Jump to content

No cyclists on Oxford St?


Nigello

Recommended Posts

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't know they were pedestrianising Oxford

> Street - that's great (about time too). Seems fair

> enough that people shouldn't cycle in a pedestrian

> area tbh. As long as there is plenty of bike

> parking around the border of the zone, then fine.


Seems a missed opportunity to create a major east-west cycle artery at no expense though, doesn't it? There are plenty of areas where shared cycling and pedestrian space works perfectly well - the new plaza outside the Faraday memorial at Elephant for example, and the space on Exhibition Road - and I think it could work well there. This is not to say I actually agree with closing Oxford Street to buses - for once I agree with Dulwich Londoner, where are all the Oxford Street routes going to go? - but if they're going to do it excluding cycles would seem a retrograde step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you are apologising KK - the only times I've nearly been mown down is by cyclists, and my sister has a permanently damaged foot by being mown down by an idiot cyclist on the pavement who didn't bother to stop so since some cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible because they think they have an entitlement, or a monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be excluded from pedestrian zones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

so since some

> cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible

> because they think they have an entitlement, or a

> monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be

> excluded from pedestrian zones


I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement.


Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know why you are apologising KK - the

> only times I've nearly been mown down is by

> cyclists, and my sister has a permanently damaged

> foot by being mown down by an idiot cyclist on the

> pavement who didn't bother to stop so since some

> cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible

> because they think they have an entitlement, or a

> monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be

> excluded from pedestrian zones


I so read that as "extermiated"(!!!) *cheers anyway ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement.


Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?"


totally agree, Rendel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> so since some

> > cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible

> > because they think they have an entitlement, or

> a

> > monopoly on saving the planet, then they should

> be

> > excluded from pedestrian zones

>

> I see some car drivers every day who think they

> have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run

> red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic

> islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be

> banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much

> sense as your statement.


To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense.


(Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but

> 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense.

>

> (Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)


Well, it has to happen sometimes I suppose...UG thinks that because some cyclists behave badly towards pedestrians, all cyclists should be banned from areas shared with pedestrians, so as some drivers behave badly on the roads which they share with other users, ban cars from them is a logical progression.


I guess the confusion is that there are two options, a pedestrian only area or a shared space between pedestrians and cyclists. The Evening Standard headline implies the decision has already been made to be pedestrians only and now they're deciding whether to let cyclists in - in fact no decision has yet been made beyond the fact that motor traffic will be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition a 'pedestrianised' Oxford Street would mean no cyclists and something as someone who uses a bike to get to work I wouldn't have a problem with tbh. Most people on Oxford Street seem to walk around in a trance as it is. There was another clickbait article in the Standard yesterday about banning black cabs from a 'pedestrainised' Oxford Street. I'm not sure of the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble Arch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ampersand Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure of

> the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate

> at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble

> Arch?


And how would busses go from East to West? The whole point is that Oxford street is one of the main arteries between East and West London. TFL talks about using Wigmore street, which I believe is less wide than Oxford street. My concern is that this would create a cascading effect of more congestion and more pollution for everyone. Even if you ban ALL private cars, of which there aren't many already in zone 1, there will still be loads of goods that need to be carried back and forth on large vehicles.


Just to give you an idea, right now it's 10.15 am, ie no longer rush hour. I chose a bus stop at random, and noticed about 10 buses, in one direction only, over the coruse of the next 10 minutes or so: https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490019653E/bond-street

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don't know how spoillable food can be used as evidence in whatever imaginary CSI scenario you are imagining.  And yes, three times. One purchase was me, others were my partner. We don't check in with each other before buying meat. Twice we wrote it off as incidental. But now at three times it seems like a trend.   So the shop will be hearing from me. Though they won't ever see me again that's for sure.  I'd be happy to field any other questions you may have Sue. Your opinion really matters to me. 
    • If you thought they were off, would it not have been a good idea to have kept them rather than throwing them away, as evidence for Environmental Health or whoever? Or indeed the shop? And do you mean this is the third time you have bought chicken from the same shop which has been off? Have you told the shop? Why did you buy it again if you have twice previously had chicken from there which was off? Have I misunderstood?
    • I found this post after we just had to throw away £14 of chicken thighs from Dugard in HH, and probably for the 3rd time. They were roasted thoroughly within an hour of purchase. But they came out of the oven smelling very woofy.  We couldn't take a single bite, they were clearly off. Pizza for dinner it is then. Very disappointing. 
    • interesting read.  We're thinking about the same things for our kids in primary school as well. One thing I don't understand about Charter ED is whether they stream / set kids based on ability.  I got the impression from an open evening that it is done a little as possible. All i could find on-line was this undated letter - https://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/_site/data/files/users/18/documents/9473A8A3547CCCD39DBC4A55CA1678DC.pdf?pid=167 For the most part, we believe in mixed ability teaching and do not stream in Year 7 or Year 8. The only exceptions to this are that we have a small nurture class for Maths. This is a provision for students who scored lower than 85 in their SATS exams and is designed to support them to acquire the skills to access the learning in mainstream class. We do not have nurture classes for any other subjects. We take a more streamed - though not a setted - approach in Maths and Science from Year 9 onwards. though unsure if this is still accurate reflection of policy, and unsure of difference between streaming and setting.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...