Stopping the cyclists at More London

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 16 of 20
Wednesday 10 June 2009 11.53pm
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
When a law is persistently broken by typically law-abiding people, there's a message. In this case the message is "deliver fridges by bike" or as Norman Tebbit would say "On yer bike."

Yes we know ban all cars, lorries etc. A person who breaks the law is not 'typically law-abiding'.
In fact there are very 'law-abiding' people in this world... if people are honest with themselves they'd recognise that more often than not, the vast majority of people commit some form of minor offence on a regular basis.
In the case of cyclist I'd say the persistent nature of their offending is more related to a lack of real enforcement and the absence of a tangible penalty...
1.Who is this 'we' you speak for?

2. Your reasoning is that someone who breaks the law is not law-abiding and most of us break the law on a regular basis, therefore most of us are not typically law-abiding and bike riders need to have laws more stringently enforced because they're not typically law-abiding. Doesn't resonate with me as a train of thought. Probably 'we' know better though.
Zoe
Thursday 11 June 2009 6.41am
You are right Mark, there is a slight lack of logic there, if we all break laws regularly (which I think is right, and we do), why should cyclists be singled out as law breakers.

Or is that as we treat some laws as more important than others (which we do) then cyclists breaking the law is considered 'worse' than other types of law breaking? How we decide which laws are more important will presumbably be based upon our own backgrounds, prejudices etc.
Thursday 11 June 2009 8.36am
Zoe wrote:
Car drivers are the worst offenders for law breaking, because they speed - we just don't think it's something that is particularly illegal. In fact, it's the subject of debate as to whether it should even be illegal, imagine if we discussed other crimes in this way. Most drivers speed every day, even if it's just by a few miles an hour, it's still illegal and potentially dangerous. I speed myself, so I count myself in this.

Zoe. If you replaced "car drivers" with "cyclists", and "speeding" with "jumping red lights", your sentence would work just as well to represent the views of those on the other side of the argument.

Which, I think, is basically the crux of the problem. People feel polarised, and one side can't see the other side's point of view.

...if you press it, they will come.
KP
Thursday 11 June 2009 10.42am
Surely the point is that cyclists and car drivers need to coexist, along with lorry drivers, taxis, public transport and walkers, and we should be concentrating efforts on how to achieve this in the best way rather than stating the obvious differences between each. Have just emailed Tfl with a load of ideas for improving taxi sharing, making cycling easier and making busses easier to use, spurred on by events over the last couple of days. Dont expect an instant response, but it may have some positive impact, as opposed to just getting angry about it.
Thursday 11 June 2009 6.46pm
markadams99 wrote:
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
When a law is persistently broken by typically law-abiding people, there's a message. In this case the message is "deliver fridges by bike" or as Norman Tebbit would say "On yer bike."

Yes we know ban all cars, lorries etc. A person who breaks the law is not 'typically law-abiding'.
In fact there are very 'law-abiding' people in this world... if people are honest with themselves they'd recognise that more often than not, the vast majority of people commit some form of minor offence on a regular basis.
In the case of cyclist I'd say the persistent nature of their offending is more related to a lack of real enforcement and the absence of a tangible penalty...
1.Who is this 'we' you speak for?
The 'we' was a reference to those of us who think your frequently referenced: "shut the city to all motorised traffic" is a little absurd.

But you're right... let cyclists do as they please... it will make for a much happier situation. Whilst we're at it why don't we just repeal all road traffic law.
Thursday 11 June 2009 10.50pm
This afternoon, driving along Long Lane toward Abbey St. I stopped in a line of traffic, about 6th. or 7th. from the front, at the light at the junction of TBR.
When the light changed to green and we all moved off I noticed a flash of white to my right in my peripheral vision.
A young lady cyclist was attempting to overtake me as I built up speed while accelerating away from the light.
Coming toward me from Abbey St. was a yellow van, on a collision course with the cyclist who desperately turned her cycle toward me as it was obvious that he wasn't going to stop.
I had no alternative but to brake to avoid hitting her and in doing so I then caught a red light.
Catching her up halfway down Abbey St. I slowed and said to her, "Was that wise back there?"
She replied with an eight letter word that starts with B and ends with ocks.
Friday 12 June 2009 4.43am
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
When a law is persistently broken by typically law-abiding people, there's a message. In this case the message is "deliver fridges by bike" or as Norman Tebbit would say "On yer bike."

Yes we know ban all cars, lorries etc. A person who breaks the law is not 'typically law-abiding'.
In fact there are very 'law-abiding' people in this world... if people are honest with themselves they'd recognise that more often than not, the vast majority of people commit some form of minor offence on a regular basis.
In the case of cyclist I'd say the persistent nature of their offending is more related to a lack of real enforcement and the absence of a tangible penalty...
1.Who is this 'we' you speak for?
The 'we' was a reference to those of us who think your frequently referenced: "shut the city to all motorised traffic" is a little absurd.

But you're right... let cyclists do as they please... it will make for a much happier situation. Whilst we're at it why don't we just repeal all road traffic law.
Ok, I've just come in from Gods of Carnage with Tony Soprano and a couple of drinks and Gotham City looking suggestive in fog, so I'm not feeling tolerant of London SE1 snark, so a couple of forcedly gentle and general suggestions to toutlemonde:
1. On public fora speak in your own voice rather than some imaginary collective.
2. It's more gallant to use your own name.
3. As Cyrano would say 'Panache!'
Zoe
Friday 12 June 2009 7.01am
Lots of traffic law doesn't apply in London anyway, or so it can seem when driving!
Friday 12 June 2009 10.17am
Just to divert from the snarking for a moment, the following is an extract from a recent article by Chris Addison, (actor in 'The Thick of It', among other things) on his suggestions for a 'new Highway Code';

"For cyclists, it will become compulsory to wear a reflective jerkin bearing the legend “I'm better than you”.

It is hoped that this will help other members of the public to understand why they feel they can ignore Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835 and Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988 which make it illegal for them to ride on pavements and pedal through traffic lights respectively.

Pedestrians, meanwhile, will undoubtedly benefit from a clarification of where they have right of way.

As under the general Highway Code, this will be at marked pelican and zebra crossings but the London version will confirm that pedestrians have been right in their apparently long-held suspicion that when drunk on a Friday night they may wander out onto the road at will so long as, instead of looking where they're going, they're trying to fit as much of a kebab into their mouth as physically possible.

I don't know why those weren't in the Highway Code in the first place."
Friday 12 June 2009 5.23pm
markadams99 wrote:
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
When a law is persistently broken by typically law-abiding people, there's a message. In this case the message is "deliver fridges by bike" or as Norman Tebbit would say "On yer bike."

Yes we know ban all cars, lorries etc. A person who breaks the law is not 'typically law-abiding'.
In fact there are very 'law-abiding' people in this world... if people are honest with themselves they'd recognise that more often than not, the vast majority of people commit some form of minor offence on a regular basis.
In the case of cyclist I'd say the persistent nature of their offending is more related to a lack of real enforcement and the absence of a tangible penalty...
1.Who is this 'we' you speak for?
The 'we' was a reference to those of us who think your frequently referenced: "shut the city to all motorised traffic" is a little absurd.

But you're right... let cyclists do as they please... it will make for a much happier situation. Whilst we're at it why don't we just repeal all road traffic law.
Ok, I've just come in from Gods of Carnage with Tony Soprano and a couple of drinks and Gotham City looking suggestive in fog, so I'm not feeling tolerant of London SE1 snark, so a couple of forcedly gentle and general suggestions to toutlemonde:
1. On public fora speak in your own voice rather than some imaginary collective.
2. It's more gallant to use your own name.
3. As Cyrano would say 'Panache!'

Snark? How very urban of you.

1. I'm not alone, in challenging your lunacy, so the use of 'we' is not improper.
2. I'm guessing your name is Mark... well mine is Jonny, happy now... or would you like my Surname and NI number as well?
3. 'Panache', yes well... were you attributing that to yourself? Well, I suppose a confidence of style can easily be confused with arrogance. Personally I'd say tiresome and pompous would be more apt.
Current: 16 of 20

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network