Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Chick Pea Wrote:

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

> Voyageur Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 'I will also continue to break the law by

> cycling

> > on the pavement when I believe my life may be

> in

> > danger on roads that are designed without any

> > thought of cyclists safety.'

> >

> > Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's

> > akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope

> is

> > that you get hit with enough on the spot fines

> to

> > deter you.

>

> Hi V - it is perfectly possible and safe to cycle

> on the pavements but only when the pavement is

> pedestrian free and wide. Also Lady D is female so

> as far as I'm concerned that means she is a better

> ie more concientous rider than the male - yeah I

> am biased but that's based on expereince.

>

> Talking about cycle lanes, I noticed a few months

> back whilst driving to Crystal Palace Park that

> Southwark have installed an innovative new cycle

> lane along Dulwich Wood Park. Basically the

> pavement was widened and the outside edge coloured

> green with a white line that demarks pedestrian

> and cycle usage - cyclists ride on green bit.

>

> It's not all black and white.

>

> Edited for third time to add: I am not advocating

> pavement cycling just accepting that it is not

> always dangerous!


You're never going to get just the 'considerate' cyclists on the pavements unfortunately - the aggressive w*nkers are the one that cause the problem.



Lady D, this is the first time that I've been accused of making rediculous statemts. I can quite safely say that I go out of my way not to make rediculous statemts. Making rediculous statemts is something that I try to avoid. In fact it is part of my life's philosophy not to make rediculous statemts.


Or were you actually accusing me of making ridiculous statements? Perish the thought that I might not come up to your exacting debating standards which are very evident on this thread.

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.

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> "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.


Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it would mean a less crowded public transport system as a whole.


> It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who would

> have to spend even more time trying to second

> guess whether erratic cyclists;


Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less congestion and journey times would decrease. Also there would be fewer cars on the road so it would be less likely there would be a collision with another car. Car-car collisions are considerably more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the safest road users in terms of the risk they pose and at being at fault in collisions. This is unsurprising as they are more at risk of being injured themselves so will behave in a safer fashion.


> -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.

>


Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers do. They are the safest group of road uses in term of the collisions they cause and the risk they pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will be more reckless and more dangerous in a car.


> 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.

>


Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to pedestrians? safety than a car driver does.


A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle instead means less population, less congestion, faster and safer journeys for everyone else.


>

> All of the above I see happen many times each

> week.

>


I see car drivers break the law many times every single day.


> 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.


Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the driving test - this more than non-cyclists.

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.

Chick Pea Wrote:

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

> Can you please post the source of those statistics

> Henryb?


I will - I don't have it all to hand but I will collect and post back. I don't have time right now. As Lady D says it mostly here already or go any cycling website.


Just for the record I don't condone reckless cycling wherever it it - some cyclists are dangerous there is no doubt. However cyclists are not a monstrous other group of people who have a death wish and hate everyone. They are pretty much an even cross section of society who have just decided to get to A to B in a healthier, cheaper, less polluting and mostly quicker way.


Whenever I see a cyclist acting like a d*ck I think to myself - it is better they are on a bike or in a car or HGV?

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.

henryb Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "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.

>

> Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More

> cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus

> journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it

> would mean a less crowded public transport system

> as a whole.


Buses are not held up IN BUS LANES at the BUSIEST TIMES by cars, as CARS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN BUS LANES


>

> > It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who

> would

> > have to spend even more time trying to second

> > guess whether erratic cyclists;

>

> Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less

> congestion and journey times would decrease. Also

> there would be fewer cars on the road so it would

> be less likely there would be a collision with

> another car. Car-car collisions are considerably

> more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than

> cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the

> safest road users in terms of the risk they pose

> and at being at fault in collisions. This is

> unsurprising as they are more at risk of being

> injured themselves so will behave in a safer

> fashion.


At no point have i mentioned accidents, collisions, deaths. I'm talking about inconsiderate behaviour, irritating and making things more difficult for other road and pavement users. You can argue the point about accidents etc with conviction, but i don't see too many people arguing about accidents, injuries and death. Your statistics say nothing of incosiderate behaviour.


>

> > -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.

> >

>

> Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers

> do.


When was the last time you saw a policeman pull up a cyclist for anything except for going through a red light? Just because police statistics show more motorists breaking the law, a cyclist is almost never pulled up for any myriad of (admittedly small) laws.


They are the safest group of road uses in term

> of the collisions they cause and the risk they

> pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous

> to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car

> driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will

> be more reckless and more dangerous in a car.

>

> > 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.

> >

>

> Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on

> pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More

> pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car

> drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists

> jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to

> pedestrians? safety than a car driver does.



agsin, "killed", "injured" etc...not my argument


>

> A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle

> instead means less population, less congestion,

> faster and safer journeys for everyone else.

>

> >

> > All of the above I see happen many times each

> > week.

> >

>

> I see car drivers break the law many times every

> single day.

>

> > 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.

>

> Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary

> car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is

> anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the

> driving test - this more than non-cyclists.


I'm all for people stopping unnecessary car journeys, but that's not the issue here. Some cyclists are anti-social, i didn't say CYCLING was anti-social.


Apologies for capitalising, but, you've twisted, exaggerated or stubbornly ignored nearly all my points from that long post to suit your argument.


The thread, points made and replies are all getting too confusing and muddled. I shall agree to disagree (until something says something i can't resist replying to) :-)

pablopuncheur Wrote:

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

> This debate should really be about responsible and

> considerate road users versus inconsiderate and

> irresponsible road users. The mode of transport

> they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more

> in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a

> good driver.

>

> Some folks just seem to think that the world

> revolves around them and you should bloody well

> get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian,

> cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates

> always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and

> we just go round and round in circles.


This puts it very well IMO. Was inspired to post following meeting a cyclist on the pavement coming towards me - him turning off London Road onto Wood Vale. Where the cars park up it gets pretty narrow and was fully expecting him to bowl past or keep coming (which drives me nuts). But he didn't. He stopped, waited for us to go past, then did the same again to let someone else come through with a pram. No fuss, no stress. And because he was so obviously respectful, someone walking the same way as him stood aside and let him cycle through. If every cyclist/pedestrian interaction worked like this, there would be a lot less stressing on both sides I suspect.

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.

At the risk of catching boatloads of flak...can I just say that we lived in Tokyo and I've got the mama-chari bicycle to prove it, and the reason why so many cyclists and pedestrians can get along together on the pavements there is plain old consideration for others. No one speeds, pedestrians look out for bikes and give way, and everyone gets where they are going safely. I cycle on the pavements here when I feel it is too unsafe or, frankly, inconsiderate, to drive on the road. If the pavement is practically empty, why should I slow down traffic or worry about cars passing me within inches on a narrow road. I go slow, I give way and if there is ever a situation where the pavement is too busy or too narrow for me to fit, I get off and walk it. On my current bike I take up no more room than a mum pushing a pushchair.


I just think everyone - motorists, cyclists and pedestrians - should try to think of others a bit more instead of their perceived right to the road/pavement/etc.

jesska Wrote:

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

> At the risk of catching boatloads of flak...can I

> just say that we lived in Tokyo and I've got the

> mama-chari bicycle to prove it, and the reason why

> so many cyclists and pedestrians can get along

> together on the pavements there is plain old

> consideration for others. No one speeds,

> pedestrians look out for bikes and give way, and

> everyone gets where they are going safely. I cycle

> on the pavements here when I feel it is too unsafe

> or, frankly, inconsiderate, to drive on the road.

> If the pavement is practically empty, why should I

> slow down traffic or worry about cars passing me

> within inches on a narrow road. I go slow, I give

> way and if there is ever a situation where the

> pavement is too busy or too narrow for me to fit,

> I get off and walk it. On my current bike I take

> up no more room than a mum pushing a pushchair.

>

> I just think everyone - motorists, cyclists and

> pedestrians - should try to think of others a bit

> more instead of their perceived right to the

> road/pavement/etc.



great post :-)

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'?

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> 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'm thinking mainly of commuters going into town- which although covers a good chunk of morning traffic, i appreciate it's not all traffic.

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

    • Good morning, neighbours! We have around 1,000+ glasses like these from a café that just closed down. Not sure if anyone would like to keep some before we send them to charity. Please feel free to come and pick them up at 22 Upland Road, SE22 9EF anytime before 31st Oct😉    
    • What "stricter" consequences could there be for shoplifting (or any other crime) than being put into jail, do you think? Though our prisons are of course full enough already, without more people being shoehorned  into them.
    • Returning to the original question, I had my jabs at Tessa Jowell yesterday. I was early and I was  seen on time, and it was a lovely pharmacist who did them, but the admin beforehand (not by her) was a bit iffy. I was given forms to fill in but not told what to do with them afterwards, so I  presumed I had to take them into the consulting room, as the rest was supposed to be filled in by a clinician, but no! After some time had elapsed and I had found a seat (there was no information on where to sit either, so people were sitting in two separate areas, neither of which had many seats) my name was called and  the forms were taken behind the counter. Be aware if you don't have an appointment - even in the relatively short time I was there, three people turned up without appointments having been sent there by a GP (I presume) or having  previously been  asked by the pharmacy to come  back at a different time, and they were all sent away again because the pharmacy didn't have enough flu vaccine until the following day. I have no idea if this was due to a misunderstanding on the people's side, their GP's or the pharmacy's, but none of them were very happy, and one lady said she "couldn't keep coming back" 😭  At least one of them didn't seem to understand what he was being told, possibly due to a language issue. I felt quite sorry for the pharmacist, who was giving jabs all day on top of her usual workload but still managing to stay cheerful! Though she wasn't the one dealing with the unhappy people! I have a sore arm from the Covid jab (I chose to have the jabs in different arms), but no other ill effects so far, touch wood. 
    • Line speed and the strength of your Wi-Fi signal are two separate things.  The first is determined by the type of connection (fibre/copper etc) to the outside world and the second is the connection between the device (printer/TV/laptop/tablet etc) and the router. If you are connecting a device to the router using cables (as Alec1 is) then this is will give the best possible connection but isn't practical for many without a degree of upheaval and even then not all devices (tablets for example) will allow a wired connection. So you relying on the quality of the Wi-Fi signal from the router to the device and this will depend on the quality of the router, the type of Wi-Fi connection (the frequency), line of sight etc - many different things.  This is why some people opt for a "mesh" type setup which is supposed to give a solid quality of Wi-Fi signal around the house with little or no blackspots.  It's expensive though and still requires the devices that send and receive the signal (like the plug-ins you have) to be wired to the router.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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