Is It Just Me That Thinks This Cycle Highway Is A Joke?
Discussion
No arguments from me there, I've had my share - most recently I was stationary at a red light and the car behind drove straight into me, previous to that it's been side-swipes.
In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.
Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.
In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.
Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.
Dammit said:
No arguments from me there, I've had my share - most recently I was stationary at a red light and the car behind drove straight into me, previous to that it's been side-swipes.
In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.
Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.
WTF! (In response to your rear ending!) Dare I ask where they were looking if they weren't looking where they were moving their cars??In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.
Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.
Problem is that it doesn't solve anything. Sure, if you were on a separate lane it'd have stopped you getting hit but at some point those idiots will hit a pedestrian, a motorcyclist or another car. They shouldn't be on the road.
It just smells a bit like a fat tax on fatty food to combat obesity.
Dammit said:
Erm, you what?
How are "other road users paying for the road network"?
I suspect you don't understand how the roads are funded - cyclists pay taxes just like everyone else, often more as cyclists typically earn more than none cyclists.
Motorcycles in bus lanes - I'm ok-ish with this, the majority of motorcyclists can share the road quite well, but some of them simply try to bully there way past, and a motorcycle does take up significantly more road-space than a bicycle.
Motorcycles in the bike lane - no, that's a crazy idea given that a major part of the goal for these things is to get nervous/first time cyclists onto the roads. Having your first cycle with a bloke on a motorcycle trying to push you into the gutter is insane.
OP - you say your commute is "too far" to cycle, how far is it?
It's from near Brands Hatch into Central London & from there home or sometimes out to Royston that's my commuteHow are "other road users paying for the road network"?
I suspect you don't understand how the roads are funded - cyclists pay taxes just like everyone else, often more as cyclists typically earn more than none cyclists.
Motorcycles in bus lanes - I'm ok-ish with this, the majority of motorcyclists can share the road quite well, but some of them simply try to bully there way past, and a motorcycle does take up significantly more road-space than a bicycle.
Motorcycles in the bike lane - no, that's a crazy idea given that a major part of the goal for these things is to get nervous/first time cyclists onto the roads. Having your first cycle with a bloke on a motorcycle trying to push you into the gutter is insane.
OP - you say your commute is "too far" to cycle, how far is it?
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 16:32
Banana Boy said:
So you've posted on a cycling forum looking for support rubbishing a scheme designed to help and protect cyclists...
Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)
www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.
We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.
Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!
When I say Road tax I meant VED, as I said only 30% of VED actually goes towards the roads.Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)
www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.
We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.
Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!
I didn't post this on the cycling forum I posted it on the General Gassing Forum. I stand by what I said I haven't said the road planning is the cyclists fault & I applauded the way you've made the public believe that Cyclists are the road user most likely to be seriously injured when your not.
You're right in saying All Road Users need to raise their awareness levels but I don't believe pushing for separation is the best policy as I said pushing for better road planning from all parties is the only true way of making traffic flow through London is better than adding to the traffic levels.
Unless of course the OP is actually suggesting that he will be more at risk because car/van/lorry drivers will be aiming for bikers instead of cyclists!?
[/quote]
But the facts are more Motorcyclists died last year on London's Roads than Cyclists by a ratio of nearly 2to1 so by taking away road space do you really think that figure will decrease?
Dammit said:
No arguments from me there, I've had my share - most recently I was stationary at a red light and the car behind drove straight into me, previous to that it's been side-swipes.
In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.
Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.
I've been knocked off my Motorbike twice once very seriously by a driver that was trying to work his Idrive who ended up over my side of the road & took me out.In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.
Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.
The other time was because a cyclist jumped a red light I hit him( he'd only seen the cars & figured he could get across the junction before the cars went but hadn't seen me filtering through) went down only light injuries but 3k's worth of damage to the bike.
Now I have my regular close shaves with car drivers not paying enough attention but I also see cyclists pedestrians & commercial drivers doing the same this is human nature there are always going to be bad riders & drivers.
This shouldn't be an excuse for bad planning
Hoofy said:
I think the problem comes when a driver knocks down a cyclist who was minding his own business!
What about the driver that hits anyone minding there own business, the problem is with bad road planning & groups wanting separation as well as calling for this group that group to be banned, that attitude helps no one what we need better integration and better road planning so as I've been saying making traffic flow is the most important thing rather than any one groups interests.Rather than the system we have at the moment in which faceless wonders bow to political will
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 16:37
ZX10R NIN said:
Hoofy said:
I think the problem comes when a driver knocks down a cyclist who was minding his own business!
What about the driver that hits anyone minding there own business, the problem is with bad road planning & groups wanting separation & this & that to be banned, that attitude helps no one what we need better integration and better planning so as I've been saying making traffic flow is the most important thing rather than any one groups interests.ZX10R NIN said:
I wonder why this topic was put into the Pedal Power Forum rather than the General Gassing Forum I posted it on could it be that PH doesn't want this subject debated?
Rather they want it to die as it's done to death every week and eventually dragged down to moronic levels by a few worrying thick people. ZX10R NIN said:
CYCLISTS AREN'T THE MOST VULNERABLE ROAD USER MOTOR CYCLISTS ARE.
I wouldn't argue with your statistics, but speaking anecdotaly, I suspect that this new cycle route - if it slows motorbikes down - is possibly the best thing you could do to improve the safety of motorcyclists in Central London.I've been commuting fairly regularly into Central London by pushbike for the last three years. In that time, I've seen 5 other cyclists in accidents and 3 motorcyclists.
Three of the cyclists were taken down by motorists turning left across them, actually all in the same place - Clapham Common Southside turning onto Rookery Row - and the other two were caused by other cyclists not looking and pulling out into them.
The motorcyclists, on the other hand, all went down the same way. They floored it (or whatever the equivalent for motorcyclists is!
) when they got a bit of space, only for a motorist to pull out of a side road into them because they've completely underestimated their speed.Fortunately, none of the people I've seen come off were seriously injured, but one thing was pretty clear. The best way to help cyclists would've been complete segregation, but the best way to help motorcyclists could be perfectly helped by just slowing them down a bit.
ZX10R NIN said:
When I say Road tax I meant VED, as I said only 30% of VED actually goes towards the roads.
^This is totally untrue, VED is not hypothecated, it goes straight into general taxation.That your tenner a month goes on the roads is fantasy, a fantasy that is sadly used by bigots to justify their own selfishness.
I'd abolish VED and put 2p on a litre of fuel tomorrow if I was King.
Dammit said:
^This is totally untrue, VED is not hypothecated, it goes straight into general taxation.
That your tenner a month goes on the roads is fantasy, a fantasy that is sadly used by bigots to justify their own selfishness.
I'd abolish VED and put 2p on a litre of fuel tomorrow if I was King.
That your tenner a month goes on the roads is fantasy, a fantasy that is sadly used by bigots to justify their own selfishness.
I'd abolish VED and put 2p on a litre of fuel tomorrow if I was King.
I'd vote for that lets make you king Kermit power said:
I wouldn't argue with your statistics, but speaking anecdotaly, I suspect that this new cycle route - if it slows motorbikes down - is possibly the best thing you could do to improve the safety of motorcyclists in Central London.
I've been commuting fairly regularly into Central London by pushbike for the last three years. In that time, I've seen 5 other cyclists in accidents and 3 motorcyclists.
Three of the cyclists were taken down by motorists turning left across them, actually all in the same place - Clapham Common Southside turning onto Rookery Row - and the other two were caused by other cyclists not looking and pulling out into them.
The motorcyclists, on the other hand, all went down the same way. They floored it (or whatever the equivalent for motorcyclists is! ) when they got a bit of space, only for a motorist to pull out of a side road into them because they've completely underestimated their speed.
Fortunately, none of the people I've seen come off were seriously injured, but one thing was pretty clear. The best way to help cyclists would've been complete segregation, but the best way to help motorcyclists could be perfectly helped by just slowing them down a bit.
Quick acceleration doesn't mean your speeding also I was taken out on a clear piece of road, this is always the common perception that all motorcyclists are speeding.I've been commuting fairly regularly into Central London by pushbike for the last three years. In that time, I've seen 5 other cyclists in accidents and 3 motorcyclists.
Three of the cyclists were taken down by motorists turning left across them, actually all in the same place - Clapham Common Southside turning onto Rookery Row - and the other two were caused by other cyclists not looking and pulling out into them.
The motorcyclists, on the other hand, all went down the same way. They floored it (or whatever the equivalent for motorcyclists is!
) when they got a bit of space, only for a motorist to pull out of a side road into them because they've completely underestimated their speed.Fortunately, none of the people I've seen come off were seriously injured, but one thing was pretty clear. The best way to help cyclists would've been complete segregation, but the best way to help motorcyclists could be perfectly helped by just slowing them down a bit.
I was also taken out by a cyclist jumping a red light so does that make it my fault?
ZX10R NIN said:
No you're paying council tax which can be spent anywhere the Mayor decides, other Road Users are paying for the Road Network admittedly only 30% of it is going on the actual roads but I'm still paying.
I have cars & a motorbike(my choice to have more than one vehicle) I have to pay for all of them to use the road network.
A 100 million spent making the roads Half a metre wider on each side of the road along the main arteries of London obviously this can only happen in places where the pavement is wide enough but it would be a start.
Please tell me why this super cycle lane is such a good idea?
And we're back to this utterly ridiculous notion that somehow the ownership of a bicycle means you automatically know the tax liabilities of that person.I have cars & a motorbike(my choice to have more than one vehicle) I have to pay for all of them to use the road network.
A 100 million spent making the roads Half a metre wider on each side of the road along the main arteries of London obviously this can only happen in places where the pavement is wide enough but it would be a start.
Please tell me why this super cycle lane is such a good idea?
It is impossible for 'other road users' to pay anything at all towards the road network; no mechanism exists to do that.
To own a a car on which VED is levied is purely a matter of choice. There is an enormous choice of vehicles that either have no ved or ved so low it is effectively free.
But I do wish somebody could explain to me, that when you see someone with a bicycle, how on earth do you come to the conclusion that you are paying more tax than them? To draw that conclusion you have to know how much tax they pay, and how can you possibly know that?
ZX10 do you have the information to hand for me to make a non biased decision on the deaths of motorcyclists vs cyclists within London for the past year? In particular I would like the information that states who was at fault in each death.
I'm pro biker and a cyclist but I don't think your argument that a motorcyclist is more "vulnerable" is correct. Having more deaths does not necessarily make you more vulnerable.
I'm pro biker and a cyclist but I don't think your argument that a motorcyclist is more "vulnerable" is correct. Having more deaths does not necessarily make you more vulnerable.
ZX10R NIN said:
Quick acceleration doesn't mean your speeding also I was taken out on a clear piece of road, this is always the common perception that all motorcyclists are speeding.
I was also taken out by a cyclist jumping a red light so does that make it my fault?
Unless I'm mistaken there was no mention of speeding. Quite heavy on the paranoid/victim mentality.I was also taken out by a cyclist jumping a red light so does that make it my fault?
If you like you can tell us more about your crash and we can tell you if you could've done more to avoid it.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff