Cycling on the pavement

[LadyDeliah]

I'd welcome the chance to fight the fine through the courts. There are more ways than one to facilitate a change in the law.

[LadyDeliah]

Lol Chick Pea, have I got you slightly on board?

Yes I do cycle carefully when I'm on the pavement and always give way to pedestrians. On shared use or even dedicated cycle paths I watch out for pedestrians. On the roads I am too busy trying to stay alive so I can get back to my children in one piece.

[Zebedee Tring]

Lady D, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me on this issue. But it is totally unacceptable for you to resort to personal abuse by calling me "stupid".

The fact that you can't debate an issue without insulting people on the other side of the argument suggests to me that you are on weak ground.

[LadyDeliah]

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

[Zebedee Tring]

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.

[Chick Pea]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Lol Chick Pea, have I got you slightly on board?

>

> Yes I do cycle carefully when I'm on the pavement

> and always give way to pedestrians. On shared use

> or even dedicated cycle paths I watch out for

> pedestrians. On the roads I am too busy trying to

> stay alive so I can get back to my children in one

> piece.

Let's say I can see where you're coming from Lady D ; )

I'm all for a redistribution of road space that prioritizes pedestrian and cyclists over motor vehicles but I'm also in favour of bikes, not individuals, being insured/licenced. The revenue from this to be ring fenced for investment in a network of cycle super higways.

Southwark is one of the leading boroughs when it comes to road safety - most of the borough is now 20mph. A combination of the 20mph zones and the increased volume of motor vehicles on our streets makes cycling by far the fastest option to get from a. to b.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[titch juicy]

> 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.

[titch juicy]

"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.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

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]

"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.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[titch juicy]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

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?

[titch juicy]

"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]

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.

[titch juicy]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

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 :-)

[titch juicy]

"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

[alldownhillfromhere]

I just saw something that would have made me point and laugh if I hadn't been driving at the time. Two cyclists, approaching the junction of Croxted Rd and Thurlow Park, one on either road's pavement, heading towards each other, one talking on a mobile. Neither gives away. They crash into each other. Last seen, as I drove past, standing in the middle of the pavement, bikes dropped, and shouting at each other!

[titch juicy]

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

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[titch juicy]

LOL- she intimated that I'm of school age. Cutting.