Cyclists

[How bad boy]

If I'm misunderstanding your position it's because you're making it very unclear. So lights should be compulsory, that's a start. Do you think lights should be used at all times, like motorcyclists tend to? How would you go about punishing cyclists who jump red lights and don't use lights? How about high-vis? Should children be allowed on busy main roads? How about cyclists who use the road when there's a concurrent cycle lane available?

You're against insurance, so you think it's ok for innocent motorists to be punished for the actions of reckless cyclists, do you not believe in personal responsibility?

1.lights, yes.
2. no, that would be silly.
3. Same way we do now. Could be better enforced.
4. High viz, no. I wear one, but with decent lights, they're redundant. Like making every car painted neon or in reflective paint.
5. Yes. Blanket ban is ridiculous.
6. The law against that is a bugbear of mine. The majority of cycle lanes in my corner of the uk such donkey cock.

to give an example, here is a brief summary of my cycle to the station in two different modes
1. Bike lane
go into park, deal with slow walkers meandering across the paths, dogs and that stupid kerb on the way in.
come out of the sharp hill at the on onto the footpath that is officially a cycle path, but too narrow for people and cycles to pass
stop and wait for the traffic at the exit to the roundabout.
stop again and wait for traffic on the entrance.
get on footpath, merge with road, back on footpath, stop at next pedestrian crossing. Wait.
Cross, stop at next pedestrian crossing. Wait.
take cycle path up and around the south side of the roundabout.
Join contraflow and merge with traffic coming off previous roundabout. Stay in buslanes which are always filled with buses for next 100M.

I can do the above journey in 3 minutes going on the road. As my wife is a very nervous cyclist, I always cycle strictly in the lanes with her. It takes us 12 minutes on average to cover the same route. You can walk it in under 20.


Of course I believe in individual responsibility, however many times, the cost of strictly enforcing individual responsibilityis far higher than a little bit of collective protection.
The vast, vast majority of accidents are motorists hitting cyclists, not the other way around.

 

[Frank Le Bluff]

1.lights, yes.
2. no, that would be silly.
3. Same way we do now. Could be better enforced.
4. High viz, no. I wear one, but with decent lights, they're redundant. Like making every car painted neon or in reflective paint.
5. Yes. Blanket ban is ridiculous.
6. The law against that is a bugbear of mine. The majority of cycle lanes in my corner of the uk such donkey cock.

to give an example, here is a brief summary of my cycle to the station in two different modes
1. Bike lane
go into park, deal with slow walkers meandering across the paths, dogs and that stupid kerb on the way in.
come out of the sharp hill at the on onto the footpath that is officially a cycle path, but too narrow for people and cycles to pass
stop and wait for the traffic at the exit to the roundabout.
stop again and wait for traffic on the entrance.
get on footpath, merge with road, back on footpath, stop at next pedestrian crossing. Wait.
Cross, stop at next pedestrian crossing. Wait.
take cycle path up and around the south side of the roundabout.
Join contraflow and merge with traffic coming off previous roundabout. Stay in buslanes which are always filled with buses for next 100M.

I can do the above journey in 3 minutes going on the road. As my wife is a very nervous cyclist, I always cycle strictly in the lanes with her. It takes us 12 minutes on average to cover the same route. You can walk it in under 20.


Of course I believe in individual responsibility, however many times, the cost of strictly enforcing individual responsibilityis far higher than a little bit of collective protection.
The vast, vast majority of accidents are motorists hitting cyclists, not the other way around.

Have enough time on your hands there fella ?

 

[How bad boy]

Have enough time on your hands there fella ?

Plenty.
Almost time to go to bed though.

 

[Devils best friend]

1.lights, yes.
2. no, that would be silly.
3. Same way we do now. Could be better enforced.
4. High viz, no. I wear one, but with decent lights, they're redundant. Like making every car painted neon or in reflective paint.
5. Yes. Blanket ban is ridiculous.
6. The law against that is a bugbear of mine. The majority of cycle lanes in my corner of the uk such donkey cock.

to give an example, here is a brief summary of my cycle to the station in two different modes
1. Bike lane
go into park, deal with slow walkers meandering across the paths, dogs and that stupid kerb on the way in.
come out of the sharp hill at the on onto the footpath that is officially a cycle path, but too narrow for people and cycles to pass
stop and wait for the traffic at the exit to the roundabout.
stop again and wait for traffic on the entrance.
get on footpath, merge with road, back on footpath, stop at next pedestrian crossing. Wait.
Cross, stop at next pedestrian crossing. Wait.
take cycle path up and around the south side of the roundabout.
Join contraflow and merge with traffic coming off previous roundabout. Stay in buslanes which are always filled with buses for next 100M.

I can do the above journey in 3 minutes going on the road. As my wife is a very nervous cyclist, I always cycle strictly in the lanes with her. It takes us 12 minutes on average to cover the same route. You can walk it in under 20.


Of course I believe in individual responsibility, however many times, the cost of strictly enforcing individual responsibilityis far higher than a little bit of collective protection.
The vast, vast majority of accidents are motorists hitting cyclists, not the other way around.

So your convenience is more important than saving lives. Unfortunately that's the prevailing attitude with cyclists.
Love that you think a toddler on stabilizers is as competent to cycle across the bow interchange when adults can't even do it safely

 

[How bad boy]

So your convenience is more important than saving lives. Unfortunately that's the prevailing attitude with cyclists.
Love that you think a toddler on stabilizers is as competent to cycle across the bow interchange when adults can't even do it safely

There are many more roads than the Bow Roundabout.
Designing policy based on the worst example is usually a bad idea.

Actually, a woman was knocked down 2 weeks ago on the above route, she was doing the first of the crossings across the exit of the roundabout on the cycle route. There are no traffic lights and drivers floor it coming off. I feel safer going around the roundabout properly than crossing an unsignalled roundabout exit.
F you cycled, you would know what I mean.

Also, the sharp blind corner coming out of the park cycle path is dangerous to pedestrians if you don't walk it. The footpath over the bridge is waaay too narrow too.
The only way to safely navigate that cycle path is to walk for most of the distance.

 

[Devils best friend]

There are many more roads than the Bow Roundabout.
Designing policy based on the worst example is usually a bad idea.

Actually, a woman was knocked down 2 weeks ago on the above route, she was doing the first of the crossings across the exit of the roundabout on the cycle route. There are no traffic lights and drivers floor it coming off. I feel safer going around the roundabout properly than crossing an unsignalled roundabout exit.
F you cycled, you would know what I mean.

Again, your position is that a toddler on stabilizers should not be stopped from using any of these junctions or that people should not, as a rule, have the knowledge to navigate these junctions.

Insanity

 

[de mange]

So your convenience is more important than saving lives. Unfortunately that's the prevailing attitude with cyclists.
Love that you think a toddler on stabilizers is as competent to cycle across the bow interchange when adults can't even do it safely

you are some drama queen

youre like an old man on steroids

 

[de mange]

Again, your position is that a toddler on stabilizers should not be stopped from using any of these junctions or that people should not, as a rule, have the knowledge to navigate these junctions.

Insanity

why are you talking about toddlers - your age limit was 16 remember?

 

[How bad boy]

Again, your position is that a toddler on stabilizers should not be stopped from using any of these junctions or that people should not, as a rule, have the knowledge to navigate these junctions.

Insanity

My position would be the toddlers parents would likely be recklessly endangering their children's life if they allowed it.

I grew up 6 feet away from the N22. Banning children from main roads would have meant me not cycling until 17 years old.

 

[Devils best friend]

why are you talking about toddlers - your age limit was 16 remember?

Yes, it was, and yours was no limit

My position would be the toddlers parents would likely be recklessly endangering their children's life if they allowed it.

I grew up 6 feet away from the N22. Banning children from main roads would have meant me not cycling until 17 years old.

So you're admitting your parents recklessly endangered your life. Interesting.