Cyclists V motorists Vpedestrians part 638

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Jules62 wrote:

I believe this is a Newtonian thing...

I for one appreciate that, but irresponsible, bullying cycling is not Newtonian, it's simply selfish, irresponsible and dangerous, and we should find ways to ensure that the minority of offending cyclists is even further reduced. Or do you think that for pedestrians having to jump out of the way is a solution?

I hate all bullies, be they in cars lorries, taxis, cycles on foot or even on roller skates and agree that the existing rules must be enforced: if cyclists where hit with the £500.00 fines for mounting pavements then so be it.

But driving licences or even registration plates such as exist in some countries is a bit much.

After all the greatest danger to pedestrians are other pedestrians in acts of street crime.
But I don't think people should have to take a test to be allowed to walk on pavements and cross the road, but maybe the American approach to jaywalking could be introduced...

The American approach to jay walking stops people walking and is part of what sends them to an early grave. We have to Balance the real danger we face from an inactive lifestyle to the slight danger people face as either pedestrians or cyclists. This doesn't mean we shouldn't make streets safer, but most of the concern people have is perceived not actual. Lack of exercise makes us mentally and physically unwell and considering the biggest danger to men under 50 is suicide, the hatred and hysteria about cyclists is truly nonsense and is creating a weird world where I am stopped while cycling up The Cut for no particular reason.

I saw an article that described the police in California giving people $180 fines for not crossing at the lights in streets totally devoid of cars and people had to instead walk blocks out of their way to cross. No wonder they all drive. They even fined people who started crossing on the count down numbers, they were only allowed to cross on the actual green man. Picturing that in London and I think we might riot!!

I think the greatest danger to road users in general is the total lack of responsibility as well self-victimisation by some. There are people who make mistakes, that can't be helped, everybody makes mistakes, but there are people who knowingly flaunt rules or refuse to respect other road users, and that's the ones that can and should be held responsible.

Well, Yesterday my wife and I took the train to Bookham and cycled a 35mile loop around the surrey hills. What really struck me was (apart from one close pass by a rental van on the way up to Ranmore) the courtesy, patience and consideration of the drivers in Surrey.

Maybe they are used to lots of cyclists... However it was a refreshing day to be without the aggression and pressure from London traffic. To be fair, all the riders I saw were also obeying all the traffic signals, signalling cars to pass and not unnecessarily blocking the road. so give and take all round :).

Brendan D wrote:

Well, Yesterday my wife and I took the train to Bookham and cycled a 35mile loop around the surrey hills. What really struck me was (apart from one close pass by a rental van on the way up to Ranmore) the courtesy, patience and consideration of the drivers in Surrey.
Maybe they are used to lots of cyclists... However it was a refreshing day to be without the aggression and pressure from London traffic. To be fair, all the riders I saw were also obeying all the traffic signals, signalling cars to pass and not unnecessarily blocking the road. so give and take all round :).

For some reason that's just reminded me of when on holiday and off to get the papers in the morning, all of a sudden i'm saying "morniiiing" in a John Alderton voice, try that in London and you'll get sectioned, sadly.

Well yesterday I was near Birmingham in the countryside. The cars on the country lanes were taking national speed limit as an instruction, not a recommended maximum.. 2 taxi drives and a long trip with a friend showed me that cars were doing 60mph+ on blind bends/narrow roads, you name it.. any cyclists on those roads was running a serious risk of becoming roadkill.

Personally I would let pedestrians carry tasers to use on the cyclists, and cyclists handguns to use on the motorists. This would restore the Balance of power regarding newtonian physics. Try to drive me off the road in a white van? Fine, how do you feel now I wave a gun through your window? See how it works?

Why pedestrians tasers and cyclists handguns?

Hi Gavin, A cyclist hitting you will cause minor damage and, in extremely rare cases, death - like a taser. One doesn't want ot go over the top.

Being hit by a 30mph vehicle weighing one tonne is a different prospect, similar to being shot (similar energy although much smaller object with v high velocity) and the potential for serious injury and death is increased.

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

The idea of licences for cyclists makes sense.

It makes no sense at all Edward:

1. It would be a massively disproportionate response to a small problem.
2. By inhibiting uptake of cycling it would have undesirable effects on e.g. traffic congestion, public health and air quality. And fewer journeys done by bicycle means more journeys done by motor vehicles which means greater risk for pedestrians (and the residue of committed cyclists).

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

Jules62 wrote:

boroughonian wrote:

Just seen something like that, although the cyclist didn't jump lights.
Would you believe Edward about 6 or 7 West Ham fans come out of the Barrowboy and Banker crossing the road
towards the station, bike going at some speed turning left from Duke Street Hill into BHS, he weren't stopping for nobody and went right into a rather large fellow, fortunately the pedestrian and his friends found it funny, as the cyclist was screaming "out the way out the way", could have been different.

It could have been different had it been a van, car or motorcycle hitting that pedestrian at the same speed: the energy of the impact (and the injuries suffered) is proportional to the momentum of the vehicle (ie its mass and velocity).
The greater the weight, the bigger the force.

That's why being hit by a 10 ton bus doing 20mph will have far greater consequences than being struck by a bicycle travelling at the same speed.

This is why the Highway Code treats cyclists differently than car drivers, and HGVs differently than cars: the bigger the mass the greater the chance of not surviving the impact.

I believe this is a Newtonian thing...

I for one appreciate that, but irresponsible, bullying cycling is not Newtonian, it's simply selfish, irresponsible and dangerous, and we should find ways to ensure that the minority of offending cyclists is even further reduced. Or do you think that for pedestrians having to jump out of the way is a solution?

Hang on a minute Edward, going back to Boroughonian's anecdote: "the cyclist didn't jump lights". So the guy's doing nothing wrong but is confronted with a group of pedestrians in the road and is unable to avoid a collision with one of them. What's selfish, bullying or irresponsible about that?

In this example, pedestrians jumping out of the way - or better still, using some common sense in the first place about correct use of a pelican crossing - would indeed have been a good "solution".

(Not long ago I and my bike had to hit the tarmac pretty hard to avoid colliding with a group of pedestrians who had just "jumped a red light" at a pelican crossing. Only by good fortune, neither I nor the bike was badly damaged, but it was no fun at all.)