Flashride Wednesday 22nd

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure all the people stuck in traffic trying to get home will differentiate between this event full of "normal" people, and the CM tossers. Or maybe they'll just wonder why there are a bunch of self important cyclists deliberately causing chaos, and care less for cyclists as a result?

Chaos. Lol.

iPete

What has this got to do with CM?

Plenty of positives came from the last ride, enough to justify this as a great way of going about things, so for that reason I'll be there. I'll not waste bandwidth going into those reason, you'll have to come along to find out

If you drive through PS is it not traffic, sorry chaos, every day?

roger_merriman

notsoblue wrote:

Well, some people will only ever see an interrupted commute when they look at a protest. Can't change that

well to be fair thats hardly surprising is it.

rjsterry

Wow, normally it takes a good few pages for things to get heated, but the name-calling has started already. Disappointing.

Personally, I think roger merriman has it about right: hell will freeze over before cyclists are given a full segregated infrastructure and there are significant numbers of kerbed off cycle lanes in London (BTW, there already are a few, which are widely used in Camden - no good for SCR, but perfect for 'normal people' just getting around).

I'm not a fan of segregated cycling infrastructure either, but segregation isn't the core of the LCC's campaign. If you look at the proposals for Blackfriars, Parliament Square and Bow flyover, the significant changes are an increase in the amount of road space 'reserved' for cyclists, and a simplification of the multi-lane, multi-exit junctions into a sequence of T-junctions. This should make both cyclist and motorist behaviour more predictable and reduce the number of sharp lane changes - the most dangerous type of manoeuvre IME - that are needed. The designs will also slow traffic down and I hope reduce the tendency for motorists to want to 'bomb' through a junction.

The other point to make is that these proposals are aimed at 'normal people' who already cycle, or who might cycle, but are but off by the perception of danger. Most of us on here manage fine and are happy riding at around 20mph in traffic, but it is important to realise that we are small in relation to the number of cyclists in London, let alone the general population.

Lastly, yes, flashrides have a bit of an image problem, but I think the recent Blackfriars events have shown a more 'normal' face, which is important. As for the 'chaos' that it will cause to London traffic, motorists in central London seem happy to sit in big queues with or without cyclists - I'm sure some will get irate, but they are the sort that get irate if you don't 'let' them run a red by stopping yourself, and are not worth worrying about.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Well, some people will only ever see an interrupted commute when they look at a protest. Can't change that

Well that rather depends when the protest is, doesn't it?

il_principe

@DDD I think you are missing the point. You have as much right as anyone to campaign for whatever you want out of cycling. Thing is though, you don't. AFAIK you haven't organise protest rides, lobbied MP's, written to the press, spoken on the radio etc. These people have, they know what they want, they are pretty well organised and I think they are being heard. Some have featured on radio and TV as well as the press, been invited to meet with TFL officials etc.

Remember, these campaigners want to make cycling appear safe and to appeal to the masses. They want kids and grannies to be able to cycle round London on dedicated infrastructure. They're not really concerned about what us lycra'd up roadies think. We know it's not that dangerous, but you can see how a lot of people don't want to mix with traffic on embankment at 20mph+.

Now I don't agree with a lot of their aims/demands etc. However, If they manage to make the Gov/councils etc think more and plan more for cyclists, then broadly that is a good thing.

If you want to be heard then you need to campaign & build consensus for what you want - i.e no kerbed off cycle lanes etc (or at least a proviso that cyclists are not compelled to use such lanes where they exist). If you're not willing to make an effort to campaign and be heard, then to complain is just churlish. If you want to be heard, then engage with the organisers, they may listen, they may not, but spouting off on this forum isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

W1

iPete wrote:

What has this got to do with CM?

Plenty of positives came from the last ride, enough to justify this as a great way of going about things, so for that reason I'll be there. I'll not waste bandwidth going into those reason, you'll have to come along to find out

If you drive through PS is it not traffic, sorry chaos, every day?

Plenty of negatives too, in my view. Certainly not "a great way of going about things".

And no, PS is not traffic chaos every day.

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

I have no intention of turning up - but unfortunately I'll probably get associated with it simply because I'm on a bike.

notsoblue

roger merriman wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well, some people will only ever see an interrupted commute when they look at a protest. Can't change that

well to be fair thats hardly surprising is it.

Given that I cycle past miles of stationary traffic most nights, a flashride will not make a huge load of difference in the grand scheme of things. Complaining about "Chaos" (lol) associated with any event on the roads is a bit silly.

notsoblue

For the record, I wasn't calling anyone a pr1ck, just that counter protesting (i.e. Going out and actually trying to get in the way) something like this would make you appear like one.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

What has this got to do with CM?

Plenty of positives came from the last ride, enough to justify this as a great way of going about things, so for that reason I'll be there. I'll not waste bandwidth going into those reason, you'll have to come along to find out

If you drive through PS is it not traffic, sorry chaos, every day?

Plenty of negatives too, in my view. Certainly not "a great way of going about things".

And no, PS is not traffic chaos every day.

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

I have no intention of turning up - but unfortunately I'll probably get associated with it simply because I'm on a bike.

You probably also get lumped with sandle wearing lefties who think corporations are 'evil' types by being on a bike anyway .

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

DonDaddyD

Why is everyone telling me I'm being churlish, is it the buzz word of the day?

Il Principe wrote:

@DDD I think you are missing the point. You have as much right as anyone to campaign for whatever you want out of cycling. Thing is though, you don't. AFAIK you haven't organise protest rides, lobbied MP's, written to the press, spoken on the radio etc. These people have, they know what they want, they are pretty well organised and I think they are being heard. Some have featured on radio and TV as well as the press, been invited to meet with TFL officials etc.

Remember, these campaigners want to make cycling appear safe and to appeal to the masses. They want kids and grannies to be able to cycle round London on dedicated infrastructure. They're not really concerned about what us lycra'd up roadies think. We know it's not that dangerous, but you can see how a lot of people don't want to mix with traffic on embankment at 20mph+.

Now I don't agree with a lot of their aims/demands etc. However, If they manage to make the Gov/councils etc think more and plan more for cyclists, then broadly that is a good thing.

If you want to be heard then you need to campaign & build consensus for what you want - i.e no kerbed off cycle lanes etc (or at least a proviso that cyclists are not compelled to use such lanes where they exist). If you're not willing to make an effort to campaign and be heard, then to complain is just churlish. If you want to be heard, then engage with the organisers, they may listen, they may not, but spouting off on this forum isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

(i) I get the purpose of the campaign. I understand who it is for.

(ii) It is for that reason I have concluded that it isn't for me, it doesn't represent me. Therefore I will not lend myself to this campaign.

(iii) It is a forum where discussion takes place. Within the context of the discussion I have put forward my view and position.

(iv) I am not required to agree with the masses. Disagreeing does not make me wrong, incorrect or churlish.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

What has this got to do with CM?

Plenty of positives came from the last ride, enough to justify this as a great way of going about things, so for that reason I'll be there. I'll not waste bandwidth going into those reason, you'll have to come along to find out

If you drive through PS is it not traffic, sorry chaos, every day?

Plenty of negatives too, in my view. Certainly not "a great way of going about things".

And no, PS is not traffic chaos every day.

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

I have no intention of turning up - but unfortunately I'll probably get associated with it simply because I'm on a bike.

You probably also get lumped with sandle wearing lefties who think corporations are 'evil' types by being on a bike anyway .

I know. I come on here to be particularly fascist to try and re-set the balance.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

iPete wrote:

What has this got to do with CM?

Plenty of positives came from the last ride, enough to justify this as a great way of going about things, so for that reason I'll be there. I'll not waste bandwidth going into those reason, you'll have to come along to find out

If you drive through PS is it not traffic, sorry chaos, every day?

Plenty of negatives too, in my view. Certainly not "a great way of going about things".

And no, PS is not traffic chaos every day.

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

I have no intention of turning up - but unfortunately I'll probably get associated with it simply because I'm on a bike.

You probably also get lumped with sandle wearing lefties who think corporations are 'evil' types by being on a bike anyway .

Especially a hybrid :P
[runs away giggling]

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

For the record, I wasn't calling anyone a pr1ck, just that counter protesting (i.e. Going out and actually trying to get in the way) something like this would make you appear like one.

how dare anyone have a contrary view to yours

clearly disagreeing and counter protesting makes one look like a p*ick


Think you've just alienated many people with such statements

W1

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

Management talk :O!

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

Management talk :O!

Sorry. I'll change that to "in future", in future.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well, clearly the best way to have your view represented is to not take part.

If you have a right to protest, then so do I and I think I may protest against this Flashride and the proposals it's making on behalf of 'all cyclists'.

Are they claiming to speak on behalf of 'all cyclists' though?

In a way, yes. Where was the consultation to assess all our views before running this campaign?

Sorry, but this is churlish.

Should the Soil Association contact everyone who eats organic food before they start a campaign?
Should the anti smoking groups contact all non-smokers before starting a campaign?
Should Hugh FW have contacted everyone who eats chicken before he started his free range campaign?

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well, some people will only ever see an interrupted commute when they look at a protest. Can't change that

Well that rather depends when the protest is, doesn't it?

Welcome to pluralist democracy.

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

You express such a low view of human nature and intelligence across many of your posts that you often fall back on the "naive" tag (or something parallel to naive) if anyone suggests that people might have a less than selfish, thoughtful or thought-through response to other people's actions.

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

For the record, I wasn't calling anyone a pr1ck, just that counter protesting (i.e. Going out and actually trying to get in the way) something like this would make you appear like one.

how dare anyone have a contrary view to yours

clearly disagreeing and counter protesting makes one look like a p*ick

Think you've just alienated many people with such statements

You're putting words into my mouth. You can disagree all you want, but going out of your way to disrupt someone else's peaceful protest (especially one like this) makes you a pr*ck. Sorry. I doubt I'd lose much from alienating people who would think otherwise. For clarity's sake, are you actually saying that going out to counter-protest would be a respectable thing to do in this case?

notsoblue

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

You express such a low view of human nature and intelligence across many of your posts that you often fall back on the "naive" tag (or something parallel to naive) if anyone suggests that people might have a less than selfish, thoughtful or thought-through response to other people's actions.

Probably lack of hugs. Or too much of the wrong kind.

iPete

flol

Anyway people... think of the kids... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

For the record, I wasn't calling anyone a pr1ck, just that counter protesting (i.e. Going out and actually trying to get in the way) something like this would make you appear like one.

how dare anyone have a contrary view to yours

clearly disagreeing and counter protesting makes one look like a p*ick

Think you've just alienated many people with such statements

You're putting words into my mouth. You can disagree all you want, but going out of your way to disrupt someone else's peaceful protest (especially one like this) makes you a pr*ck. Sorry. I doubt I'd lose much from alienating people who would think otherwise. For clarity's sake, are you actually saying that going out to counter-protest would be a respectable thing to do in this case?

Out of interest, what's your take on Unite Against Fascism?

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

For the record, I wasn't calling anyone a pr1ck, just that counter protesting (i.e. Going out and actually trying to get in the way) something like this would make you appear like one.

how dare anyone have a contrary view to yours

clearly disagreeing and counter protesting makes one look like a p*ick

Think you've just alienated many people with such statements

You're putting words into my mouth. You can disagree all you want, but going out of your way to disrupt someone else's peaceful protest (especially one like this) makes you a pr*ck. Sorry. I doubt I'd lose much from alienating people who would think otherwise. For clarity's sake, are you actually saying that going out to counter-protest would be a respectable thing to do in this case?

Your words, not me putting anything into your mouth


As to the last question - yes, a counter protest would be as respectable for those opposing these proposals as the protest is for those supporting the protest


Seems you sir are rather hypocritical in supporting the right to protest for those who agree with you and calling people who have different views and want to protest p*icks

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well, clearly the best way to have your view represented is to not take part.

If you have a right to protest, then so do I and I think I may protest against this Flashride and the proposals it's making on behalf of 'all cyclists'.

Are they claiming to speak on behalf of 'all cyclists' though?

In a way, yes. Where was the consultation to assess all our views before running this campaign?

Sorry, but this is churlish.

Should the Soil Association contact everyone who eats organic food before they start a campaign?
Should the anti smoking groups contact all non-smokers before starting a campaign?
Should Hugh FW have contacted everyone who eats chicken before he started his free range campaign?

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Forgive me, but when did asking a question become a bad thing?

Furthermore a consultation isn't about asking everyone, it's about asking a representative proportion (or focus group) for their views before coming to a conclusion of what is best for the collective group. (Incidentally and an unrelated point, Lansley should have done that before proposing his NHS reform changes).

AND If I had to be honest if 'they' did consult or run a survey I'd actually (and I'm being serious) be interested in reading it, the research and findings. It might even help change my views.

Lastly, The Times ran a cycling campaign and by about day 2 a number of cyclists were asking questions about the validity of the suggestions being made. Seems that the suggestions came across as one persons views imposed on the masses.

So personally, I think it a valid question.

W1

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

You express such a low view of human nature and intelligence across many of your posts that you often fall back on the "naive" tag (or something parallel to naive) if anyone suggests that people might have a less than selfish, thoughtful or thought-through response to other people's actions.

I obviously spend too much time on here.

Naiive is the correct term in this context, whilst trying not to be (too) rude or aggressive (in notable contrast to some other posters on this thread).

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

You express such a low view of human nature and intelligence across many of your posts that you often fall back on the "naive" tag (or something parallel to naive) if anyone suggests that people might have a less than selfish, thoughtful or thought-through response to other people's actions.

Probably lack of hugs. Or too much of the wrong kind.

That's just low and pathetic to be honest.

Seeing as we've gone off any reasonable discussion (Thanks RJSterry, your post at least made me question my position) and headed to personal insults should we resort to mum cusses?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't think adding a few hundred cyclists to the mix of usual rush-hour traffic won't increase resentment against cyclists then that is a rather naiive.

And there it is!! Knew we could rely on W1 to play the "naive" card.

Sorry, I'll make sure I interchange it with stupid, ignorant, small minded, blinkered, inconsiderate or similar terms going forward.

You express such a low view of human nature and intelligence across many of your posts that you often fall back on the "naive" tag (or something parallel to naive) if anyone suggests that people might have a less than selfish, thoughtful or thought-through response to other people's actions.

Probably lack of hugs. Or too much of the wrong kind.

That's just low and pathetic to be honest.

Seeing as we've gone off any reasonable discussion (Thanks RJSterry, your post at least made me question my position) should we resort to mum cusses?

At least he's consistent.