The Times Today (Friday)
Comments
-
rjsterry wrote:Agreed, I don't like this kind of segregation, particularly as they are rarely properly integrated with side turnings and driveways, and are just not big enough for the numbers of cyclists in central London. However, Mrs RJS taking the littl'un to pre-school - I could see her using it, and there are more people like her than there are like me. Mind you, it wouldn't be needed if motorists gave enough room when passing and treated cyclists with some respect*.
* Many (most) of them do, but too many don't.
I think this is the point. Things need to be improved for people on bikes, not for keen cyclists. DDD how would you feel if your son was about to start cycling to a secondary school 5 miles away with some nasty roads along the way given the current road situation, or if Mrs DDD starts taking the lad to nursery in a child seat on the back of her bike?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Point is, when they set off, no cyclist will cross the path of a car.
Surely "point is" that the cyclists will have to cross the path "further back" of moving cars, with their two tonnes of deadly momentum behind them.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Just where would th confrontation be if they were separated on the road?
Having a massive curb 1/3rd into the road.
Putting almost all the responsiblity and liability on the motorists.
Cycling crossings, give way priority and more traffic controlled lights (albeit for cyclists).
All of which would probably lengthen journey times for the motorised traffic (and cyclists). So are you actually saying that it would not be seen (in this Country) as confrontation or anti motorists?The problem with cyclists is when they mix with lorries, they can die. That's a problem. The best solution is to not have lorries and bikes close to one another. Then they won't get hit. Same goes for cars, etc etc.
Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!
Would the same logic go for cars when they mix with other vehicles. Pedestrians when they mix and are hit by vehicles? The roads and pavements are shared - even when dedicated. The solution as has been repeated in the flurry of posts is awareness. Making all parties aware. Not more structure.We already separate pedestrians from the roads. Why is separating the bikes too so different?
We do to a point, pedestrians still interact with the road and road users. They aren't completely seperate. We do not need an additional pavement for bikes.
Did that woman knock a screw loose or something?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Considering motorists already use those view points (cyclists - not registered, don't pay tax and don't have insurance) to dismiss our validity as a road user. Do you think addressing those view points publicly wouldn't contribute to raising awareness to the validity of cyclists using the road? Because I think it would.rml380z wrote:Even if cyclists were registered, paid tax, had insurance, didn't RLJ etc, many car drivers would still find something to complain about. The reason is that many road users simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, and until cyclists are regarded as valid road users, with the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicles the arguments will continue.
Nope, I don't think it would make any difference at all. You can present all the facts you want, but it's not going to change anybody's point of view.0 -
sfichele wrote:ddraver wrote:99% of that is not down to infrastructure, it's down to attitude...
+1000
* 1000 but add in a huge dollop of awareness.
I am one of this year's victims and it was lack of awareness that got me.
A quick shoulder check before turning is not enough and I will suggest that at least 75% of drivers are guilty of this. Me included :oops:
LOOK, not glance!None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Probably the same as my parents did with me and my brother.. or my Grandparents did with my Dad and his siblings. :roll:Veronese68 wrote:rjsterry wrote:Agreed, I don't like this kind of segregation, particularly as they are rarely properly integrated with side turnings and driveways, and are just not big enough for the numbers of cyclists in central London. However, Mrs RJS taking the littl'un to pre-school - I could see her using it, and there are more people like her than there are like me. Mind you, it wouldn't be needed if motorists gave enough room when passing and treated cyclists with some respect*.
* Many (most) of them do, but too many don't.
I think this is the point. Things need to be improved for people on bikes, not for keen cyclists. DDD how would you feel if your son was about to start cycling to a secondary school 5 miles away with some nasty roads along the way given the current road situation, or if Mrs DDD starts taking the lad to nursery in a child seat on the back of her bike?
There is no way it could be said that the roads were safer in 1990 let alone the 70s or 80s.
People forget that us keen cyclists all begun as just people on bikes.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
rml380z wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Considering motorists already use those view points (cyclists - not registered, don't pay tax and don't have insurance) to dismiss our validity as a road user. Do you think addressing those view points publicly wouldn't contribute to raising awareness to the validity of cyclists using the road? Because I think it would.rml380z wrote:Even if cyclists were registered, paid tax, had insurance, didn't RLJ etc, many car drivers would still find something to complain about. The reason is that many road users simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, and until cyclists are regarded as valid road users, with the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicles the arguments will continue.
Nope, I don't think it would make any difference at all. You can present all the facts you want, but it's not going to change anybody's point of view.
Well f*ck me. May as well just hand me the shotgun and I'll end it all now.
Jesus I'm glad those who pioneered Womans rights, the civil rights movement or even those that campaigned to get a traffic light put in at the end of THAT street didn't just stop and give up because you know.... presenting facts won't change anybody's point of view...
:roll:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:We already separate pedestrians from the roads. Why is separating the bikes too so different?
Oooh, busted with a "pick and choose".
The modern trend is to remove kerbs and have the carriageway at the same height as the footway. This is supposed to make drivers think they are driving on the same surface as peds, and so make them drive more slowly (as if in a pedestrianised area).
I believe this idea came from, ohh, where was it? Oh yes. Your beloved Netherlands.
So, segregate for safety or integrate for safety. Choose one. They can't both be right (can they?). Time's running. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:rml380z wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Considering motorists already use those view points (cyclists - not registered, don't pay tax and don't have insurance) to dismiss our validity as a road user. Do you think addressing those view points publicly wouldn't contribute to raising awareness to the validity of cyclists using the road? Because I think it would.rml380z wrote:Even if cyclists were registered, paid tax, had insurance, didn't RLJ etc, many car drivers would still find something to complain about. The reason is that many road users simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, and until cyclists are regarded as valid road users, with the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicles the arguments will continue.
Nope, I don't think it would make any difference at all. You can present all the facts you want, but it's not going to change anybody's point of view.
Well f*ck me. May as well just hand me the shotgun and I'll end it all now.
Jesus I'm glad those who pioneered Womans rights, the civil rights movement or even those that campaigned to get a traffic light put in at the end of THAT street didn't just stop and give up because you know.... presenting facts won't change anybody's point of view...
:roll:
Talk got none of those groups anywhere; they all had to take action before attitudes changed.0 -
The problem with cyclists is when they mix with lorries, they can die. That's a problem. The best solution is to not have lorries and bikes close to one another. Then they won't get hit. Same goes for cars, etc etc.
Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!
Would the same logic go for cars when they mix with other vehicles. Pedestrians when they mix and are hit by vehicles? The roads and pavements are shared - even when dedicated. The solution as has been repeated in the flurry of posts is awareness. Making all parties aware. Not more structure.
Er...well yeah! Pedestrians have their own pavements (which are not shared, they re for pedestrian use only) which at many corners have increased kerbs or railings to stop lorries turning onto said pavement. Have another bit of path and kerb between the pavement and the lorry (with a cyclist in the middle). Problem solved!
Greg and DDD, are you happy with the situation as it is? Maybe you enjoy being an Urban Warrior and having that element of fear and danger (I did!), but at least accept that the status quo is not going to encourage regular people (not those of us who spend too much time on BR) to cycle more. You re shooting alot of ideas down but not contributing many of your own here...
DDD - there is nothing that can be chaged that could not be percieved as anti-motorists. Whatever happens, awareness campaigns, presumed liability or new infra structure is all anti-motorist as it's reducing the omnipotence of the car and raising the position of the bikeWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:We already separate pedestrians from the roads. Why is separating the bikes too so different?
Oooh, busted with a "pick and choose".
The modern trend is to remove kerbs and have the carriageway at the same height as the footway. This is supposed to make drivers think they are driving on the same surface as peds, and so make them drive more slowly (as if in a pedestrianised area).
I believe this idea came from, ohh, where was it? Oh yes. Your beloved Netherlands.
So, segregate for safety or integrate for safety. Choose one. They can't both be right (can they?). Time's running. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...
Still segregated though aren't they?
Don't see too many peds walking down the middle of the road.0 -
rml380z wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:rml380z wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Considering motorists already use those view points (cyclists - not registered, don't pay tax and don't have insurance) to dismiss our validity as a road user. Do you think addressing those view points publicly wouldn't contribute to raising awareness to the validity of cyclists using the road? Because I think it would.rml380z wrote:Even if cyclists were registered, paid tax, had insurance, didn't RLJ etc, many car drivers would still find something to complain about. The reason is that many road users simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, and until cyclists are regarded as valid road users, with the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicles the arguments will continue.
Nope, I don't think it would make any difference at all. You can present all the facts you want, but it's not going to change anybody's point of view.
Well f*ck me. May as well just hand me the shotgun and I'll end it all now.
Jesus I'm glad those who pioneered Womans rights, the civil rights movement or even those that campaigned to get a traffic light put in at the end of THAT street didn't just stop and give up because you know.... presenting facts won't change anybody's point of view...
:roll:
Talk got none of those groups anywhere; they all had to take action before attitudes changed.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I was toying with the idea of making recesses into the pavement for bus stops, so the bus pulls into the stop and out of the lane of traffic.
And that, my young friend, is how things used to be (where there was space). And then idle bus drivers complained that it was too hard to re-enter the traffic flow, because no one would let them out (well, durrrr, you have to wait for a gap, don't you?). So we got those stickers on the rear o/side 3/4 of the bus commanding us to give way to the bus.
Which was disastrous, because it meant that bus drivers could then do what in the driving test was an immediate fail: pull away without having to check what was behind them.
Yet still that didn't work, and so the dum-dum town planners decided that the only solution was to have the bus park square in the middle of the road, and build out the kerb to meet it. That way, the bus never has to rejoin the traffic. Oh, the traffic is brought to a standstill you say? Well, so it is. Good thing too. It means all those rich people in their private cars will cease to have an advantage over the bus, and will immediately start using PT. Wrongheaded on so many levels.
This. One of the worst aspects of riding in London is the commonplace 'bus broadside' whereby a bus driver thinks that because he has his indicator on, he can pull out from the stop (usually around another bus - it'll be moving in about 30 seconds FFS!) without having to worry about people immediately behind him, or even right alongside the cab. Just get TF out of the way, I'm a bus driver! Now this approach seems to be spreading to the general motorist, where "I had my indicator on" seemingly excuses any piece of sh*t driving.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:We already separate pedestrians from the roads. Why is separating the bikes too so different?
Oooh, busted with a "pick and choose".
The modern trend is to remove kerbs and have the carriageway at the same height as the footway. This is supposed to make drivers think they are driving on the same surface as peds, and so make them drive more slowly (as if in a pedestrianised area).
I believe this idea came from, ohh, where was it? Oh yes. Your beloved Netherlands.
So, segregate for safety or integrate for safety. Choose one. They can't both be right (can they?). Time's running. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...
Still segregated though aren't they?
Don't see too many peds walking down the middle of the road.
Not ridden through Brixton then? I'd say you see quite a few.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
ddraver wrote:The problem with cyclists is when they mix with lorries, they can die. That's a problem. The best solution is to not have lorries and bikes close to one another. Then they won't get hit. Same goes for cars, etc etc.
Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!
Would the same logic go for cars when they mix with other vehicles. Pedestrians when they mix and are hit by vehicles? The roads and pavements are shared - even when dedicated. The solution as has been repeated in the flurry of posts is awareness. Making all parties aware. Not more structure.
Er...well yeah! Pedestrians have their own pavements (which are not shared, they re for pedestrian use only) which at many corners have increased kerbs or railings to stop lorries turning onto said pavement. Have another bit of path and kerb between the pavement and the lorry (with a cyclist in the middle). Problem solved!
Note Greg's lowered curb example. Pedestrians cross the road all the time at places that aren't designated crossings. Pedestrian safety is increased not because of a curb - I could easily mount in my car at speeds over 5mph - or the iron railing - I could plough through that - but through awareness, which is the point.Greg and DDD, are you happy with the situation as it is? Maybe you enjoy being an Urban Warrior and having that element of fear and danger (I did!), but at least accept that the status quo is not going to encourage regular people (not those of us who spend too much time on BR) to cycle more. You re shooting alot of ideas down but not contributing many of your own here...
What (TF) are you on about, there are more cyclists in London than there has ever been the cycling industry is booming. The status quo appears to be working. There were 16 cycling realated deaths in London last year, 13 were HGVs. Instead of segregating the other tens of thousand plus cyclists, making the roads more complex and slowing traffic down further by way of changing the infrastructure with some overly heavy handed liberal bueraucrap. How about making more people aware of those specific dangers: HGV's and other vehicles turning left, limited visibility in the vehicle, making yourself (cyclists more visible) how to treat traffic lights, filtering and the ASL...DDD - there is nothing that can be chaged that could not be percieved as anti-motorists. Whatever happens, awareness campaigns, presumed liability or new infra structure is all anti-motorist as it's reducing the omnipotence of the car and raising the position of the bike
An awareness campaign would not be perceieved as anti-motorists. How can it, when it's not restricting the roads or their ability to drive?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Bloody hell, G66 and DDD are the Dasterdly and Mutley of this thread...
DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?0 -
Ricky - I agree
The fact that we're on this forum means we're all interested in cycling. Most of us have the ability to steam along at 20mph+ and have the roadcraft to behave like a car and get away with it. So we're all fine for 99% of the time. (The 1% unforunately still happens, even to the best of us.)
My girlfriend rides a Tesco steel tank and WILL NOT join me on any of the main roads I typically commute on. Her top speed is probably 10mph and she's petrified of the typical london driver, feeling completely exposed and unsafe. On holiday (yes in Amsterdam) she was happy riding helmetless around the entire city.
Will we ever get there in London? No, I don't think so, can it be improved? Undoubtedly - starting with your average Essex boy's attitude to cyclists.FCN 4 - BMC CX020 -
I haven't got a clue. Kids normally decide that don't they? When I got my bike 10yrs old there was no stopping me riding it and as I got older I rode it further and further.notsoblue wrote:DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?
That said I clearly had common sense and great spatial awareness which is why I enjoy skating and other sports where awareness reigns. My brother not so much. So my parents were always a little more cautious.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:We already separate pedestrians from the roads. Why is separating the bikes too so different?
Oooh, busted with a "pick and choose".
The modern trend is to remove kerbs and have the carriageway at the same height as the footway. This is supposed to make drivers think they are driving on the same surface as peds, and so make them drive more slowly (as if in a pedestrianised area).
I believe this idea came from, ohh, where was it? Oh yes. Your beloved Netherlands.
So, segregate for safety or integrate for safety. Choose one. They can't both be right (can they?). Time's running. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...
Still segregated though aren't they?
Don't see too many peds walking down the middle of the road.
. <- The point
-> Your name here.0 -
I disagree with nearly all of your points
You re claiming that because a. car conceivably drive up a kerb or through the railings that peds are.not segregated? Rubbish, in fact, total rubbish. And whatever Greg's kerb example, I ve yet to see one, in UK or NL!
Some people may be discovering a hitherto hidden inner cyclistst, but we a miles away from Gettysburgng average Joes with no feelings for bikes to start riding,just as a "faster way of walking"
The last point is just flat out think is wrong...oh and btw, a pretty picture does not an argument make....
Govt. - "Be aware of cyclists all"
Motorist - screw you, shouldn't be on t road, must pay road tax etc. How dare I give.up some of my space for a bike etc etc
You may not perceive it thus, but many motorists will...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
notsoblue wrote:Bloody hell, G66 and DDD are the Dasterdly and Mutley of this thread...
DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?
66 major rides alone to school. She's 12. She started when she was 11.
On roads, 'n' all.0 -
dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.
But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.
what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.
clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.0 -
roger merriman wrote:dutch roads are safe? don't get me wrong I think the Netherlands has some good ideas.
But being a cynical git i'd like to see the idea proven.
what worries me is the Netherlands is good mantra yet for a smaller country (27% of our population)they have more cycle deaths than we do, some 62% or so extra.
clearly they use bikes more than we do, but even so. a cynical eye over the ideas rather than blind faith is needed.
Per km cycled you're 3 times more likely to be hurt or die in the UK than you are in Holland.0 -
Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
-
ddraver wrote:I disagree with nearly all of your points
You re claiming that because a. car conceivably drive up a kerb or through the railings that peds are.not segregated? Rubbish, in fact, total rubbish.
That's not my point at all. My point about pedestrians is that the tools Rick mentions as being used to segregated them could easily be nullified. So how effective is the physical segreation compared to awareness to the dangers a motorised vehicles could possess to a pedestrian?
Really...The last point is just flat out think is wrong...oh and btw, a pretty picture does not an argument make....
Govt. - "Be aware of cyclists all"
Motorist - screw you, shouldn't be on t road, must pay road tax etc. How dare I give.up some of my space for a bike
1. I think I've already explained that any awareness campaign must first attempt to tackle all prejudices - such as the road tax, insurance, share space on the road with a bicycle. As well as the things like left turning vehicles and ASL etiquette.You may not perceive it thus, but many motorists will...
Substantiate this please?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
Your mum's so clumsy she got caught up in a cordless phone!MattC59 wrote:Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !
What? I thought we had finally resorted to insulting each other. Too soon?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:MattC59 wrote:Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !
Nice to see you turn up in the commuter forum.
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to commute by bike, much as I'd like to, so I don't look here that often. I noticed this thread,following the link in cake stop) and having read it from start to finish, I'm astonished at the comments which are clearly posted by idiots, or by people just trying to by obtuse.
Still, there's no accounting for folk.............. Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0
