is more important than speed.

You say that there are ways to stay acceptably safe. Like I said, I have been cycling these roads since 1980 - 30 years, wow, madness - and have literally never had or caused an accident... mainly coz I cycle like a wuss and always have... but when you put flesh and bone amongst fast-moving hunks of metal, weighing (these days) at least half a ton, and sometimes much more, I personally will never accept that this is a safe way to organise cycling.

Things may get better, especially if we have more enforcement, harsher penalties, and lots more CCTV cameras to see, spot and prosecute motorists who take risks with other people's lives... if.

But this will still be a second-best solution.

What I find slightly paradoxical is the "UK vulnerable road-user exception". There's so much in the media about how the value of each life is so terribly precious. We drive ourselves crazy over whether such and such a drug should be paid for by the NHS. When it comes to safety for motorists, cocooned in their tank-like metal shells, a new safety development is rightly applauded as a life-saver. But the deaths and serious injuries from cycling are not put into this category: put your bum on a bicycle and go cycling these roads, and you have the rights not of a human being but of a dog or a cat, in terms of the value of your life in the eyes of the law.

If we are to have a situation where the life and limbs of a cyclist are, in terms of the severity of the punishment meted out by the law, just as precious as those of any generic human being not on a cycle, with this road-cycling approach, of the kind to which London is doomed, it will need a massive change to our legal system (particularly: virtually ubiquitous CCTV, and also financial penalties which reflect the ability of the offender to pay). Trouble is, I don't see that happening either. And after 30 years I think I'm perhaps permitted, by dint of both observation of motorists' behaviour, and of common sense, to disagree when you say

No cyclist is vulnerable if they learn how to cycle well

... and I'd like to "unpick" that statement of yours: what if, once, on one occasion, you don't cycle particularly well... and pay a very high price?

electric_blue

mrodent wrote:

But I am adamant that the London "solution" is a lazy, dangerous approach. Unfortunately I can see that that's what we're stuck with. There is absolutely not the political will to go for a big cycling lane change in London. But your implication that I shouldn't even have the temerity to say this is one I reject.

I'd go further - it's not that there isn't political will - as I've tried to point out - it is economically and physically impossible and there is no clear benefit for anyone if we did do it.

Part of your objection seems to be something to do with speed. You also have the curious line

I enjoy cycling in the traffic as do many many cyclists.

… well for my part, I don't really give a monkey's about cycling 5 mph faster - it'll always take me about half an hour to get into and out of Town - and I certainly don't "enjoy" cycling in traffic, and find the idea a bit nutty. The risk involved is a real one and a terrible one (death, quadraplegia, etc.).

For cycling to be taken seriously it has to be practical. I'm not a particularly fast cyclist and never go faster than is safe - but if my journey to work took longer than the 1 hour 15 minutes it currently took I would find it hard to justify cycling - both to may family and to my employer. It's that fact that it's the quickest way around London that my employer hasn't challenged that I use it as my main way of getting from meeting to meeting. My wife also would like me home as soon as possible.
I'm sure its true for the majority of people - that if cycling was the slowest way of getting around - cycling will never reach European levels.

You say that things have changed in London since the 1980s. Actually I first started cycling in London in 1980 as a student, and things were indeed different then... it is yes better to see many more cyclists. But this doesn't change my view that safety is more important than speed.

All the figures I've seen show that cyclists' safety is getting better as numbers increase. I see no compromise being made here. We are not trading safety for speed.

You say that there are ways to stay acceptably safe. Like I said, I have been cycling these roads since 1980 - 30 years, wow, madness - and have literally never had or caused an accident... mainly coz I cycle like a wuss and always have... but when you put flesh and bone amongst fast-moving hunks of metal, weighing (these days) at least half a ton, and sometimes much more, I personally will never accept that this is a safe way to organise cycling.

Fear is a state of mind - any form of transport has its risks. Many pedestrians suffer death and injury in London too. I've given up driving because I feel a lot safer riding a bike - and would never ride a motorbike. I think you should go on a course - if you haven't tried this already - to learn about defensive cycling - my confidence has improved enormously over the years as I have employed certain techniques...and less accidents too. Maybe all cyclists should go on such a course before taking up cycling - I'd agree with that.

But this will still be a second-best solution.

sorry I don;t agree. I agree we should be reducing car numbers, and heavy vehicles should be strictly limited and regualated - but the only elegant and practical way to get around on a bike is on the roads. I will always ride on the roads - and no-one is going to tell me otherwise.

What I find slightly paradoxical is the "UK vulnerable road-user exception". There's so much in the media about how the value of each life is so terribly precious. We drive ourselves crazy over whether such and such a drug should be paid for by the NHS. When it comes to safety for motorists, cocooned in their tank-like metal shells, a new safety development is rightly applauded as a life-saver. But the deaths and serious injuries from cycling are not put into this category: put your bum on a bicycle and go cycling these roads, and you have the rights not of a human being but of a dog or a cat, in terms of the value of your life in the eyes of the law.

I agree - its a real paradox.

Oh hum.

what if, once, on one occasion, you don't cycle particularly well... and pay a very high price?

you shouldn't - the odds are still on your side even if you make a mistake - you're unlikely to be wiped out ont he spot - I make lots of mistakes, and learn by them. There will always be an element of personal responsibility I'm afraid - if I'm having a bad day on the bike I get onto a train instead. Risk cannot be removed, only mitigated against as best as possible.

The "accidents" I've had were not due to mistakes I made but I have modified my cycling accordingly - now riding more than a car doors width away from parked cars, etc.
There needs to be shift in the way our legal system works, I don;t agree with CCTV - but IMO the emphasis of responsibility for accidents should be shifted to motorised transport. With a reduction of private cars and HGVs, more responsibilty forced upon motorists, harsher penalties, and better road design - I reckon we can get there. We just need to keep the pressure on.

jim453

Stop trolling.

OldSkoolKona

http://quickrelease.tv/?p=1351

Excellent piece on segregationism

electric_blue

OldSkoolKona wrote:

http://quickrelease.tv/?p=1351

Excellent piece on segregationism

Yeah - this troll agrees with most of that.

Tom BB

electric_blue wrote:

Yeah - this troll agrees with most of that.

You're a troll.....btw how long have you been on here for?

wyadvd

mr glass's trial was in september. any swedish legal eagles out there know what the verdict was? has it gone to appeal. google won't tell me!

Cunobelin

This is a handy documentto have a copy of.....

Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.

wyadvd

yes , i discovered that one via the nutty cyclist! its a grea pity its not in the highway code. I fear that the fact it resides in some dark recess of the dfe website that is not readily accessible, and was originally written as a proposed sign to post on all shared use cycle ways,( but never actually used) means it carries little weight ( very unfornunately), although it makes sense to me. even the 'best quality' tarmac cycle facilities are so badly rollered that I cant get over 12mph, when i do 20-25mph on the road.

Still..........does anyone know what happenned to Mr Glass in the swedish courts? I think thats pretty important! anyone???