London SE1 community website

Cycling in Central London

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 9 of 21
Thursday 5 December 2013 5.01pm
[quote Brendan D][quote Tom Pepper][quote Little Richardjohn]
My take on it was always that cyclists are perfectly entitled to use the roads, but when a pedal, or handlebar scores the side of a £40,000 vehicle, it doesn't exactly endear you to cyclists.[/quote]

Would really hack me off too...... I have third party liability insurance as part of the London Cycling Campaign, but I wouldn't scrape someones car :-([/quote]


That is good to hear Brendan, you sound like the type of cyclist who respects other road users, more power to your elbow, (unless you're using it to lean on my wife's car!)
Saturday 7 December 2013 3.16pm
"..i wont do it until its legal though" Quite right.
One solution would be 4-stage lights, or some other system to give priority at the grid to bikes, or at least slow down the Formula 1 contest.
Saturday 7 December 2013 3.18pm
You would strangle cycling at birth.
That would be the effect of all your regulation. What would be your age limit for riding a bike? Top and bottom.
Saturday 7 December 2013 3.26pm
Debrajoan wrote:
On the letters page of today's Evening Standard a cyclist gave his reason for going through lights that were red;
If I stopped at them all it would double my commute time.
Which is a typical motorist talking.
Most cyclists realise that in fact, most journeys across central London take almost the same time whether you dawdle or go like the clappers taking risks.
You may see some turbo-charged sparklyspokes disappear in the distance, but over a 5 mile trip, he'll only arrive a minute or two ahead of you. And you'll be fresh as a daisy.
Saturday 7 December 2013 3.35pm
Quote:
Can't see the argument against number plates, and insurance
Nice big sharp plates?
Again, just a brilliant way of regulating cycling out of existence for the convenience of the motorist. After all, who pays for the roads? Why should cyclists be treated differently to cars?
Because cyclists are people and cars are machines.
Saturday 7 December 2013 3.36pm
Little Richardjohn wrote:
Debrajoan wrote:
On the letters page of today's Evening Standard a cyclist gave his reason for going through lights that were red;
If I stopped at them all it would double my commute time.
Which is a typical motorist talking.
Most cyclists realise that in fact, most journeys across central London take almost the same time whether you dawdle or go like the clappers taking risks.
You may see some turbo-charged sparklyspokes disappear in the distance, but over a 5 mile trip, he'll only arrive a minute or two ahead of you. And you'll be fresh as a daisy.

A Dutch lady living in London cycles home every night. She has one of those old-fashioned Dutch granny-bikes with saddlebags, usually filled with shopping, so she is no Cavendish unlike most of her fellow cyclists, whizzing past her on their flash sportbikes. Although she is slightly embarrassed by her snail's pace,she holds on to her Dutch ways. One day a sweaty, lycra-clad boyracer moves next to her and asks: “Which way are you going?” When she explains she is on her way home, he says: “No, I mean, what route do you take?" Puzzled, she looks at him and he clarifies: "Everyday I overtake you and then a quarter of an hour later, I find myself behind you again, always in this spot. So I want to know: What route do you take?”
Saturday 7 December 2013 4.15pm
Little Richardjohn wrote:
Because cyclists are people and cars are machines.
...and cycles are machines, and drivers are people. I don't see what point you're making.

Perhaps you were trying to voice an opinion on whether all road users should be treated in the same way? Which is, of course, a slightly different question to whether all road users be expected to follow the same rules.

I'm all in favour of a "steam gives way to sail" approach on the roads. There's some mileage in exploring a heirarchy of rights, based on the different vulnerability of different groups of road users (pedestrians...cyclists...motorbikes...cars...vans...lorries), and giving different rights to each group. BUT it needs each group to take on the associated responsibilities, which is a problem given that we all seem to be so selfish these days.

Perhaps selfish is the wrong word. I suppose people are hard-wired to be selfish. Perhaps it's that we don't subscribe to social structures (and aren't willing to forego a bit of personal "freedom" in order to have a better overall outcome for society) in the way that some other cultures do, or in the way that, arguably, we used to do in the UK in times gone by.

...if you press it, they will come.
Saturday 7 December 2013 5.38pm
Little Richardjohn wrote:
Quote:
Can't see the argument against number plates, and insurance
Nice big sharp plates?
Again, just a brilliant way of regulating cycling out of existence for the convenience of the motorist. After all, who pays for the roads? Why should cyclists be treated differently to cars?
Because cyclists are people and cars are machines.

But both are operated by a person, a cyclist rides a cycle, and a driver drives the car.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, one could be forgiven for thinking that you mean that if cyclists had to have an identifying number plate, it would regulate cyclists out of existence.
Presumably you mean that they would not take kindly to this regulation, and would therefore give up cycling.
That is rather like saying that when tax discs, (now Road Fund Licence discs), were introduced, lots of motorists thought of forsaking their vehicles, rather than display the disc, and therefore comply with regulation.
Saturday 7 December 2013 7.22pm
Interesting.
I don't think having a registration would put me off cycling one little bit....
I can't see how a big enough plate to be visible would FIT on a bike though?
Third party insurance, yes.

Mandatory training.. not so sure. The incentive is for the cyclist to get trained to protect themselves, for drivers, its to protect other road users....(mainly)

Having a nice permanent and very visible registration number some where, and having to display it might be worth thinking about to deter the scum bags that steal bikes though?
Saturday 7 December 2013 8.49pm
Brendan D wrote:
Interesting.
I don't think having a registration would put me off cycling one little bit....
I can't see how a big enough plate to be visible would FIT on a bike though?


Having a nice permanent and very visible registration number some where, and having to display it might be worth thinking about to deter the scum bags that steal bikes though?

It's a nice thought, but I don't think a registration tag would deter would be thieves.
Cars have tags, front and rear, but the cars still get stolen all the time.
Current: 9 of 21

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