Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Boshly said:
Assuming you mean "show me where integration has been more successful than integration..." I would suggest that it may be harder to show where segregation has achieved anything as I am not sure that this has been achieved anywhere. I guess I mean complete segregation and not just the odd cycle lanes. The reason being that they will always meet at some stage?
Actually before going down this debate any further some clarification on what people mean by segregation will help.
I have no doubt that segregation such as the camel trail between Wadebridge and Padstow where an old rail line (have I got that right?) carries bikes and walkers only, would naturally be safer.
I am currently posting on my phone from Amsterdam. I look out the window at a sActually before going down this debate any further some clarification on what people mean by segregation will help.
I have no doubt that segregation such as the camel trail between Wadebridge and Padstow where an old rail line (have I got that right?) carries bikes and walkers only, would naturally be safer.
t load of segregation which you claim doesn't work. This city has a whole load of alternative to the motor car.I live in Birmingham which has a larger population and has virtually no trams and very few cyclists. It is the fattest city in Europe.
I don't know whether you'd consider obesity to be a matter of safety or not, but you might want to have a google of what obesity costs in fiscal terms and loss of life/years.
I'm wholly against segregation, it simply enforces the motorists opinion that the roads are theirs, they have paid for this privilege and as a result they no longer need to maintain the same level of concentration whilst driving because a potential hazard has been removed, if they do hit something, they are surrounded by metal, airbags and chances are neither party will suffer that much.
ZX10R NIN said:
Obesity?? How many gyms are there in Birmingham? How about pavements or Parks where people can go & exercise!! If there are lots of fat people that's their lookout. Very off topic though.
For all we know the Dutch might spend as much time in gyms as everyone else but also exercise on the way to and from.Segregation has shown to be safer, healthier, less polluting and massively cheaper all considered. The more cyclists any society has, the better it is in every respect. Licensing is an impediment to this and no authority anywhere has achieved any improvement in anything by introducing it.
Sorry but I'm a cyclist, you're not, I dont want to be segregated form the cars, I dont feel the need to be segregated from the cars and I am not a second class road user, which segregation in the UK could infer.
The fundamental problem in the UK is a low standard of roadcraft from all road users, how can the we possibly expect to see an improvement in standards if we segregate road users?
The fundamental problem in the UK is a low standard of roadcraft from all road users, how can the we possibly expect to see an improvement in standards if we segregate road users?
pablo said:
Sorry but I'm a cyclist, you're not, I dont want to be segregated form the cars, I dont feel the need to be segregated from the cars and I am not a second class road user, which segregation in the UK could infer.
The fundamental problem in the UK is a low standard of roadcraft from all road users, how can the we possibly expect to see an improvement in standards if we segregate road users?
Dutch cycle paths are like proper roads but without cars, good enough for pro cyclists to go out training on. If anything the cars are second class.The fundamental problem in the UK is a low standard of roadcraft from all road users, how can the we possibly expect to see an improvement in standards if we segregate road users?
pablo said:
Sorry but I'm a cyclist, you're not, I dont want to be segregated form the cars, I dont feel the need to be segregated from the cars and I am not a second class road user, which segregation in the UK could infer.
The fundamental problem in the UK is a low standard of roadcraft from all road users, how can the we possibly expect to see an improvement in standards if we segregate road users?
Do you walk in the road or do you enjoy the better safety the segregation a sidewalk affords?The fundamental problem in the UK is a low standard of roadcraft from all road users, how can the we possibly expect to see an improvement in standards if we segregate road users?
I have to say, it's never occurred to me to feel second class by using the pavement.
Seeing the level of cycle use here in Amsterdam is absolutely fantastic though. Seeing families out cycling together in a large city, (dressed in their normal, ordinary clothes) is fantastic.
Not helmet, hi viz, lycra or a stich of daft clothing to be seen anywhere. Lots of tight jeans on fit women though.
The amount of cyclists out at 1am last night was extraordinary. Far less traffic fumes too. It's a whole different world, so easily achieved.
pablo said:
Sorry but I'm a cyclist, you're not, I dont want to be segregated form the cars, I dont feel the need to be segregated from the cars and I am not a second class road user, which segregation in the UK could infer.
I'm a keen cyclist and I don't need segregation. I don't - but my daughter, my mother and (to a lesser extent) my girlfriend all do. Mixing with the traffic is fine when you are fit, confident and experienced but we are the exception. Cyclists will remain a minority until we start building facilities for everyone, not just those who already do.HBGBT is correct with his pavement analogy.
except the average pace of a pedestrian is far slower than the average pace of a cyclist and the purpose of many pavements is to allow entry/exit from shops and it is perfectly allowable to come to an immediate and complete stop on the pavement... then yeah, a perfect analogy...
Segregation works when it is designed in to the infrastructure at the point of design, as in most of Norhtern Europe, sadly we werent as advanced as that and we have to shoe horn in any segregation long after the road network has been established
Segregation works when it is designed in to the infrastructure at the point of design, as in most of Norhtern Europe, sadly we werent as advanced as that and we have to shoe horn in any segregation long after the road network has been established
pablo said:
except the average pace of a pedestrian is far slower than the average pace of a cyclist and the purpose of many pavements is to allow entry/exit from shops and it is perfectly allowable to come to an immediate and complete stop on the pavement... then yeah, a perfect analogy...
Segregation works when it is designed in to the infrastructure at the point of design, as in most of Norhtern Europe, sadly we werent as advanced as that and we have to shoe horn in any segregation long after the road network has been established
Like the Dutch did? They did it about 40 years ago. We weren't all living in fields back then. Segregation works when it is designed in to the infrastructure at the point of design, as in most of Norhtern Europe, sadly we werent as advanced as that and we have to shoe horn in any segregation long after the road network has been established
Btw, segregation isn't using the pavement because it's illegal to cycle on the pavement.... Segregation in this sense means riding on part of the road that's not accessible by cars but well done on missing the point and avoiding the issue.
Of course you don't feel like a second class citizen using the pavement, you are using the designated space for the activity, do if cycling on the pavement is illegal, where do we cycle?...... now try cycling on roads that motorists believe are for their sole use and tell me you're not treated as a second class citizen.
As I said, segregation just removes a hazard from that particular location it does not encourage better road craft.... As an example, I use a traffic free cycle route almost daily. It has numerous junctions etc,very few cyclists on the psth signal, indicate or demonstrate any noticeable level of spatial awareness because the biggest danger, the cars, are removed but that just means they crash into each other albeit with slightly less severe injuries....
Of course you don't feel like a second class citizen using the pavement, you are using the designated space for the activity, do if cycling on the pavement is illegal, where do we cycle?...... now try cycling on roads that motorists believe are for their sole use and tell me you're not treated as a second class citizen.
As I said, segregation just removes a hazard from that particular location it does not encourage better road craft.... As an example, I use a traffic free cycle route almost daily. It has numerous junctions etc,very few cyclists on the psth signal, indicate or demonstrate any noticeable level of spatial awareness because the biggest danger, the cars, are removed but that just means they crash into each other albeit with slightly less severe injuries....
yonex said:
No. It just means that people who drive big things need to pay more attention and that cycling infrastructure needs to be improved. Amazing that on a motoring forum people have such a low skill set they consider cyclists a problem to navigate. As for tax, that'll be taken up by the motorist.
I often find myself in situations where I don't have time to count how many cyclists are in front of me, beside me or behind me.You can scan several mirrors, look at a few cameras, look back for your second or third check and the entire situation has changed.I once compared it to standing behind someone, throwing a handful of rice over the top of their head and asking them to quickly count how many grains.Is your skill set good enough for that?It's amazing to me that people assume these types of situations are simple one on one affairs.It's not hard to keep track of a cyclist or three, but in a city centre situation it often proves impossible to know where they all are or have vanished to etc.
Compared to what I see from certain cyclists, my skill set is exemplary.I rarely get given back the respect I dish out and the levels of stupidity I regularly come across are astonishing.How can the message that you should not take chances with a massive great truck, not be getting through?
yonex said:
Yeah more fool them, this people dying thing, stays with you...
You offer nothing, can't see why the weakest road users should be protected and aren't prepared to have a look at yourself as a driver, to see what you could do. You moan and whine about people who are trying to explain and have even suggested that the more forward thinking nations who have adopted a more positive attitude towards road use, have got it wrong. Wonderful. Basically you and people like you are a major part of the problem. Times have changed and even forum Luddites will concede eventually. They will be legislated to do so..
Ok fella, fair play. You offer nothing, can't see why the weakest road users should be protected and aren't prepared to have a look at yourself as a driver, to see what you could do. You moan and whine about people who are trying to explain and have even suggested that the more forward thinking nations who have adopted a more positive attitude towards road use, have got it wrong. Wonderful. Basically you and people like you are a major part of the problem. Times have changed and even forum Luddites will concede eventually. They will be legislated to do so..
At no point whatsoever have I mentioned or taken into account other countries attitudes towards cyclists so that point is utterly irrelevant, inaccurate and pathetic in reference to my own posts.
However for the record I spent many a happy time in the summers cycling between Amstersdam, Zwolle and Essen, so yes, I am aware of how cyclists are treated and integrated in some parts of Europe, not all, just some,but that has no bearing whatsoever with the situation in London as London is years behind in developing and intergrating such transport systems, we have to come up with and entirely different solution so you are being a complete idiot if you think any such comparison can validate your point!
Secondly, I don't moan and whine, I challenge you to thoroughly explain how I am a part of the problem, please for all to see can you explain yourself?
Your problem is that you dont like being challenged, you do not like being made to think, being made to look at yourself when churning out the same old rubbish about how pathetic the plight of the cyclist is when in fact it is not.
The fact that so many chose to ride bikes when commuting is a godsend, it plays its own part in trying to ease the massive issue of rush hour traffic and of course wider issue such as emissions. It takes a much braver man than me to tackle London commuter traffic no matter what you are using, but yet again you see any post that mentions anything negative towards the cyclist as a slur, an insult, a brainless "ludite" statement!
You mention legislation, well, come on then, explain what legislation we as HGV drivers have had to undertake in the last few years, explain the emission legislation that is ongoing, explain the complete re design of various vehicles by manufacturers in order to try to confront the fatal accident issue and when you have done all of that please feel free to list the legislation in the last few years that cyclists have had to undertake, might be a little one sided? But why let that get in the way of making some pointless some what emotive anti- driver rants on here?
As for me looking at myself, and people dying it stays with you....well I said that because I have mentioned before on this forum that many years ago I was the innocent driver in a fatal accident that killed my passenger, my best friend, I was trapped with him for over 4 hours and took nearly 2 years to get back to full physical fitness.
Mentally, it still gets me now, 20 years later. I mentioned that because you appear, along with many others to hold the naive and tragic view that only the dead cyclist is the victim, that's not true, the driver, if innocent, will live with the death for the rest of his life, it will haunt him as it does me. You appear to think that everyone else is the issue and we should all bow down, that's utter garbage.
We have one side of the problem that is regulated, and continues to be. The other side is virtually unregulated and wishes to continue that way, so no matter what the regulated side does nothing will change.
All I wanted to point out was that there was a pattern of " we are doing nothing wrong" from the cycling side and as long as that continued then nothing could realistically change.
I picked you out Yonex as you appear to be among the most vocal, sadly I mis judged you on the intellect side of things so carry on with the vitriol, it's water of a ducks back, I am happy with my lot, I only offer judgment on what is in front of me, what is said to me.
Time to depart as yet again, reason and the challenge of debate is pointless.
Good luck Heebee.........
Here's a thought.
UK motorists may not be the greatest (tho I've found no other country better, if I'm honest) - however we are given basic training, face the loss of our licence if we offend, are required to use safety gear (seatbelts, child seats) and our vehicles are inspected and must pass muster at any time - there is a framework, however shonky, to keep people safe.
Meanwhile, there is precisely zero mandatory training/inspection/policing of cyclists - you could ride an unsafe cycle without safety equipment in an unsafe manner every single day of your (shorter than average I'd suspect) life and the chances of you being penalised - or even told you're in the wrong by a man in a hat - are pretty much zero!!
There - imo - is your issue. Without fear of sanction, people do whatever they like - without training they just assume they're in the right. No-one gives a st about actual laws, they only give a st about what they're likely to be fined/banned/jailed for - and cyclists have no real fear of any of that so not only continue to take their lives in their hands, they do so thinking they're completely in the right.
Maybe it's time we made a licence mandatory for cycling on the road - a simple road safety test at school, you get a licence, you can get points in it of course - moreover tho, you've been trained a bit - you're now part of the system - you MIGHT behave??
UK motorists may not be the greatest (tho I've found no other country better, if I'm honest) - however we are given basic training, face the loss of our licence if we offend, are required to use safety gear (seatbelts, child seats) and our vehicles are inspected and must pass muster at any time - there is a framework, however shonky, to keep people safe.
Meanwhile, there is precisely zero mandatory training/inspection/policing of cyclists - you could ride an unsafe cycle without safety equipment in an unsafe manner every single day of your (shorter than average I'd suspect) life and the chances of you being penalised - or even told you're in the wrong by a man in a hat - are pretty much zero!!
There - imo - is your issue. Without fear of sanction, people do whatever they like - without training they just assume they're in the right. No-one gives a s
t about actual laws, they only give a st about what they're likely to be fined/banned/jailed for - and cyclists have no real fear of any of that so not only continue to take their lives in their hands, they do so thinking they're completely in the right.Maybe it's time we made a licence mandatory for cycling on the road - a simple road safety test at school, you get a licence, you can get points in it of course - moreover tho, you've been trained a bit - you're now part of the system - you MIGHT behave??
Edited by 405dogvan on Monday 1st June 03:38
405 - good point.
HBGT - equally good points. The fact the "second class citizen" jibe was used shows the victim mentality and the "it's never my fault" syndrome of the more hardcore cyclist.
Having carried out my profession in the UK cycling mecca of Cambridge, you soon realise that the main issue is not the cars, or the infrastructure, or even the education. Cambridge is, after all full of highly educated people. It is the ignorance of and antipathy towards the well-known rules of the road by many people on two wheels. Most things mentioned above are par for the course - riding on pavements, running red lights, no High viz or cycle lights, riding the wrong way along 1 way streets, riding through ped-only areas, riding with headphones - this is not my "prejudice", this is all public opinion brought up any time there is any sort of consultation on traffic issues or road safety.
I would cycle ten miles a day to and from work with a yellow jacket (£2) a set of £5 cycle lights, and would use off road cycleways, and I never even once though "whoops, that was close".
Cyclists: help us to help you - use the infrastructure that is there, the more that it is seen to be used and beneficial, the more likely it is that it will be replicated; and learn to help (and protect) yourselves before getting all victim and crying about the nasty nasty cagers. While cyclists are seen to take the piss, the more public resistance there is to spend public money on facilities that are only going to be ignored.
HBGT - equally good points. The fact the "second class citizen" jibe was used shows the victim mentality and the "it's never my fault" syndrome of the more hardcore cyclist.
Having carried out my profession in the UK cycling mecca of Cambridge, you soon realise that the main issue is not the cars, or the infrastructure, or even the education. Cambridge is, after all full of highly educated people. It is the ignorance of and antipathy towards the well-known rules of the road by many people on two wheels. Most things mentioned above are par for the course - riding on pavements, running red lights, no High viz or cycle lights, riding the wrong way along 1 way streets, riding through ped-only areas, riding with headphones - this is not my "prejudice", this is all public opinion brought up any time there is any sort of consultation on traffic issues or road safety.
I would cycle ten miles a day to and from work with a yellow jacket (£2) a set of £5 cycle lights, and would use off road cycleways, and I never even once though "whoops, that was close".
Cyclists: help us to help you - use the infrastructure that is there, the more that it is seen to be used and beneficial, the more likely it is that it will be replicated; and learn to help (and protect) yourselves before getting all victim and crying about the nasty nasty cagers. While cyclists are seen to take the piss, the more public resistance there is to spend public money on facilities that are only going to be ignored.
OpulentBob said:
405 - good point.
HBGT - equally good points. The fact the "second class citizen" jibe was used shows the victim mentality and the "it's never my fault" syndrome of the more hardcore cyclist.
Having carried out my profession in the UK cycling mecca of Cambridge, you soon realise that the main issue is not the cars, or the infrastructure, or even the education. Cambridge is, after all full of highly educated people. It is the ignorance of and antipathy towards the well-known rules of the road by many people on two wheels. Most things mentioned above are par for the course - riding on pavements, running red lights, no High viz or cycle lights, riding the wrong way along 1 way streets, riding through ped-only areas, riding with headphones - this is not my "prejudice", this is all public opinion brought up any time there is any sort of consultation on traffic issues or road safety.
I would cycle ten miles a day to and from work with a yellow jacket (£2) a set of £5 cycle lights, and would use off road cycleways, and I never even once though "whoops, that was close".
Cyclists: help us to help you - use the infrastructure that is there, the more that it is seen to be used and beneficial, the more likely it is that it will be replicated; and learn to help (and protect) yourselves before getting all victim and crying about the nasty nasty cagers. While cyclists are seen to take the piss, the more public resistance there is to spend public money on facilities that are only going to be ignored.
I guess (and hope!) You don't mean HBGTbut are referring to Norfolk. HBGT - equally good points. The fact the "second class citizen" jibe was used shows the victim mentality and the "it's never my fault" syndrome of the more hardcore cyclist.
Having carried out my profession in the UK cycling mecca of Cambridge, you soon realise that the main issue is not the cars, or the infrastructure, or even the education. Cambridge is, after all full of highly educated people. It is the ignorance of and antipathy towards the well-known rules of the road by many people on two wheels. Most things mentioned above are par for the course - riding on pavements, running red lights, no High viz or cycle lights, riding the wrong way along 1 way streets, riding through ped-only areas, riding with headphones - this is not my "prejudice", this is all public opinion brought up any time there is any sort of consultation on traffic issues or road safety.
I would cycle ten miles a day to and from work with a yellow jacket (£2) a set of £5 cycle lights, and would use off road cycleways, and I never even once though "whoops, that was close".
Cyclists: help us to help you - use the infrastructure that is there, the more that it is seen to be used and beneficial, the more likely it is that it will be replicated; and learn to help (and protect) yourselves before getting all victim and crying about the nasty nasty cagers. While cyclists are seen to take the piss, the more public resistance there is to spend public money on facilities that are only going to be ignored.
Most poignant point, and i agree with most of what you say, is "Cyclists: help us to help you"
frisbee said:
So how does this magical training stop me being mowed down by someone dicking around on their phone?
Here's another negative scenario how does magical training stop you being mowed down by someone on their phone while your jumping a Red Light 
Everyone can be negative going by your scenario everyone should be able to ride/drive what they like with no training.
frisbee said:
So how does this magical training stop me being mowed down by someone dicking around on their phone?
Maybe, and it's a tiny maybe, your heightened awareness and the fact thatyou have taken your headphones off, might have alerted you to his erratic driving and you give him/her a wide berth thus avoiding the problem?More realistically, you can never eradicate all stupidity, but we can hope that legislation (that exists but maybe needs better enforcement) and more regular training and awareness will make these issues less frequent.
I think you have somewhat missed the issue here however; as we are debating wether cyclists, as well as all road users, can improve their lot by being more aware and more accountable. We are not trying to solve the extreme examples of poor road use that will always exist and pose a problem to anyone.
A better example would be whether this "magical training" as you refer to it, can, for instance, prevent cyclists from being caught in large vehicles' blind spots when making a turn. Education, awareness and accountability WILL surely make a difference in that scenario, and if I'm not mistaken doesn't that take into account quite a few of these unnecessary and regrettable London deaths?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff