Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
That entirely depends on how big the problem gets and how many will be killed. Only took one pedestrian to be run over by an idiot on a illegal bike to spark talks about new legislation.
that was largely a knee-jerk reactionDigby said:
If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?
As for the law, why not. If suitable lanes are provided, make it law.Doesn't mean the law will be followed. Around 1.5m drivers receive PCNs for driving down bus lanes every year, the law doesn't guarantee compliance.
....but make the lanes suitable and cyclists will flock to them in huge volumes. When it comes to safety, the carrot is better than the stick.
As the voice said... "If you build it, they will come"
Ares said:
I'd love to see the source to base your opinion that "cyclists didn't want this to happen as they didn't want their rights taken away"?? I suspect that is just hyperbole.
Cyclist don't use roads over cycle lanes because it's their 'right'....that is more bulls
t you've created between your ears.
Am I being called a liar again? Remember you doffed your hat to me once already...Cyclist don't use roads over cycle lanes because it's their 'right'....that is more bulls
t you've created between your ears.I know Heebee is on commission for how many times he can call me a liar with zero evidence, but I expected more, here.
Digby said:
Ares said:
I'd love to see the source to base your opinion that "cyclists didn't want this to happen as they didn't want their rights taken away"?? I suspect that is just hyperbole.
Cyclist don't use roads over cycle lanes because it's their 'right'....that is more bullst you've created between your ears.
Am I being called a liar again? Remember you doffed your hat to me once already...Cyclist don't use roads over cycle lanes because it's their 'right'....that is more bulls
t you've created between your ears.I know Heebee is on commission for how many times he can call me a liar with zero evidence, but I expected more, here.
Anyway...back to the question....?
Ares said:
....that is more bullst you've created between your ears.
Is that not much the same as lying? Why would I lie about anything? I asked you to point out all my lies and asked Heebee the same. So far, not a thing, despite regular accusations.t you've created between your ears.His are easy to find, but when you do, he blames the pub.
Digby said:
Ares said:
....that is more bullst you've created between your ears.
Is that not much the same as lying? Why would I lie about anything? I asked you to point out all my lies and asked Heebee the same. So far, not a thing, despite regular accusations.t you've created between your ears.His are easy to find, but when you do, he blames the pub.
So, as you don't know what anyone else thinks, and for the 3rd time of asking, where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
I'll start you off and let you go search for yourself...
In the early 30's, the CTC didn't want cycle tracks. They wanted to use the roads and one of the first lanes created in London was actually blocked by riders so none of them could use it. Whilst it is true some complained of its construction etc, the truth is, they didn't want their right to use the highway taken away.
They even went on to suggest road networks should be used for bikes and "motorways" should be created just for cars. Of course, once the war played its part and cycle tracks were abandoned in favour of motorways, they didn't like that, either.
There were many complaints from many cycling groups regarding not wanting dedicated cycle lanes. If you dig deep enough, you can find out all about the several hundred miles of cycle paths the UK had, too..
You also uncover some wonderful snippets, such as:
"It could be said that CTC's campaign in the 1930s to retain cyclists' rights to the road network was too successful. Cyclists were never restricted from the non-motorway road network and in part because of this local authorities never built adequate facilities for them when those roads became bigger and bigger and the volume of motor traffic soared"
"At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
They didn't want lights, either! It would be the motorists fault if he or she hit someone they couldn't see.
I'm sure there may be a few posters on here related to some of those old CTC members
If you want to save some time and searching, the succinct version: lots and lots and lots of cycling groups and riders moaned a lot.
Ares said:
No. It's saying you're basing "fact" on your groundless opinion.
So, as you don't know what anyone else thinks, and for the 3rd time of asking, where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
It's called research and reading. I honestly thought almost all cycling fans would know about this. It's probably the most important part of the history of cycling in the UK, yet so many are completely unaware.So, as you don't know what anyone else thinks, and for the 3rd time of asking, where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
Ares said:
No. It's saying you're basing "fact" on your groundless opinion.
Which is better than "bullst between your ears" based on nothing more than a dislike for what you read, no?Edited by Digby on Wednesday 25th October 17:50
Digby said:
I'll start you off and let you go search for yourself...
In the early 30's, the CTC didn't want cycle tracks. They wanted to use the roads and one of the first lanes created in London was actually blocked by riders so none of them could use it. Whilst it is true some complained of its construction etc, the truth is, they didn't want their right to use the highway taken away.
They even went on to suggest road networks should be used for bikes and "motorways" should be created just for cars. Of course, once the war played its part and cycle tracks were abandoned in favour of motorways, they didn't like that, either.
There were many complaints from many cycling groups regarding not wanting dedicated cycle lanes. If you dig deep enough, you can find out all about the several hundred miles of cycle paths the UK had, too..
You also uncover some wonderful snippets, such as:
"It could be said that CTC's campaign in the 1930s to retain cyclists' rights to the road network was too successful. Cyclists were never restricted from the non-motorway road network and in part because of this local authorities never built adequate facilities for them when those roads became bigger and bigger and the volume of motor traffic soared"
"At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
They didn't want lights, either! It would be the motorists fault if he or she hit someone they couldn't see.
I'm sure there may be a few posters on here related to some of those old CTC members
If you want to save some time and searching, the succinct version: lots and lots and lots of cycling groups and riders moaned a lot.
So in the 1930s...etc. In the early 30's, the CTC didn't want cycle tracks. They wanted to use the roads and one of the first lanes created in London was actually blocked by riders so none of them could use it. Whilst it is true some complained of its construction etc, the truth is, they didn't want their right to use the highway taken away.
They even went on to suggest road networks should be used for bikes and "motorways" should be created just for cars. Of course, once the war played its part and cycle tracks were abandoned in favour of motorways, they didn't like that, either.
There were many complaints from many cycling groups regarding not wanting dedicated cycle lanes. If you dig deep enough, you can find out all about the several hundred miles of cycle paths the UK had, too..
You also uncover some wonderful snippets, such as:
"It could be said that CTC's campaign in the 1930s to retain cyclists' rights to the road network was too successful. Cyclists were never restricted from the non-motorway road network and in part because of this local authorities never built adequate facilities for them when those roads became bigger and bigger and the volume of motor traffic soared"
"At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
They didn't want lights, either! It would be the motorists fault if he or she hit someone they couldn't see.
I'm sure there may be a few posters on here related to some of those old CTC members
If you want to save some time and searching, the succinct version: lots and lots and lots of cycling groups and riders moaned a lot.
So anyway, 4th time of asking, where (preferably from this century) have you based your comments/facts that cyclist don't want and won't use cycle lanes because it is their right to use the roads??
Digby said:
Ares said:
No. It's saying you're basing "fact" on your groundless opinion.
So, as you don't know what anyone else thinks, and for the 3rd time of asking, where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
It's called research and reading. I honestly thought almost all cycling fans would know about this. It's probably the most important part of the history of cycling in the UK, yet so many are completely unaware.So, as you don't know what anyone else thinks, and for the 3rd time of asking, where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
)Chop chop dear man. 5th time of asking now
Ares said:
...where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
Are you basing your question on this?Digby said:
Because often, suggestions revolve around creating more lanes and segregating cyclists from road users in London. (not sure where the space will come from mind you)
When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
If wonderful, perfect lanes were created, would many still use the roads anyway because they have the right?
If they do and accidents still happen, will questions be asked as to why they were not using the cycle lanes?
If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?
You will have to help me, because I don't see any of what you mention.When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
If wonderful, perfect lanes were created, would many still use the roads anyway because they have the right?
If they do and accidents still happen, will questions be asked as to why they were not using the cycle lanes?
If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?
Ares said:
I'd love to see the source to base your opinion that "cyclists didn't want this to happen as they didn't want their rights taken away"?? I suspect that is just hyperbole.
Well, it happened and is well documented. You are wrong, sorry.Edited by Digby on Wednesday 25th October 18:00
Digby said:
Ares said:
...where does the sweeping generalisation that cyclist don't want/use cycle lanes due to their rights to use a road come from? (which you stated as a fact)
Are you basing your question on this?Digby said:
Because often, suggestions revolve around creating more lanes and segregating cyclists from road users in London. (not sure where the space will come from mind you)
When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
If wonderful, perfect lanes were created, would many still use the roads anyway because they have the right?
If they do and accidents still happen, will questions be asked as to why they were not using the cycle lanes?
If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?
You will have to help me, because I don't see any of what you mention.When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
If wonderful, perfect lanes were created, would many still use the roads anyway because they have the right?
If they do and accidents still happen, will questions be asked as to why they were not using the cycle lanes?
If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?
...but nice diversionary tactics
Yes it was that. You said when lanes were tried, cyclists didn't want it to happen because they didn't want their rights taken away (I've even made it bold to help you):
Digby said:
When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
So, 7th time of asking (or is it 8th time? I'm losing count), what is the source of your statement to show cyclists didn't want it to happen as they didn't want their rights taken away?....unless when you say many years ago, you meant the 1930s
It was tried many years ago and cyclists didn't want it. Is that true or hyperbole as you suggest? Is it a fact? Clue: Yes, it's a fact.
I then asked if more lanes were created, would riders still use the roads because they have the right? That is a question. They WOULD have the right. They do have the right. Is that true? Yes, it is. They have that right.
I then asked if this were the case and accidents happened, would questions be asked of why they were not using the lanes.
Another question, you see? It's called a civil conversation.
Then I asked if this trend were to continue, would it become law to use cycle lanes. Another question.
What you decide to turn this in to is up to you.
I understand you may feel frustrated at being wrong again (last time you doffed your hat, you had accused me of living in a parallel universe iirc) but you need to read more before venting & creating situations which do not exist.
Funny, though, how the most important part of cycling in London and cycle paths in London and the UK are quickly dismissed. They have more to do with this topic than absolutely anything else mentioned here. Why the lack of interest? Is it by any chance because you don't like what you are reading?
I then asked if more lanes were created, would riders still use the roads because they have the right? That is a question. They WOULD have the right. They do have the right. Is that true? Yes, it is. They have that right.
I then asked if this were the case and accidents happened, would questions be asked of why they were not using the lanes.
Another question, you see? It's called a civil conversation.
Then I asked if this trend were to continue, would it become law to use cycle lanes. Another question.
What you decide to turn this in to is up to you.
I understand you may feel frustrated at being wrong again (last time you doffed your hat, you had accused me of living in a parallel universe iirc) but you need to read more before venting & creating situations which do not exist.
Funny, though, how the most important part of cycling in London and cycle paths in London and the UK are quickly dismissed. They have more to do with this topic than absolutely anything else mentioned here. Why the lack of interest? Is it by any chance because you don't like what you are reading?
Digby said:
It was tried many years ago and cyclists didn't want it. Is that true or hyperbole as you suggest? Is it a fact? Clue: Yes, it's a fact.
I then asked if more lanes were created, would riders still use the roads because they have the right? That is a question. They WOULD have the right. They do have the right. Is that true? Yes, it is. They have that right.
I then asked if this were the case and accidents happened, would questions be asked of why they were not using the lanes.
Another question, you see? It's called a civil conversation.
Then I asked if this trend were to continue, would it become law to use cycle lanes. Another question.
What you decide to turn this in to is up to you.
I understand you may feel frustrated at being wrong again (last time you doffed your hat, you had accused me of living in a parallel universe iirc) but you need to read more before venting & creating situations which do not exist.
Funny, though, how the most important part of cycling in London and cycle paths in London and the UK are quickly dismissed. They have more to do with this topic than absolutely anything else mentioned here. Why the lack of interest? Is it by any chance because you don't like what you are reading?
Again, nice diversion. I then asked if more lanes were created, would riders still use the roads because they have the right? That is a question. They WOULD have the right. They do have the right. Is that true? Yes, it is. They have that right.
I then asked if this were the case and accidents happened, would questions be asked of why they were not using the lanes.
Another question, you see? It's called a civil conversation.
Then I asked if this trend were to continue, would it become law to use cycle lanes. Another question.
What you decide to turn this in to is up to you.
I understand you may feel frustrated at being wrong again (last time you doffed your hat, you had accused me of living in a parallel universe iirc) but you need to read more before venting & creating situations which do not exist.
Funny, though, how the most important part of cycling in London and cycle paths in London and the UK are quickly dismissed. They have more to do with this topic than absolutely anything else mentioned here. Why the lack of interest? Is it by any chance because you don't like what you are reading?
You said:
Digby said:
When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
Just show where this well documented documentation is about cyclists and cycle lanes that shows that cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.If it's fact, great! Just show that it is fact, because for the 10th time of asking, you still can't show that it is.
For the avoidance of doubt, just show the source to say cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.
Show the source of your fact, and I will happily doff my cap again.
cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away. just in case you forgot again
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff