titch juicy

LD- I wouldn't rush. I'm off out now. Pick this up later

"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 :-)" You haven't made counter arguments to my points that I've asked you to address there (why more cyclists won't benefit others) once you've done that I'll give answers

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Please link me to some of that evidence....i'm genuinely interested. Cars don't have a greater congesting effect on bus lanes during busy times. At quiet times there are less cars on the road and the congestion isn't such an issue. I'd say that cyclists have enough space already and we don't need to increase it at all. ...and i don't think all those points have been addressed. I'd be interested in your view on all of them.

"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." I disagree. It wouldn't benefit those who have no choice but to use buses. It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who would have to spend even more time trying to second guess whether erratic cyclists; -were going to pull out suddenly without signalling, - were going to weave dangerously in and out of traffic, - were going to shoot up the inside of you as you're trying to turn left, - would come shooting across a junction through a red light, - will suddenly ride off of the pavement and on to the road in front of you, - will cross the road from pavement to pavement without looking if any cars are coming (this one is hilarious- not only are they riding on the pavement, they still manage to annoy motorists by crossing without looking), - are cycling at night with no lights wearing dark clothes. It wouldn't benefit pedestrians who already have to dodge enough cyclists on the pavement or 'share' multi-use tracks where cyclist believe they are king and don't have to consider pedestrians, or dodge cyclists sppeeding through red-lights. All of the above I see happen many times each week. This happens a lot already- an increase of cyclists, without extensive and serious education for cyclists is only going to increase this anti-social behaviour.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 challenged 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 you're > desire to just oppose my position" Yeah, maybe. Not sure such extreme examples are helpful, but I understand where you're coming from.

"If rape was rampant in ED, would you suggest keeping women indoors until a programme of re-education was implemented? " See, it's this kind of comment; a base redundant straw man argument, that makes it hard for me to take your points seriously. That and the fact that you just seem intent on making everything better for cyclists regardless of the knock on effect for everyone else. A lot money was spent on the bus service in london, to make getting around town by public transport safer, faster, more comfortable and more friendly to the environment. My two most common ways of getting round town are by bus and by bike- and while being allowed to cycle in bus lanes is great for me when cycling; when riding on the bus, cyclists, especially during busy times (times when bus lanes should be at their most useful), clog the bus lanes and slow the buses right down. Cycling is fine for the young, fit and healthy, but there are lot of people in this town for whom cycling is not an option. And no amount of extra space, legislation etc will change that- people still need public transport. My point is that there is always more than one of looking at a situation.

"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.

> Do you think an increase in cycling is a good thing? 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). > If not, why not? An increase in cycling in current conditions is only a bad thing for all road users. > If yes, do you think the current arrangements for the rise is cycling are adequate? 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. > If not, what changes would you suggest? 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.

their eggs royale is always excellent

really? does that not render the whole 'local business' thread redundant? surely it's just the same as an online review- can they really threaten to sue or is this just a big joke?

a quick look at le chandelier's menu shows a cappucino is ?2.70 pretty sure anderson's is the same price, or might be even more

i stopped reading when it came to 'andersons...offer far better value for money..."

Grainger's were great- the onsite maintenance team was fast and efficient. Kiers I guess must be having teething troubles.

yes, big problems am on my 17th consecutive day of no hot water or heating and have half a living room, as a lot of water came in through the front of the building, and through our ceiling- also for the past 17 days

I would like pubs and bars to be made responsible for clearing the gutters of any broken glass swept in by outside drinkers.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was some research done by TFL in 2010 about > the blame in accidents involving cyclists and > motorists (of every flavour) which did find that > motorists were to blame in 4 out of 5 incidents - > mainly SMIDSYs > http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/pedal-cycli > st-collisions-and-casualities-in-greater-london-se > p-2011.pdf > > I'm not saying that cyclists are paragons of > virtue and we do (yes, I'm one too) have to be > aware, cycle responsibly and in a predictable way > (i.e. following the rules of the road) - and not > be in such a hurry at times. It always astonishes > me how many people scoot down the side of vehicles > (not just large ones) when the light change is > imminent. > > However, there have been several accidents with > HGVs where the cyclist wasn't to blame. They were > already in the ASL when the driver stopped behind > them and then drove over them. Yes, you could > argue that if they were being truly defensive, > they'd have moved forward again (out of his blind > spot) when they realised he'd pulled up but that > does feel like victim-blaming. Personally, I've > had two close shaves with HGVs - neither of which > involved me going past them (the idea gives me the > willies) - both on the South Circular. > > The first was on the way up to the Horniman where > the bus lane ends and traffic going onto the South > Circular moves into the left lane. I was in the > bus lane when an HGV driver overtook me and > changed lane. Fortunately, I heard the engine and > realised what was happening so was able to slow > down and avoid the back of the truck. I don't > think the driver saw me (despite lights/high > vis). > > The second occasion was just outside the gate to > Dulwich Park (one nearest the Grove) by a > Sainsbury HGV. I know the driver saw me that time > (since he moved out slightly) but he still chose > to overtake on a bend with a traffic island coming > up. I'd seen him coming and stayed in primary but > couldn't believe when I heard his engine rev to > overtake. He was mostly past me when he obviously > saw the traffic island and pulled back in so > quickly that his wheels nearly hit the kerb. > Again, because I knew the road narrowed, I braked > enough that I wasn't squished when those wheels > came across but if I hadn't been local, I would > have been hit and probably died. The report claims that the delegation of fault is very subjective and based only on the reporting officer's view at the time. Table 11 on page 16 is quite enlightening. I've never claimed that motorists are blameless; just that cyclists can help themselves, knowing that large vehicles have blind spots and therefore not riding down the inside at junctions. I'd love to see an up to date version of that research. It;s pretty thorough.

grumpyoldman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got hit by a cyclyst on a pavement in the last > few days. Luckely he only managed to hit my foot > so I was not hurt. He fell off and had bad > grazing to his legs and a bent wheel. If I had > been injured what were my chnaces of claiminmg > medicical bills from him and getting them paid? ok > he is limping and has to buy a new front wheel. > > he was very insulting and trying to blame me for > the accident. > > It may be just me but as I was crossing a zebra > crossing in the city this morning a cyclyst came > through a red light shouting at predestrians for > crossing the road, he was going too fast and could > not have stopped. It's not as unusual as you think- there are plenty of truly idiotic cyclists that give the rest of us hopefully decent, considerate cyclists a bad name. I cycle at a decent speed, but considerately, legally and safely. I've been cycling across Tower Bridge (southbound) before and slowed down as I thought it was a little unsafe to undertake a taxi, a cyclist flew up behind me and shouted, "get a f*%&ing move on FFS!).

I was beginning to think I was the only sanity without a death wish :-)

"Being in the left of left turning vehicles is also a result of idiot planners putting cycle lanes in the left of the traffic, without a barrier or cycle friendly light phasing. Follow the cycle path, get mown down, go from the left to the right at junctions and be accused of weaving in and out of the traffic." Sit behind the large vehicle until it's turned- don't get mown down. But I agree, it's not ideal. Malumbu- I meant drivers behaviour towards cyclists is improving. Sorry, I should have worded it better.

Lady Delilah- that's an hideous, but isolated example. And yes, 6 months seems ridiculously lenient. It doesn't alter my point though- that cyclists need to take more responsibility for their own safety. As the majority of cyclist deaths at the hands of long vehicles aren't due to that kind of incident.

Commuters that continue to read their book/paper when they get off the train or walking across London bridge.

People that watch you push the button at a pelican crossing/on the bus/to call a lift then push it themselves again 'just to make sure'. Like they don't think you're capable of pushing a button properly.

It's important I make something clear. I am absolutely not anti-cycling or bigoted towards cyclists. Very much the opposite. As I've stated many times I'm a cyclist both for commuting and pleasure. I'm very much opposed to bad cycling behaviour. It's getting worse while motorists attitudes are getting better. I think it's very important to recognise this as the media and a section of cyclists seem hellbent on putting all blame for any cycling problems on motorists and motorised vehicles and refusing to take ANY responsibility for their own actions. I would love for London to become like Amsterdam- it won't for a myriad of reasons. But imagine a city where most people got around on bikes. How much healthier, physically and mentally, everyone would be, how much faster people could get around and how much better the air would be. Fact is, that won't happen because of the way London works. So we all have to share the roads and we all have a responsibility to behave considerately. And what I see everyday is drivers getting better while cyclists get worse.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Driving lessons teach motorists that driving > > defensively is safe. Most motorists stick to > this. > > 85% of cyclists also have a driving licence. And > how does fit with your view? Is it just the 15% > you are complaining about or is it that your > statement clearly indicates you have a bigoted and > prejudiced view of cyclists and the risks they > pose to others. > > On average 50% of car drivers break the speed > limit on 30mph zones much more in 20mph zones. > What do you propose we do about them? I don't see your point. Where in this thread have I said anything about cyclists posing a risk to others. To themselves for sure, and antagonising others yes. And because a driver will drive considerately in a car, why does it necessarily follow that they'll behave considerately when they're on a bike? If anything, them being a cyclist will make them behave more considerately when they get in a car as they know the danger a car poses to cyclists. It's also quite reasonable to assume that once they get on a bike it gives them more a sense of freedom that a car gives and because everyone else does it they'll weave in and out of traffic, cutting cars up and jumping red lights.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I personally reckon at least 3/4 of cycling > deaths > > could have been avoided if the cyclists use > more > > common sense. > > > So do you have any data to back up your personal > opinion then? None whatsoever, which is why I said "I personally reckon" and not "It's indisputable fact". But it's a reasoned opinion based on my own experience on the roads and the many reported cycling deaths that involve cyclists riding up the inside of long vehicles at junctions.