Sick of all the push bikers jumping lights on Borough High St
eDWaRD WooDWaRD Thursday 24 May 2012 1.46pm
Guy's streetI'm not trying to convince you or anyone - if you read what I wrote, you can see that I've clearly highlighted a number of cases of different road users breaking different rules. I'm not defending any of them.
Also, with all due respect, I'm yet to see you offer anything constructive (apologies if I've missed something) - just snide remarks and blame.[/quote wrote:
I have repeatedly suggested that cyclists should take responsibility - acknowledge that the problem is not limited to a few bad apples but quite prevalent. I have also suggested that groups like the LCC should take more action and campaign for cyclists. They could implement a code of conduct, shame the "bad apples" into behaving less selfishly, I don't know. Do I have to think for them? They have the website, the campaigns, they are the cyclists. I have mentioned Living Streets, who campaign for pedestrians. I am thinking of joining them but I am reluctant firstly because I think to using the streets and the pavements safely is a right that I shouldn't have to fight for and secondly because I dread sanctimonious meetings that lead to nothing but people feeling good about themselves until the next meeting. And sorry, but i really didn't get anything psoitive from these 180+ posts, only spreading the blame and a lack of repsonsibility, no matter hwo you try and coat it. People are simply not allowed to be genuinely upset about anything any more, it's almost like bullying is now considered a virtue.
Rambling Phil Thursday 24 May 2012 1.46pm
Can I inject another perspective? One that Pros alluded to many pages ago.
According to the GLA, here, air pollution in London contributes to the early death of more than 4,000 people in 2008, and that these deaths are more frequent near main roads.
Unpleasant though near-misses from thoughtless or cowardly cyclists are (declaration of interest, I'm a pedestrian and occasional hire-cyclist), I'd suggest that anyone who chooses to go about London in a private combustion engine powered vehicle is irresponsible, deliberately poisoning everyone else for their own convenience.
The aggregate of this behaviour demonstrably kills and maims more people than all of the idiot cyclists in the city.
According to the GLA, here, air pollution in London contributes to the early death of more than 4,000 people in 2008, and that these deaths are more frequent near main roads.
Unpleasant though near-misses from thoughtless or cowardly cyclists are (declaration of interest, I'm a pedestrian and occasional hire-cyclist), I'd suggest that anyone who chooses to go about London in a private combustion engine powered vehicle is irresponsible, deliberately poisoning everyone else for their own convenience.
The aggregate of this behaviour demonstrably kills and maims more people than all of the idiot cyclists in the city.
Guy's street Thursday 24 May 2012 2.13pm
Mr Woodward, of course you are allowed to be genuinely upset about something you perceive as a real problem. I've tried time and again to communicate to you that I agree that there is a problem, but that in my opinion, and, for example, what I observed over a mere 1 mile walk last night, the problem lies among a variety of different people - some of whom cycle, some of whom drive, some of whom walk, and some of whom probably do combinations of all three.
I've not once (to my mind) defended any of the bad apples in any of these groups. I am a pedestrian, a cyclist, a driver, and above all of these a person. A largely sensible one who sees value and importance in all three methods of transport and I don't think anyone deserves to be villified on the basis of what mode of transport they choose - by you or anyone else.
I think some really good points and opinions have been raised in this discussion, but it clearly isn't going anywhere. I'll be bringin my own bike out of hibernation soon, but I'll be taking it out in to the countryside where there aren't traffic lights stopping me every few metres!
I've not once (to my mind) defended any of the bad apples in any of these groups. I am a pedestrian, a cyclist, a driver, and above all of these a person. A largely sensible one who sees value and importance in all three methods of transport and I don't think anyone deserves to be villified on the basis of what mode of transport they choose - by you or anyone else.
I think some really good points and opinions have been raised in this discussion, but it clearly isn't going anywhere. I'll be bringin my own bike out of hibernation soon, but I'll be taking it out in to the countryside where there aren't traffic lights stopping me every few metres!
Ivanhoe Thursday 24 May 2012 2.44pm
Rambling Phil wrote:I'd suggest that anyone who chooses to go about London in a private combustion engine powered vehicle is irresponsible, deliberately poisoning everyone else for their own convenience.
Are buses OK? Or trains? What about the Tube?
Is it question of there being an acceptable level of pollutants per person per mile, or should all non-human-powered transport within London be stopped?
I was tempted to think that electric vehicles would be OK, but then I realised that would mean that we were just polluting someone else's backyard (i.e. those who live near power stations) for our benefit, which would be equally selfish.
What about turning the lights on at home when it gets dark? Or cooking a meal?
...if you press it, they will come.
Rambling Phil Thursday 24 May 2012 3.26pm
Ivanhoe - I hope you'd agree that minimising pollution for any activity is an admirable aim.
Travelling, eating and seeing are essential activities. The question is how to go about them while doing as little harm as possible.
While still polluting, efficient public transport is per passenger mile less polluting than a private car (particularly one with only one person in, as many are), so it's a better choice.
Travelling by car is demonstrably not essential - most people in SE1 manage to get by without owning one - by choosing to drive, you are choosing to cause more pollution than necessary, disregarding the health costs you are forcing onto others. Isn't that irresponsible?
I'm not trying to derail this fascinating thread into a discussion about pollution, though, merely pointing out another aspect of the relative public health costs of any car driving and dangerous cycling.
Travelling, eating and seeing are essential activities. The question is how to go about them while doing as little harm as possible.
While still polluting, efficient public transport is per passenger mile less polluting than a private car (particularly one with only one person in, as many are), so it's a better choice.
Travelling by car is demonstrably not essential - most people in SE1 manage to get by without owning one - by choosing to drive, you are choosing to cause more pollution than necessary, disregarding the health costs you are forcing onto others. Isn't that irresponsible?
I'm not trying to derail this fascinating thread into a discussion about pollution, though, merely pointing out another aspect of the relative public health costs of any car driving and dangerous cycling.
mikec Thursday 24 May 2012 4.15pm
"Travelling by car is demonstrably not essential - most people in SE1 manage to get by without owning one - by choosing to drive, you are choosing to cause more pollution than necessary, disregarding the health costs you are forcing onto others. Isn't that irresponsible?"
To be fair, Phil, a significant proportion of SE1 traffic is from outside the area. I'd love to see a completely pedestrianised central London, with only pedestrians and bikes, but how would food/deliveries etc get delivered? As much as the traffic volume annoys me intensely, I do think a lot of it is 'necessary.'
But yeah, private car ownership should be discouraged, although then you've got the car-owning libertarians that simply won't accept any responsibility for their behaviour. They want to drive. They can afford to drive. End of discussion. Public health or environmental concerns can go take a running jump. Changing that mindset isn't going to happen quickly.
To be fair, Phil, a significant proportion of SE1 traffic is from outside the area. I'd love to see a completely pedestrianised central London, with only pedestrians and bikes, but how would food/deliveries etc get delivered? As much as the traffic volume annoys me intensely, I do think a lot of it is 'necessary.'
But yeah, private car ownership should be discouraged, although then you've got the car-owning libertarians that simply won't accept any responsibility for their behaviour. They want to drive. They can afford to drive. End of discussion. Public health or environmental concerns can go take a running jump. Changing that mindset isn't going to happen quickly.
urbanite Thursday 24 May 2012 4.29pm
Private car ownership is already massively "discouraged" with the all the associated costs like the Congestion Charge, the ever increasing cost of insurance, the huge cost of petrol most of which is tax, servicing and MOTs and the 20% VAT bill that is part of every car purchase. Maybe the foolishness in owning a car is exactly that rather than anything to do with pollution.
Ivanhoe Thursday 24 May 2012 4.34pm
I'm generally sympathetic to your views, Phil.
Even if I were motivated only by selfish things like speed of journey, I wouldn't see driving as an ideal way to get anywhere in London. There's simply too much traffic. If we encourage more cycling, it will make traffic even slower. In one sense, this is a good thing if it reduces car usage (i.e. makes driving so slow that even the diehard drivers find alternatives). In another sense, the only things on the road would then be buses and delivery/construction vehicles (i.e. the things which are probably least compatible with cyclists).
I'd love to see something brave like the "No cars in the city centre on [x] day" initiatives that they used to have (?perhaps still do have?) in Paris. Getting more people onto public transport could be a great way to make people bothered about it, and to campaign for improvements. But I don't think anyone in politics (except maybe Ken - but he's finished now) has the balls to make decisions that are unpopular in the short term.
At the moment, whilst we have a pretty good tube service (all things considered), the buses are appalling; even with bus lanes they are painfully slow.
Even if I were motivated only by selfish things like speed of journey, I wouldn't see driving as an ideal way to get anywhere in London. There's simply too much traffic. If we encourage more cycling, it will make traffic even slower. In one sense, this is a good thing if it reduces car usage (i.e. makes driving so slow that even the diehard drivers find alternatives). In another sense, the only things on the road would then be buses and delivery/construction vehicles (i.e. the things which are probably least compatible with cyclists).
I'd love to see something brave like the "No cars in the city centre on [x] day" initiatives that they used to have (?perhaps still do have?) in Paris. Getting more people onto public transport could be a great way to make people bothered about it, and to campaign for improvements. But I don't think anyone in politics (except maybe Ken - but he's finished now) has the balls to make decisions that are unpopular in the short term.
At the moment, whilst we have a pretty good tube service (all things considered), the buses are appalling; even with bus lanes they are painfully slow.
...if you press it, they will come.
Guy's street Thursday 24 May 2012 5.04pm
Encouraging cycling would only make traffic slower if the two are asked to share the same road. Although, I'm not even convinced that would be the case - traffic is so controlled by traffic lights in London that even being stuck behind a bike probably doesn't take much off the journey, as more often than not you're caught up at the next set of lights anyway.
There's also the possibility that some of those takig to their bikes would be giving up their cars, and so would reduce the volume of cars on the road and reduce congestion for those that remain - the ones that really need to be on the roads as mentioned by others.
I'm sure I've read about research where 20mph speed limits in city centres actually speeds the flow of traffic - although can't be sure of the detail.
Ivanhoe, you mention the 'no cars in the city centre' thing - again I'm not sure of the detail, but isn't there the 'skyride' that takes place in London where they do a similar thing (although probably not on the same scale as what you're talkig about)?
There's also the possibility that some of those takig to their bikes would be giving up their cars, and so would reduce the volume of cars on the road and reduce congestion for those that remain - the ones that really need to be on the roads as mentioned by others.
I'm sure I've read about research where 20mph speed limits in city centres actually speeds the flow of traffic - although can't be sure of the detail.
Ivanhoe, you mention the 'no cars in the city centre' thing - again I'm not sure of the detail, but isn't there the 'skyride' that takes place in London where they do a similar thing (although probably not on the same scale as what you're talkig about)?
dee dee Thursday 24 May 2012 5.23pm
to discourage people from using cars you have to have a transport system that works well and is affordable not overcrowded unreliable and unpleasent.
To post a message, you must be a registered user. If you are already registered, please log in.