London SE1 community website

Cycle lanes for Tower Bridge now!!!

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 6 of 7
Thursday 21 July 2011 10.27am
And in any event, VED is by carbon output, so we are all charged the right amount.
Thursday 21 July 2011 10.47am
JeandePierre wrote:
A car travelling at a constant 20mph arrives at its destination MUCH quicker than one which is often at a standstill, with occasional short bursts at 40mph.

Every cyclist knows this situation:
1. A car in a hurry overtakes you.
2. You catch up with it a few hundred yards later where it is waiting in a queue at a red light.
3. You move to the front of the queue, beyond the Advance Stop Line, and move off when the lights turn green.
4. The car overtakes you again.
5. You catch up with it a few hundred yards later where it is waiting in a queue at a red light. [repeat as above]

In other words, as a driver there is no reason to drive at 30 or 40mph, because in London you won't, on average, travel any faster than a cyclist at 10 or 15mph. And in the rush-hour you will often travel more slowly than a cyclist, who has the advantage of being allowed to move to the front of the queue at most red traffic lights.

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/804876.london_cars_move_no_faster_than_chickens/
Thursday 21 July 2011 11.50am
a tiny bit off topic, but relevant i think:
a few years back, a large chunk of camberwell road was closed off for traffic either because of an accident or a crime & walking down this massive space, walking slowly, was amazing, it suddenly transformed from an otherwise not terribly interesting, rush-through thoroughfare, into a human space. sadly we only very rarely get the opportunity to really appreciate and/or relate to the city.

some of the comments to the southwark transport plan questionnaire, for example, include things along the lines of 'why pedestrian crossings and not car crossings?' and quite a few calls for separate cycle lanes as not everyone is either confident enough or happy enough to be cycling along cars, buses and lorries (for safety but also health/environmental reasons)
Thursday 21 July 2011 12.03pm
Did anyone see the Top Gear episode where they raced across London by different modes of transport to get to City Airport? Hammond was on a bicylce, the Stig on London Transport, May was in a car and Clarkson in a speedboat. Hammond won on the bicycle, May in the car came last. And this with Hammond obeying all the traffic lights.

It takes me half the amount of time (25mins) to get from Walworth Rd to Canary Wharf where I work than it would on London Transport (bus then tube). It's so much cheaper, it's great exercise and so much less stress. That and I'm always guaranteed a seat ;P
Bea
Thursday 21 July 2011 6.28pm
When are these cyclist going to stop demanding to take over the roads ......they pay NOTHING
Thursday 21 July 2011 6.39pm
...Apart from thousands of pounds of income tax and VAT, just like everyone else.
Thursday 21 July 2011 10.31pm
But not road tax
congestion charge
Insurance
MOT for road worthiness
Parking permits
1.per litre fuel duty/tax

Or the expense of driving test
keeping the car fit and safe for the road.

The majority of cyclist are great (i'm a cyclist)

but a small minority have a real chip on there shoulder.

We should all share the road and have respect for each other.
Thursday 21 July 2011 11.04pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
EleanorT wrote:
Mutton wrote:
am regularly shouting and swearing at the cyclists

This is what I was objecting to, though I'm sure I don't need to say so.

In fact, Mutton's original quote was: "I'm now on foot, and am regularly shouting and swearing at the cyclists jumping the red lights, riding on the pavements, and going the wrong way down one way streets. I've come to the opinion that it isn't necessarily that one group is to blame... it's more that some people are just inconsiderate idiots. "

Which, imho, is entirely reasonable, and which you have quoted quite out of context.

@Ivanhoe : Thank you.

@ElanorT : I'm on your side (see my previous posts), but I have _no_ time for people who flaunt the law and risk the health of other people - cars, bikes, people... I don't care. If I see somebody behaving like an idiot, I've got no problem telling them.


Mutton wrote:
I disagree that the pavements are too small. They are *huge*. I'll take a guess that they are about 8-10 feet wide on each side. The fact that everybody managed to survive perfectly well with only one of the pavement for the best part of the last 18 months is proof that we can make do with smaller pavements. They could easily widen the road by 2-3 feet at either side and set aside a dedicated cycle lane. There is a pinch point as the road passes through the archways, but that could be handled with yellow hatched boxes if necessary.
Tolstoy wrote:
My main point would be that adding cycle lanes to the pavements simply wouldn't work due to the pinch points on the bridge. The thought that having encouraged people to cycle on it and then expect them to get off for a yellow box is a little naive in my view. No offence.

I didn't mean that the cyclists should be getting off. I was suggesting that there could be yellow boxes stopping vehicles from stopping in the pinch points and blocking it up.

Having done a little further research, I was way off with one of my comments. The pavements are not 8-10 feet wide. It's more like 14 feet wide.

I'm not sure how the people can claim the pavements are too small when we lived with only half a bridge for over a year. I walk over the bridge 2+ times every single day. Sure, it can be a slow walk because of the tourists, but it wasn't any slower when we only had one side in use. A couple of feet trimmed off on either side would not be missed.
Friday 22 July 2011 5.03am
'But not road tax
congestion charge
Insurance
MOT for road worthiness
Parking permits
1.per litre fuel duty/tax

Or the expense of driving test
keeping the car fit and safe for the road.'


You pay all that because you own a car! As has been pointed out it is a 'car' tax not 'road' tax. Why would cyclists need to pay a congestion charge, they don't cause it? Parking permits?! Fuel duty? It really isn't a cyclist's problem.
Friday 22 July 2011 6.25am
fuel tax?? if that rip=off doesn't give motorists priority on the roads there is no justice
well said (written) Drog.

i don't think anyone is saying cyclists shouldn't be on the roads...they just don't own them. and the demands of cyclists (eg for cycle lanes on a small bridge like Tower Bridge or slower and slower speed limits) are out of proportion.

the same people are also more than likely to oppose increases in speed limits on motorways, yet this would have no impact on cyclists in London at all. there is a bigger agenda
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 6 of 7

To post a message, please log in or register..
September at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions