London SE1 community website

Cllr Dan Garfield - cyclists are murderers

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 4 of 5
Monday 8 August 2011 1.05pm
jamesup wrote:
"inconsiderate-road users rant" - and taken as such Jane (by me at least). I have this argument frequently, if we want citizens like yourself to support the changes we need to encourage mass cycling we need to act a bit more neighbourly. I'm not claiming to be perfect but I do try very hard.
There's a question to ask as to why not provide a cycle contraflow on BHS during the work, if there is room? I think it could be done.

I suggest the rapidly changing slalom route along BHS is the excuse for not doing so. It's just not top of the agenda to provide such a facility. Interesting to observe the other day that while the contractors ignored any cyclist weaving their way around the cones and barriers from North to South, I was shouted at by one workman for trying to cross the road near the currently out of service pedestrian crossing, and going the 'wrong' side of a cone, in his view.

Off topic - I'm wondering how they are going to negotiate resurfacing the pavement under the permanently scaffolded buildings on the east side. (Continuing shame on you Guys / Kings property people).
Monday 8 August 2011 5.58pm
I'm actually in favour of shared spaces where I think they works as it puts onus on individuals to be alert to their respective roles but I'm having problems understanding this idea that cycle lanes are inherently dangerous, or at the very least ineffective.
Monday 8 August 2011 6.52pm
Tolstoy wrote:
I'm actually in favour of shared spaces where I think they works as it puts onus on individuals to be alert to their respective roles but I'm having problems understanding this idea that cycle lanes are inherently dangerous, or at the very least ineffective.

Hard to understand or not, that's what the research says. eg the MK data: Crashes per million km cycled: main roads 47, local roads 149, cycle paths 319.

I don't think it's particularly puzzling; forcing cyclists into the gutter where cars don't feel they have to worry about them, and where cyclists falsely believe they're safe, is more likely to lead to disaster when a cyclist is forced to swerve out by an obstruction or pothole, or at a junction, or when a vehicle turns without considering the cyclist, and the cyclist is likewise not thinking about the vehicle (because hey, they're in a lane, no vehicles here).

The safest place for a cyclist is in line with the traffic, using their full allocation of space. If the speed limit is 40 miles an hour, that's obviously not always going to be practical (though if it's not safe to overtake, I'd question whether it's safe to have the cyclists in the gutter), but where speed limits are reduced to 20mph I cannot see the problem, or any need for a cycle lane, a bicycle is perfectly capable of 20mph.
Monday 8 August 2011 10.39pm
Not all cyclists are capable or confident at 20mph, that's pretty fast, you can't get a boris bike up to that without some serious cardio.

Cycle lanes arn't dangerous if they are designed well. The Dutch and Danish worked this all out ages ago - we don't need to be pathfinders on this.
Tuesday 9 August 2011 8.28am
I think everyone should look around better. I'm a driver, cyclist and pedestrian and it seems that there are good and bad types of all.

I will say as someone who cycles around london on most days that I am shocked by the attitude of some cyclists. Cycle paths are dangerous for the average cyclist not just because of lorries or cars cutting through them but other cyclists jostling for space.

A few weeks ago my girlfriend was cycling on a cycle path and she was in a line of cyclists overtaking a slower cyclist. When it was "her turn" another cyclist came around a queue of other cyclists narrowly missed my girlfriend and crashed into several other cyclists coming in the opposite direction.

Anyway we all need to look out for each other and be a little more sensible. Road rage amongst cars is silly and people who walk and then just stop are just frustrating.

End rant

Darren
Thursday 2 April 2015 7.20am
Donnachadh McCarthy wrote:
Thanks for posting this James.
People may be interested to know that despite having one of London's highest cycle accident rates and highest levels of child obesity, Southwark Council has decided two weeks ago to OPPOSE ALL new cycle paths, except in exceptional circumstances.

It has also decided to REMOVE all existing cycle paths,as it introduces 20mph zones, when relaying surfacing.

The official Southwark Council line is they want to mix children, pensioners, vulnerable and adult cyclists with Articulated Trucks, cars, double-decker buses etc in order to slow the traffic down!!!!!!!!!!
(The official speak refers to "more interactions between cyclists and cars".)

I've personally little time for Southwark Council and its attachment to showmanship around this issue, as yes a few 20mph signs are cheaper that getting to grips with the core issues. However, in fairness the issues go beyond this borough and encroach upon such thorny matters as road user attitudes and driving standards.

But you spin on their attachment to a well respected approach to road safety in the form of "Shared Space" is unacceptable and your tone deliberately hysterical.

Safety for all road users cannot be achieved through segregation, that notion died in the 60/70's when cyclists/pedestrians were routed below (underpasses) traffic or above it on walkways... As we all know such schemes were a compliment to brutalist architecture which also proved to be a failure.

Shared Space design http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space is a well established design approach that does indeed mix all road users in order to slow traffic. It works very well in a number of European countries.
Thursday 2 April 2015 8.51am
jonnyp42
you are not correct. The Shared Space concept is being challenged in the transport field. The much lauded benefits are over hyped when you look at the actual outcomes. It is now pretty disrespected!

It has its place in a few situations. Mainly roads with very low levels of traffic. Not many of those in Southwark.

But as a replacement for fully segregated or seperated cycle routes? Complete nonsense - I've been to the Netherlands and studied their infrastructure. If Southwark are relying on shared space to increase the numbers of people cycling they will fail spectacularly.
Thursday 2 April 2015 9.30am
jonnyp42 wrote:
Donnachadh McCarthy wrote:
Thanks for posting this James.
People may be interested to know that despite having one of London's highest cycle accident rates and highest levels of child obesity, Southwark Council has decided two weeks ago to OPPOSE ALL new cycle paths, except in exceptional circumstances.

It has also decided to REMOVE all existing cycle paths,as it introduces 20mph zones, when relaying surfacing.

The official Southwark Council line is they want to mix children, pensioners, vulnerable and adult cyclists with Articulated Trucks, cars, double-decker buses etc in order to slow the traffic down!!!!!!!!!!
(The official speak refers to "more interactions between cyclists and cars".)

I've personally little time for Southwark Council and its attachment to showmanship around this issue, as yes a few 20mph signs are cheaper that getting to grips with the core issues. However, in fairness the issues go beyond this borough and encroach upon such thorny matters as road user attitudes and driving standards.

But you spin on their attachment to a well respected approach to road safety in the form of "Shared Space" is unacceptable and your tone deliberately hysterical.

Safety for all road users cannot be achieved through segregation, that notion died in the 60/70's when cyclists/pedestrians were routed below (underpasses) traffic or above it on walkways... As we all know such schemes were a compliment to brutalist architecture which also proved to be a failure.

Shared Space design http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space is a well established design approach that does indeed mix all road users in order to slow traffic. It works very well in a number of European countries.

Where did this come from? The original post was four years ago. I've no idea what Southwark's current policy is, but I don't think they've been actively removing cycle paths in the meantime
Thursday 2 April 2015 1.51pm
janefs wrote:
Cyclists are not being 'pushed' into peddling the 'wrong' way down Borough High Street at the moment, but they do. Pedestrians need eyes in their backdsides to cross safely, and are also at risk on the lovely smooth cycle lanes - sorry, pavements being created, from cyclists who ignore the signs advising them to dismount.
This may well be interpreted by some as another anti-cyclist rant, but it's more of an anti-inconsiderate-road users rant!
What she said

...if you press it, they will come.
Thursday 2 April 2015 4.16pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
janefs wrote:
Cyclists are not being 'pushed' into peddling the 'wrong' way down Borough High Street at the moment, but they do. Pedestrians need eyes in their backdsides to cross safely, and are also at risk on the lovely smooth cycle lanes - sorry, pavements being created, from cyclists who ignore the signs advising them to dismount.
This may well be interpreted by some as another anti-cyclist rant, but it's more of an anti-inconsiderate-road users rant!
What she said

Oi, Mr I, don't drag me back into this! My posts on here related to that memorable period nearly 4 years ago, when BHS was being re-paved and temporarily made one way to traffic, which some cyclists evidently didn't believe could possibly apply to them. Clashes with pedestrians also negotiating the works were inevitable.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 4 of 5

This thread has been closed
February 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