The Times Today (Friday)

symo

And back to the OP. So disappointed by the usual response from the usual crowd. Especially from the mentally substandard Ian Cherry of Preston.

MattC59

DonDaddyD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Your mum's so clumsy she got caught up in a cordless phone!

What? I thought we had finally resorted to insulting each other. Too soon?

I don't remember insulting you, unless with your comment above you are acknowledging that you are one of the afore mentioned dicks ?
Don't beat yourself up like that.

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Good point, cogently argued.

Like the stray apostrophe in your sig. V stylish.

Excellent, well done, you resort to the lowest form of retort. Criticising grammar. (even better when you're incorrect !)
:roll:

I don't believe argument was necessary, it's just a statement of observation.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?

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.

I'm trying to get an idea of whether or not you think the roads are safe for kids. So you'd allow your 10 yr old to ride on the same roads as you do unaccompanied? Do you think they're safe enough? Or do you think kids shouldn't really cycle on roads?

DonDaddyD

MattC59 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Your mum's so clumsy she got caught up in a cordless phone!

What? I thought we had finally resorted to insulting each other. Too soon?

I don't remember insulting you, unless with your comment above you are acknowledging that you are one of the afore mentioned dicks ?
Don't beat yourself up like that.

Your Mum's arms are so short, she has to tilt her head to scratch her ear!

Whether you are calling me a dick or not I actually really don't care, been called worse. I actually think it's more telling of yourself and your dickhood credentials that you think it's OK to come into a thread, post nothing constructive and label everyone whose opinion you disagree with a dick.

If you disagree with the point fine, say so and explain why. You want to insult be witty and do so in the context of the conversation but to so bullishly come into a thread and insult sets you up to look like I bit of prat to be honest.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

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.

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

hfidgen

Oh dear...

This happens to most threads in this forum after about page 5...

Was interesting, up until the egos came out to play.

Back ON topic - Is there anyone here who's actually arguing that efforts to make the roads safer for cyclists is a bad thing? :shock: I think I may have missed something...


EDIT - ****! rogue apostrophe in there, apologies, apologies.

greg66_tri_v2.0

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Good point, cogently argued.

Like the stray apostrophe in your sig. V stylish.

Excellent, well done, you resort to the lowest form of retort. Criticising grammar.
:roll:

I don't believe argument was necessary, it's just a statement of observation.

Is criticising a mistake worse than making it? I didn't realise that.

Let's try again.

Well done for not knowing how to use apostrophes. You are to be congratulated. You can be sure that you're a WINNER in life's lottery. You can stand tall in the knowledge that your pride in your ignorance makes you superior to those so-called "clever people" who can spot your deficiencies.

Perhaps you would be better off sticking to the thread with the slightly-less-titillating-than-a-Littlewoods-lingerie-catalogue-pictures of women.

Otherwise, thanks again for your valuable and closely reasoned contributions to the debate. Now run along. The grown ups are talking.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?

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.

I'm trying to get an idea of whether or not you think the roads are safe for kids. So you'd allow your 10 yr old to ride on the same roads as you do unaccompanied? Do you think they're safe enough? Or do you think kids shouldn't really cycle on roads?

I don't know yet! It depends on the child, the roads and the route.

Roads and driving attitudes in Croydon, for example, are different to those in Wimbledon Village or Dulwich Village.

Different children have different abilities and levels of common sense.

rick_chasey

hfidgen wrote:

Oh dear...

This happens to most threads in this forum after about page 5...

Was interesting, up until the ego's came out to play.

Back ON topic - Is there anyone here who's actually arguing that efforts to make the roads safer for cyclists is a bad thing? :shock: I think I may have missed something...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gregg seems happy with the way it is right now, and figures it doesn't need changing?

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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.

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I do think they are safe enough, yes. Could they be made safer? Obviously they could. We could remove all motorised traffic, fence pedestrians from the road, ensure there are never potholes in the road or ironworks, and confiscate bikes from anyone who gets too close (10m?) to another cyclist.

Or we could implement something part way between Nirvana (above) and where we are; it would certainly make the roads "safer".

But "safer" and "safe enough" are not mutually exclusive. As I say, I think they are safe enough. There is risk involved in almost everything we do. Like is about taking risks; not about being cocooned.

If she is cycling now, it's (IMO) a great deal more likely that she will cycle as an adult. Isn't that what we want: another generation of cyclists? The last thing we want to do is run around looking for the perpetually elusive "next safety measure" that will make all the difference between cycling and not cycling.

So for the third time, I think the roads are safe enough right now. People should get out there and discover this for themselves. Not sit indoors waiting for someone to make them "safer".

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?

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.

I'm trying to get an idea of whether or not you think the roads are safe for kids. So you'd allow your 10 yr old to ride on the same roads as you do unaccompanied? Do you think they're safe enough? Or do you think kids shouldn't really cycle on roads?

I don't know yet! It depends on the child, the roads and the route.

Roads and driving attitudes in Croydon, for example, are different to those in Wimbledon Village or Dulwich Village.

Different children have different abilities and levels of common sense.

Ok, I'll be explicit. Do you think the roads are currently safe enough for a 10yr old to cycle unaccompanied? I don't care either way what you think, but you can't start laying into people on this thread (Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!) for having ideas you don't agree with without stating what your opinion on the matter is.

If you're arguing that the current situation doesn't need to be changed, and its fine the way it is, then just say that, no need to start insulting people.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

based on what figures? do you mean holland or Netherlands?

the only figures I ever seen bounded about are close on 10 years old, which considering uk's recent growth in cycling means you really need to be looking at recent figures.

MattC59

DonDaddyD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Your mum's so clumsy she got caught up in a cordless phone!

What? I thought we had finally resorted to insulting each other. Too soon?

I don't remember insulting you, unless with your comment above you are acknowledging that you are one of the afore mentioned dicks ?
Don't beat yourself up like that.

Your Mum's arms are so short, she has to tilt her head to scratch her ear!

Whether you are calling me a dick or not I actually really don't care, been called worse. I actually think it's more telling of yourself and your dickhood credentials that you think it's OK to come into a thread, post nothing constructive and label everyone whose opinion you disagree with a dick.

If you disagree with the point fine, say so and explain why. You want to insult be witty and do so in the context of the conversation but to so bullishly come into a thread and insult sets you up to look like I bit of prat to be honest.

You misunderstand me, I wasn't labling those who I disagree with, just the incredible lack of thought in some of the posts, and the seeming construction of arguments based on non-issues.

There was no intention to be witty, as mentioned, I was just pointing out an observation, which as that observed is in this thread, is relevant to this thread. I had also assumed that as you had previously been 'bullish and insulting' that it was acceptable in this thread.

Again, interesting though that, still having not insulted you, you seem intent on insulting me (which seems to be a common point in a number of your posts). I'm still interested to know why you assumed that it was you who I was implying was a dick ?

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Good point, cogently argued.

Like the stray apostrophe in your sig. V stylish.

Excellent, well done, you resort to the lowest form of retort. Criticising grammar.
:roll:

I don't believe argument was necessary, it's just a statement of observation.

Is criticising a mistake worse than making it? I didn't realise that.

Let's try again.

Well done for not knowing how to use apostrophes. You are to be congratulated. You can be sure that you're a WINNER in life's lottery. You can stand tall in the knowledge that your pride in your ignorance makes you superior to those so-called "clever people" who can spot your deficiencies.

Perhaps you would be better off sticking to the thread with the slightly-less-titillating-than-a-Littlewoods-lingerie-catalogue-pictures of women.

Otherwise, thanks again for your valuable and closely reasoned contributions to the debate. Now run along. The grown ups are talking.

I'd hate to stray further OT than we have, but can I suggest that you research your grammar.
You seem to be getting awfully upset and I'm not entirely sure why. Are you too assuming that my initial commetn was directed at you ? If so, why is that ? Do you feel that you have exihibited such behaviour ?
Would you like some vinegar with that ?

DonDaddyD

hfidgen wrote:

Oh dear...

This happens to most threads in this forum after about page 5...

Was interesting, up until the egos came out to play.

Back ON topic - Is there anyone here who's actually arguing that efforts to make the roads safer for cyclists is a bad thing? :shock: I think I may have missed something...

Define safer. Safer doesn't always mean practical and making things less practical or impractical can in fact hinder safety (sometimes in unexpected ways). This has been noted by the effect the cycle superhighway, in London, has on some junctions.

Point in case just after Oval tube the Kennington road turn off heading towards Ele&Castle. The superhighway has us all on the left but when we want to go straight we have to cut right across traffic (a car lane to do it). With a curb ala Rick's proposal I couldn't see it working and a traffic light system just before we cut across traffic would just slow down traffic and increase journey times - which raises it's own problems.

Then there is the roundabout between Stratford and Bow. I rode it the other day and found at least 3 places where it invites a collision. It's heavily traffic controlled through lights. People have died their too.

Again Kennington Road heading towards Clapham and the bus lane turn off into Brixton. If you want to go straight you leave the bus lane join traffic and filter left into the superhighway. Trouble is cyclists who want to do that want to go straight, while the car lane they are joining is for left turning cars. You can imagine the problem.

My point in all of this is that I've seen, experienced and ridden on roads that have implemented similar ideas to what Rick Chasey is proposing while may work at times they create their own problems. As for a larger part of Ricks proposals they seem hugely impractical for the type of commuting, volume of people and vehicles and infrastucture already in place in London, which is where I ride a bike.

Personally for me, any time I've felt safe is when the motorist is aware of me around their vehicle.

At the lights, whether I'm in the ASL or not, directly infront or slightly to the left/right of a vehicle I know I'm safest when I've looked into the car and the driver has acknowledged me - a HGV driver actually gave me a thumbs up once. When that happens the driver tends not to drive off when the light flashes amber, they back off and allow me to wobble and then go around me.

Similarly when I'm cycling along the road all I need is room when being overtaken. Too that end sometimes I move in to allow the car to pass and then move further out to resume my journey.

I need vehicles to indicate, giving good time and to check their mirrors. I take responsibility not to be in their blind spot if it can be helped and when approaching side roads I look well inadvance to see if there is any traffic turning to and from it. I'm not against giving way.

It's not about being some die-hard cyclists. I've been riding a bike since the age of 10 and the same went for back then, when it wasn't about lycra, clipless and carbon. I take responsibility for being safe on the road and not a danger to other. I appreciate it when motorists do the same. What I need is more co-operation from motorists and that can be achieved by raising their collective awareness.

I don't need further segregation to achive those things, I never have.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

il_principe

I wish some of the cycling lobby would less time banging on about how "dangerous" cycling is, and more time educating non-cyclists.

It's not dangerous ffs, painting it as such is unhelpful.

I have no problem with better facilities, provided they are not designed by the morons who come up with the kind of "solutions" we always get.

jzed

I'm with G66 - the roads are pretty safe. I feel safe riding on them, and am happy riding in traffic. Appreciate other people aren't as confident cycling on the roads and think they are dangerous. Much of the danger can be averted with common sense.

The only accidents I have seen in London happen on a 1 mile section of road with a cycle lane (NKR). The segregation (ok not 100% but its still a lane) seems to be a cause of the accidents with cyclists hammering down the side of stationary traffic with multiple side turnings.

A large number of the deaths in London from cycling appear to involve a cyclist and a side of a lorry. Detection systems and education of cyclists (common sense) to not go down the side of a vehicle, could prevent a number of these deaths (maybe not in all cases).

I can't see how segregation would be achieved in London, in terms of the lack of space and secondly the fact there isn't enouhg money at the moment for it to happen.

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

Nah, +1 here. People need educating properly, and the punishment for killing/maiming someone with your vehicle need to be made far tougher. Remember Elidh Cairns. Driver that ran her over had defective vision, he was driving an HGV and was fined £200. Laughable.

greg66_tri_v2.0

MattC59 wrote:

Do you feel that you have exihibited such behaviour ?

Cod-psychiatry. I am undone.

Do you actually have anything to say about the subject matter of the thread, constructive or otherwise?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, at what age will you be letting your son cycle unattended?

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.

I'm trying to get an idea of whether or not you think the roads are safe for kids. So you'd allow your 10 yr old to ride on the same roads as you do unaccompanied? Do you think they're safe enough? Or do you think kids shouldn't really cycle on roads?

I don't know yet! It depends on the child, the roads and the route.

Roads and driving attitudes in Croydon, for example, are different to those in Wimbledon Village or Dulwich Village.

Different children have different abilities and levels of common sense.

Ok, I'll be explicit. Do you think the roads are currently safe enough for a 10yr old to cycle unaccompanied? I don't care either way what you think, but you can't start laying into people on this thread (Bullshit! Bollocks and Poppycock!) for having ideas you don't agree with without stating what your opinion on the matter is.

If you're arguing that the current situation doesn't need to be changed, and its fine the way it is, then just say that, no need to start insulting people.

The real question is:

Given the state of society would I leave a 10yr old unaccompanied whether to ride a bike, go to the shops or go to school by themself. 10 is young.

A 12 yr old, as long as they were sensible, yes.

The roads are safer now than what they were when I was 10 yrs old. I had the ability to ride safely all around Lambeth from the age of 10.

hfidgen

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally for me, any time I've felt safe is when the motorist is aware of me around their vehicle.

...

It's not about being some die-hard cyclists. I take responsibility for being safe on the road and not a danger to other. I appreciate it when motorists do the same. What I need is more co-operation from motorists and that can be achieved by raising their collective awareness.

I don't need further segregation to achive those things, I never have.

Now THAT I agree with (and I think pretty much everyone here will too). So we're basically dividing this up into 2 threads of thought then:

1) There needs to be a change in attitude in "the masses" towards cyclists. Education, experience, penalties for infractions etc can all be argued for this one I think

2) There needs to be better cycling infrastructure. Not half-arsed schemes (sorry Barclays), but actual town planning scale efforts. I'm thinking Greenway schemes here but actually connecting useful places...

Now don't take my words too literally please, especially on the infrastructure, I genuinely don't know what would make a safe solution for nodders and weekend athletes alike. But I will be suprised to see anyone here argue point 1, so does anyone actually have sensible suggestions for 2 which can survive the cut and thrust of forum debate?

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

based on what figures? do you mean holland or Netherlands?

the only figures I ever seen bounded about are close on 10 years old, which considering uk's recent growth in cycling means you really need to be looking at recent figures.

Same thing.

And don't give me this "it's only two provinces" rubbish. I'm Dutch, and when I cheer for the football team I shout Hup! Holland, not Hup! Nederland.

Like I said, the figures are in the Times yesterday.

DonDaddyD

hfidgen wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally for me, any time I've felt safe is when the motorist is aware of me around their vehicle.

...

It's not about being some die-hard cyclists. I take responsibility for being safe on the road and not a danger to other. I appreciate it when motorists do the same. What I need is more co-operation from motorists and that can be achieved by raising their collective awareness.

I don't need further segregation to achive those things, I never have.

Now THAT I agree with (and I think pretty much everyone here will too). So we're basically dividing this up into 2 threads of thought then:

1) There needs to be a change in attitude in "the masses" towards cyclists. Education, experience, penalties for infractions etc can all be argued for this one I think

2) There needs to be better cycling infrastructure. Not half-arsed schemes (sorry Barclays), but actual town planning scale efforts. I'm thinking Greenway schemes here but actually connecting useful places...

Now don't take my words too literally please, especially on the infrastructure, I genuinely don't know what would make a safe solution for nodders and weekend athletes alike. But I will be suprised to see anyone here argue point 1, so does anyone actually have sensible suggestions for 2 which can survive the cut and thrust of forum debate?

I'm dubious about "2".

I'd argue that my journey was quicker and more efficient pre-cycle super highway. Equally Cars are undoubtably getting bigger, there are more of us and our roads are more congested. There isn't enough space and our roads aren't wide enough for more infrastructure (IE curb cycle lane) IMO. Which means reducing what everyone has and that leads to more frustration.

I need to go over every section of my commute (CS7) to point out where I think it's been useful and where it's become a problem. That said I do think the Superhighways are the way to go and CS8 looks like Windows 7 compared to teh Windows 95 that is CS7, they just need more dedication and buy-in from Councils.

rick_chasey

hfidgen wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally for me, any time I've felt safe is when the motorist is aware of me around their vehicle.

...

It's not about being some die-hard cyclists. I take responsibility for being safe on the road and not a danger to other. I appreciate it when motorists do the same. What I need is more co-operation from motorists and that can be achieved by raising their collective awareness.

I don't need further segregation to achive those things, I never have.

Now THAT I agree with (and I think pretty much everyone here will too). So we're basically dividing this up into 2 threads of thought then:

1) There needs to be a change in attitude in "the masses" towards cyclists. Education, experience, penalties for infractions etc can all be argued for this one I think

2) There needs to be better cycling infrastructure. Not half-arsed schemes (sorry Barclays), but actual town planning scale efforts. I'm thinking Greenway schemes here but actually connecting useful places...

Now don't take my words too literally please, especially on the infrastructure, I genuinely don't know what would make a safe solution for nodders and weekend athletes alike. But I will be suprised to see anyone here argue point 1, so does anyone actually have sensible suggestions for 2 which can survive the cut and thrust of forum debate?

I personally believe (no way) that the infrastructure will have to happen first before the attitude change can occur.

(and I guess I include changes in the rules of the road in infrastructure)

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Do you feel that you have exihibited such behaviour ?

Cod-psychiatry. I am undone.

Not at all, I'm just a little suprised that you have taken such offence to my initial post, and wonder why. Your responses give the impression that you think my comment was directed at you, and I wonder why you think that ?

Greg66 wrote:

Do you actually have anything to say about the subject matter of the thread, constructive or otherwise?

I do have my opinions, but there are certain individuals on here who seem intent on arguing with everyone, on insignificant non-issues, for the sake of it. So to be quite honest, the thought of having to reiterate my points to people who clearly haven't got the sense god gave a rock (and that's not directed at the vast majority of posters, so please don't take that as another insult), has brought me to the conclusion that I can't be ar*ed.

Plus, your inane responses appear to be taking up my time.

rml380z

Rick Chasey wrote:

I personally believe (no way) that the infrastructure will have to happen first before the attitude change can occur.

(and I guess I include changes in the rules of the road in infrastructure)

I agree.

I'd much prefer to be cycling along with the rest of the traffic, and with all the other road users being aware of cyclists and treating them safely as regular road users. The only way this will happen is if everyone is also a cyclist, and the only way that is likely to happen is if we have segregated facilities to encourage everyone to cycle.

So what I'm saying is we need segregated facilities so that, er, we don't need segregated facilities.

sfichele

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So you think the roads are safe enough? That they don't need to be made safer for cyclists?

I'm going to have another go at this, because I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet (I wear a bonnet?) ATM. This is not directed at you, NSB, so don't go getting all indignant.

There was recently a thread here about the chap who got crushed by a left turning HGV at the lights, having ridden up to it for 12 seconds or so. I realise that the response here was far from universally sympathetic.

That was unsafe from the moment he committed himself to the "alley of death" alongside the HGV. What could have prevented it? First, education. The onus for that is on the rider. Second, a physical barrier - an arm that extends from the nearside rear of the HGV to prevent entry to the alley of death is what I have in mind. Completely impractical. Third, (if there was one) no cycle lane.

The third one is the one that got me thinking (and I can't remember, and haven't checked whether there was a cycle lane in the incident in question). But sometimes cycle lanes - the things that are supposed to help us and make our journeys safer - are invitations to enter some very dangerous pieces of road. Which got me to thinking: why is it safer to set off from the front of the lights? How is it safer than queuing in primary? I rather doubt that it is. It's a bit like the infantrymen being sent ahead of the faster heavier tanks - they're going to get run over.

We have cycle lanes though, and they're not going away. Even without them, cyclists will continue to filter past standing traffic. And right there is the root cause of one of your sources of danger.

So we could perhaps make things safer by enforcing a rule that cyclists queue in primary like other traffic. But is the present system so unsafe as to warrant that change? I don't think so at all. Every incident is to be regretted, but you will never eliminate incidents, and so you just have to live with a certain number of them.

Rip away.

+1000, I have the similar concerns about the ASL and prefer not to filter and use them but stay primary. They can lure cyclists into a false sense of security, especially inexperienced ones! The basic idea is good, that cyclists are given a prominent spot at the front so that vehicles can see them and promote space for the cyclist.

BUT there is a massive grey area! What if you are trying to get the front whilst the lights change! You can argue that drivers should be looking etc, but so should you as a cyclist. The idea of charge, get to the front can put you at considerable risk if you are not paying attention to the lights changing.

DonDaddyD

MattC59 wrote:

Your responses give the impression that you think my comment was directed at you, and I wonder why you think that ?

I'll bite.

At the point that you made your post there were two polarinsing positions in this thread.

Rick Chasey's - Netherlands style cyclefocused infrastructure
Greg66/DDD - Something a bit less militant

Your first post was:

Wow, it seems like this thread has prompted the dicks to come out in force !

Then Rick Chasy replied

Nice to see you turn up in the commuter forum .

3 likely conclusions:

1. You are refering to us all as dicks.
2. You are refering to Greg/DDD as dicks.
3. You are refering to Rick as a dick.

Now giving that you and Rick seem to already be acquainted it would appear that two was the most likely outcome.

But that said, I don't really care. You've come into the thread as a troll (to make it short work of it). You've added nothing contructive.

That's where I believe we are with you up to now.