Cycling - Thames path Neckinger to London Bridge

theedy wrote:

EW hit it on the head. i spend a lot of time in Amsterdam
My observations;

There are no racing bikes
There are no mountain bikes
Most are on sit-up and beg cycles
It is mainly flat
The distances are shorter, no-one is trying to get from ? Norwood to Farringdon in the shortest possible time
The rules are clear but if I step into a cycle lane there is a polite ting, not a tirade
The cyclists obey the lights
There are pretty well no lorries and the buses and trams have their own rules /lights which the cyclists understand/respect

Which leads me to the conclusion that Amsterdam does not have much which is of relevance.

I would love London cyclists to turn into Amsterdam, but it is not going to happen.

The one thing I would like London cyclists to do is to give way on the left when a bus is approaching a bus stop. How the bus drivers manage it I don't know, but the number of times I have seen a cyclist try to race through the diminishing gap as he/she approaches a stop is frightening. And it will be the driver 's fault, and he will lose his livelihood.

Come on guys, think.

LOL dunno about that!

Julia7239 wrote:

yay! tim's back....and then a big rant about cyclists...

Shall we take bets on how many pages this will run to - I'm going with 27.

Are we allowed to start separate pages to rant about building work or are such things specific to transport (as I could probably do about three pages on TFL).

Zoe wrote:

Shall we take bets on how many pages this will run to - I'm going with 27.

///////
That depends on how many people raise to the bait, whichever side they are on.

theedy wrote:

ct
The one thing I would like London cyclists to do is to give way on the left when a bus is approaching a bus stop. How the bus drivers manage it I don't know, but the number of times I have seen a cyclist try to race through the diminishing gap as he/she approaches a stop is frightening. And it will be the driver 's fault, and he will lose his livelihood.

Come on guys, think.

Absolutely insane idea. Most bus drivers are good enough to wait the short time it takes for the cyclist to move on. Those that persistently pull in squashing a cyclist against the curb should be sacked.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Those blue lanes are a joke. Proper cycle lanes really are the best solution. It'll cost a fortune, but will save lives. Still, I wish cyclists wouldn't cycle at More London. I have been tempted myself in the past, as Tooley Street is murder, but practically gave up cycling ages ago, at least until some proper solutions in everybody's interest are found. The Barclay bikers are a problem as well, basically tourists, often inexperienced cyclists themselves, treating London as am iron horse play ground, presenting a danger mostly to themselves as well as others.

And there is the crux of the matter Edward - an excellent point.

Why do people cycle in places they shouldn't? One part ignorance, one part fear because of the lack of infrastructure for safe cycling.

The relevance of the Neckinger/More London area couldn't be a better example of this, could it? On the one hand you have a very pleasant, recently made over, pedestrianised bit of London. A few dozen metres away you have some of the most hostile, poorly maintained, confusing lanes , junctions, traffic controls in Central London - with what seems like one of the highest incident rates for accidents (often fatal) involving cyclists.

Is it any wonder that people choose to cycle through one over the other, even if the rules say otherwise?

Perhaps what should've happened, is a cycle route should've been incorporated in to the More London development and through Shad Thames?

Guy's street wrote:

And there is the crux of the matter Edward

Why do people cycle in places they shouldn't? One part ignorance, one part fear because of the lack of infrastructure for safe cycling.

It is not, and please don't twist my words - it doesn't help, not pedestrians, not cyclists and not motorists. It is clear that a grown up conversation on this subject still is utopian, so I am not going to bother.

'Absolutely insane idea. Most bus drivers are good enough to wait the short time it takes for the cyclist to move on. Those that persistently pull in squashing a cyclist against the curb should be sacked.'

This happened to me the other day on Waterloo Bridge at the Festival Hall, bus overtakes me less than 50 yards to the bus stop, then pulls in forcing me to stop at the curb. Completely unnecessary. See what you started Tim? All the gripes coming out.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Guy's street wrote:

And there is the crux of the matter Edward

Why do people cycle in places they shouldn't? One part ignorance, one part fear because of the lack of infrastructure for safe cycling.

It is not, and please don't twist my words - it doesn't help, not pedestrians, not cyclists and not motorists. It is clear that a grown up conversation on this subject still is utopian, so I am not going to bother.

I wasn't trying to twist your words - apologies if I misconstrued what you were saying.

Anyway, my belief is it is the point - a lot of people who cycle where they shouldn't probably wouldn't if the alternative wasn't taking on tipper trucks and double-decker buses in environments like Tooley Street. As someone said (possibly you, can't remember) - with the dramatic increase in cycling in recent years, and the introduction of the Boris bikes, there are far more inexperienced, uneducated cyclists around London but there is no infrastructure to match. Only yesterday I saw a couple of people on Boris Bikes wobbling along Tower Bridge Road in front of an HGV - they looked less stable than a 5-year-old riding without stabilisers for the first time.

As Tim Purcell suggests, something should be done about people riding bikes in areas that it isn't really appropriate to ride in. But we also don't want to discourage the most environmentally and economically friendly form of transportation, so the best way, it would seem, to achieve both, is to provide safe and suitable infrastructure for cycling.

Well the stuff about the roads is irrelevant to this thread. The point is that the stretch of river path I've indicated includes some areas which are obviously more suitable for cycling - More London around City Hall for instance - providing a level of respect is shown for everyone else - irrespective of the widespread no cycling signs. The remainder of the Thames Path indicated in the thread title just isn't, never was and never will be suitable for this purpose. Unfortunately there's a large number of barking mad cycling fascists and people who are simply unpleasant that insist, for purely selfish reasons, on ruining these areas for everyone else. It has to stop for a whole host of obvious reasons - I think the next stage is to pressure More London and Boris about it. I'm going to have a go.

Whilst I'm here it would be nice if Southwark council had a sensible plan to deal with the issue which has been created by the likes of Batty Boris and the loopy cycling lobby. Without gargantuan expense which London's taxpayers will never accept the capital's roads will never ever be suitable for this purpose. Consequently cycling on them at the current rate never will be safe for both cyclists and everyone else who is out and about. London is not and never will be Amsterdam. Unless someone can find a cycling fairy with a magic bike pump. The end.

'Barking mad cycling facists' , 'loopy cycling lobby'. So, no bias then?