LadyDeliah

The articles don't say whether there has been an increase in cycling to correspond with the increase in accidents and there is no comment on motorist behaviour or who was at fault in the accidents that led to death. The figures include all accidents involving cyclists and there is a high number if cyclist deaths where motorists were involved. Not very useful without additional information. And here we have a crack down on pedestrians: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/20/us-fines-texting-and-walking :-)

Aldi have loads of cycling gear in starting from tommorrow (Thursday). They even have spoke reflectors.

And commuters need to travel by car because....?

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Henryb- is your wish that more people get out of > their cars and on to their bikes? > > Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for > example, most people are in their cars because > they need to be, whereas everyone else is already > on a bike or on public transport. What constitutes 'need' rather than 'want'?

I think there is also a contract element because you are deemed to have accepted their terms if you pass the sign displaying them and continue. Still have no authority to fine you though.

I agree Chick Pea. I was just being a smart arse and trying to get across the notion that it does get a bit tedious constantly having to respond to insccurate anti-cycling statements. I do think, however, in general, the anti-cyclists are more often guilty of unsourced, purely anecdotal arguments which is frustrating if you set out your reasoned (i hope) arguments which are fully referenced.

Uncomfortable? What makes you think I feel uncomfortable with anything that's been said?

Most of those and mine have been posted on this(?) and other threads. I agree we should all quote the authority for our posts (including the primarily anecdotally inclined anti-bike contingent) but it is a pain in the arse continually digging them out. I'm on my phone, so will perform a search later including links to the EDF posts where we've had to make all of these arguments many times before. I'm attempting to enlighten, educate and change perceptions about something important to me, so, much as its a pain in the arse, I will get on it when I get a chance over the weekend. Unless of course any if the other bright sparks who are in this with me want up search their posts for evidence that they have also posted countless times before. I really need a Dropbox document with all the links in one place.

ZT, smart people can make stupid comments. Pointing out that a comment is rediculous, lame or stupid isn't insulting the person who made it. Even I, with my brain of Einstein, have made the occasional stupid comment which is usually subsequently pointed out by my kids. Admit it was a crap analogy, swallow it and move on, is my sage advice.

Yes, I think that's pretty impressive. I think the fact that sales of each is going down even though the comparative gap is widening isn't a car v bike thing, but reflects something else which was not accounted for in this study. Not relevant really in this debate though.

Sorry if typing large amounts of text on my phone results in typos, ZT. What's your excuse for the lame analogy?

Lol, sorry, couldn't resist. By the way I think I'm young, but I'm old and I still cycle (another of your points addressed!).

They have to take you to county court first because it's a private civil matter but they try to make out it'a more serious.

TJ, I'm talking about the large number of posts before that one where I gave detailed responses that you haven't addressed. When you've finished you're homework, I'll be glad to help you with the last one.

No worries. I'd be interested in your answers to all my counter arguments above first, with evidence to back it up rather then anecdote. While you're busy with that, I'll dig out the evidence to back up my arguments and get back to you when you're done :-)

Ok we will have to disagree because all the points in your posts have been addressed above if you care to read them and i can't be arsed repeating them ad infinitum. There is copious evidence that changing the roads to be more pedestrian and cyclist friendly whilst also changing yo 20mph and removing a lot of traffic lights to improve traffic flow has a major, positive impact on the behaviour of all road users. So cyclists, in your opinion shouldn't be in shared space, or on the road. What do you suggest they do? Fly? Re slowing buses down, cars have a greater congesting effect than cyclists, who by your admission, get around town quicker than any other road user.

Could be market saturation or increase in public transport use. I think the car v bike sales is still interesting. There has been some data that shows cyclists and motorists are roughly even in numbers now, I think. Can't remember exactly. Might look for the data later. I think the inequitable sharing of our public space, with motorists being given a disproportionately high amount of available space is the main issue that needs to be addressed The statics are interesting, but clearly don't show the whole picture.

As for cycling being for young people, in countries where cyclists are given far more priority and their safety concerns are actively included in planning, many more people of all ages cycle because its safe to do so. Plus the point about registration paying got cycle lanes. Most places it's been tried it was abandoned because it cost more money than it generated and why should I have to pay for something I already pay for in my general taxation? I pay for motorways and other roads I can't cycle on. Should we make them all toll roads so people who don't use them don't have to pay for them?

It's part of a continuum and getting someone to see an extreme example helps in getting them to understand the underlying concepts of a less extreme example.

Again I was using a clear extreme extension of your argument to illustrate a point. Changing the dominance of motorists in general, who are in turn dominated by the aggressive and dangerous motorist would not only benefit cyclists. It would have a beneficial effect in everyone else, as explained above quite a few times.

No, the share of space is currently disproportionately skewed towards one set of road users to the detriment of others. As the proportion of road users who cycle, increases further, the status quo becomes even more unsustainable.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Suffragettes, anti-slavery, Greenham Common, > Heathrow 3rd runway protesters all broke the law > to highlight things that needed changing. Saying > all laws are equal in importance is completely > rediculous." > > LOL > > In any way equating cycling on pavements with > slavery, the suffragette movement and nuclear > disarmament- even mentioning them in the same > thread to make a point, is hilarious. This comment was made in relation to blindly following laws, or challenging their legitimacy. The point I had countered was that ALL laws must be followed blindly. I gave extreme examples of when that is clearly not the case to illustrate a point, which you appear to have missed in your desire to just oppose my position.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > No, i think in current conditions we should > discourage an increase in cycling in London and > educate the existing cyclists, motorists and > pedestrians. Only after more extensive cycling > education, more education for motorists about how > cyclists behave on the road should we consider > more space (separate from motorists and > pedestrians). Why can't this happen simultaneously? And why penalise victims (injured cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists) and not the perps? If rape was rampant in ED, would you suggest keeping women indoors until a programme of re-education was implemented? > > An increase in cycling in current conditions is > only a bad thing for all road users. See above point. > Yes- cycling is already the fastest way to get > around town- whereas driving round town is very > slow and frustrating. Take space away from motor > vehicles and giving it to cyclists is frankly > nonsense. Giving alternative space to cyclists > would be great, but not at the expense of other > roads users. So if cycling is the fastest way to get around and alternative space is needed for cyclists, where will it come from? In addition to speed, cycling reduces congestion because for every driver who cycles that's one less car on the road. The health benefits for the cyclist, the environment and those living in congested, polluted areas when cycling increases over motoring are also very well documented. > A MASSIVE push on cycling proficiency/education. > It's unworkable to make it compulsory, but for the > time being throw all the mayor's 'cycling' budget > at high profile, free, proficiency courses, and in > a few years time consider more space. I agree with free cycling proficiency courses, but think the Highway Code and driving test must be radically changed to include much more about cyclist and pedestrian safety. I also thing motorists should be made to re-test every 10-15 yrs and taken off the road if they fail safety tests. Any motorists caught speeding, parking in cycle lanes, stopping in advance stop boxes, driving without due care etc even once, should also be made to take Road Safety courses and taken off the toad if they fail a test.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you used insulting language to disagree with > me. That's my point. If you can't understand that, > there's no point debating further with you. Ok how about rediculous? Is that better? And as for debate, I hadn't noticed you engaging in any debate, either with my arguments or anyone else's. Making rediculous statemts does not amount to debate.

I didn't insult you, I insulted your argument.