Jump to content

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.

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

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?

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 ;-)

"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!

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...)

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.

Well presently Oxford Street is not only full of pedestrians but packed with buses and taxis - it isn't exactly a pedestrian paradise. There seems to be an assumption that it's already totally pedestrianised, it isn't and it won't be until 2020 at the earliest.

TFL has a consultation here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/oxford-street/?cid=oxford-street

As is unfortunately common in these 'consultations', details are few and vague. It is not clear at all to me that removing busses from Oxford street wouldn't cause more congestion - and therefore pollution.

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?

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

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 want to name a shop, but I have twice at this busy time of year had an issue, and yesterday was overcharged when buying a number of small things. If you are using a shop which doesn't give an itemised receipt, or doesn't give a receipt at all, just be aware that it might be a good idea to check that you are not paying over the odds (and if using cash, that you are given the right change for what you handed over). When staff are busy they might make mistakes.
    • As I had a moan on here about the truly abysmal Christmas meal we had at The Cherry Tree last year, I am redressing the balance by saying we had a really excellent Christmas meal at Franklins last night. Every course was absolutely delicious and  really well cooked. The staff were lovely despite being exhausted and run off their feet. In particular, my sea bass was a large portion and cooked to perfection, in stark contrast to the small dried up portion The Cherry Tree provided, from which I was barely able to scrape a teaspoonful of flesh (that is not an exaggeration). And our Franklins meal cost less than half what we paid at The Cherry Tree (to be fair, that was on Christmas Day so the Cherry Tree costs would have been higher, but that doesn't excuse the appalling quality meal). Thank you again to Franklins for restoring our faith in eating out at Christmas! 
    • That is almost too ridiculous to answer but I'll take the bait. You are comparing a national charity with one branch of a small charity. Cats Protection has around 34 dedicated rehoming centres. CHAT has two, Lewisham & Canning Town and a sanctuary in Sussex. So if Cats Protection have homed 34,000 cats, thats an average of 1000 per branch. From memory this years total so far for Lewisham CHAT was over 980. I saw a few homed this weekend so we may well reach 1000 for this year. The same as Cats Protection. No need for head scratching.    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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