Another cyclist dies in London

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

In what way do London suburbs differ from any other large suburban setting found widely throughout Europe?

By driving on the other side of the road?

[heebeegeetee]

We get what we plan for. A key underlying aim of street schemes is often smooth traffic flow. Even if an engineer wants to prioritise those on foot or bike over motor traffic, it disrupts planners’ computer models, making such change difficult if not impossible.

This gives us a walking and cycling infrastructure that is often meaningless. For instance: pavement cycle lanes that are simultaneously inconvenient for cyclists and intimidating for those on foot, or three-stage pedestrian crossings that only suit those quick enough to cross before traffic gets the green light again.

One could argue much of our street design is directly at odds with the needs of the people who use those streets.

From the same article linked to above. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/28/wil...

[swisstoni]

heebeegeetee said:

saaby93 said:

If HBGT mentions Netherlands one more time can we treat it the same as having said Jehova ?
(where's that pile of rocks)
London isn't the same as Netherlands

In what way do London suburbs differ from any other large suburban setting found widely throughout Europe?

Someone earlier mentioned that London is a medieval city. Like much of Europe isn't.

A medieval city with a hugely comprehension public transportation infrastructure, much of it buried underground.

[DoubleD]

DoubleD said:

DoubleD said:

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snrub said:

Thanks for proving my point by immediately turning it back to all the things drivers do wrong. It can't be the cyclists fault, they can't be expected to know about blind spots.

Do you realistically expect that all cyclists will know about blind spots, indeed do you think most people know that you can lawfully use a vehicle of which a driver can not see clearly out of?

Do you think then that some training for all who ride or drive on the road would help?

So heebeegeetee what do you think?

Hate to bother you for a 3rd time heebeegeetee. Just wondering what your thoughts are on the above?

[Type R Tom]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Because we need to do our upmost to encourage cycling to improve general health, reduce obesity, reduce air pollution and reduce congestion so people who really need the roads can use them

[heebeegeetee]

DoubleD said:

Hate to bother you for a 3rd time heebeegeetee. Just wondering what your thoughts are on the above?

Oops, sorry. I have repeatedly said that as far as I'm concerned there can't be too much training available and afaiaa there is plenty available. I'm against any form of mandatory state-run stuff if it involves registration or licencing because no authority or jurisdiction anywhere has made any form of success through such schemes - again, it only serves to reduce the numbers of cyclists.

[heebeegeetee]

Type R Tom said:

Because we need to do our upmost to encourage cycling to improve general health, reduce obesity, reduce air pollution and reduce congestion so people who really need the roads can use them

Well, that's my view entirely.

[DoubleD]

heebeegeetee said:

Oops, sorry. I have repeatedly said that as far as I'm concerned there can't be too much training available and afaiaa there is plenty available. I'm against any form of mandatory state-run stuff if it involves registration or licencing because no authority or jurisdiction anywhere has made any form of success through such schemes - again, it only serves to reduce the numbers of cyclists.

So any road user should be able to choose if they wish to do any road craft training?

[Stickyfinger]

heebeegeetee said:

Oops, sorry. I have repeatedly said that as far as I'm concerned there can't be too much training available and afaiaa there is plenty available. I'm against any form of mandatory state-run stuff if it involves registration or licencing because no authority or jurisdiction anywhere has made any form of success through such schemes - again, it only serves to reduce the numbers of cyclists.

Two wheels of daft ....

[Digby]

Type R Tom said:

Because we need to do our upmost to encourage cycling to improve general health, reduce obesity, reduce air pollution and reduce congestion so people who really need the roads can use them

So if someone goes to the gym and drives an electric car, to you, they should still bugger off because cyclists want the roads to themselves?

As for reducing congestion, you'll get it with bikes. It's happening already. Then what? We should encourage walking to reduce it?

In fact, why not just walk, jog or run everywhere? Why do you need to ride at all?

It improves general health, reduces obesity, there is no air pollution, far, far less congestion than with cycling and you don't have to cater for storing bikes, repairing bikes etc, etc so it saves fortunes.

[gazza285]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Given that over two thirds of all car journeys in London are under three miles in length it's probably because they are idle.

[saaby93]

gazza285 said:

Given that over two thirds of all car journeys in London are under three miles in length it's probably because they are idle.

Would have thought that was more likely outside London where no public transport but 3 miles is still some distance of you need to get there - that's about an hour and a half on foot, 10 minutes by car
Does it explain the title of this thread?

[Stickyfinger]

Or have a load of shopping to get home ?

Remind me, how do you take two kids and carry family shopping on a bike again ?

[BGarside]

As usual the argument is all or nothing. Many short journeys do not require the use of cars but some do.

But many do not.

As for carrying shopping, I carry mine in a rucksack on my back. And who was seriously suggesting walking 3 miles takes an hour and a half!!?

Honestly I find the degree of car dependency in the UK these days both pathetic and depressing.

[Stickyfinger]

BGarside said:

As usual the argument is all or nothing. Many short journeys do not require the use of cars but some do.

But many do not.

As for carrying shopping, I carry mine in a rucksack on my back. And who was seriously suggesting walking 3 miles takes an hour and a half!!?

Honestly I find the degree of car dependency in the UK these days both pathetic and depressing.

You carry the family shopping for your hubby, the two kids and you in a rucksack and keep an eye on your kids do you ?

[gazza285]

Stickyfinger said:

BGarside said:

As usual the argument is all or nothing. Many short journeys do not require the use of cars but some do.

But many do not.

As for carrying shopping, I carry mine in a rucksack on my back. And who was seriously suggesting walking 3 miles takes an hour and a half!!?

Honestly I find the degree of car dependency in the UK these days both pathetic and depressing.

You carry the family shopping for your hubby, the two kids and you in a rucksack and keep an eye on your kids do you ?

2 million car trips a day in London are less than three miles and have only the driver in them.


Saaby93, if it takes you and hour and a half to walk three miles, then you must be either infirm or obese, and it'll take you twenty minute to travel 3 miles at the average inner London traffic speed.

[Engineer792]

gazza285 said:

2 million car trips a day in London are less than three miles and have only the driver in them.

How many of those 2 million trips are commuting trips in congested areas at peak travel times, and how many are short trips to shops, recreation and similar, undertaken at relatively quiet times and in relatively quiet areas?

In other words, how much of the problem do those two million trips really contribute to?

[Stickyfinger]

gazza285 said:

2 million car trips a day in London are less than three miles and have only the driver in them.

this is a bull@@@@ statistic, is says nothing, proves nothing, advises nothing and no conclusions can be drawn from it....

[gazza285]

Engineer792 said:

gazza285 said:

2 million car trips a day in London are less than three miles and have only the driver in them.

How many of those 2 million trips are commuting trips in congested areas at peak travel times, and how many are short trips to shops, recreation and similar, undertaken at relatively quiet times and in relatively quiet areas?

In other words, how much of the problem do those two million trips really contribute to?

Less or more than the 610,000 cycle journey per day?

[frisbee]

Stickyfinger said:

this is a bull@@@@ statistic, is says nothing, proves nothing, advises nothing and no conclusions can be drawn from it....

Right at home in a PH cycling thread then!