bike lanes again

[Wuffles]

Well my two penneth worth, Some cyclists are morons, some car, bus, lorry etc drivers are morons, so this discussion has no winners.

I think Jacob just likes to pour petrol on these kind of debates, then retires while everyone else "fights" there corner.
People, there are no winners in these type of discussions as there are to many people who will always think they are right.

Probably time for one of the mods to lock this thread, and lets move on. life really is to short.

Right, behind the settee now, so start hurling the abuse lol.

Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training

Some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training

As you are determined to drag this trolling back up I'll correct that for you.

Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training
However, some cyclists choose to be morons after their training
Also some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training

There, that's all tidy now.

 

[andys wood shed]

Well my two penneth worth, Some cyclists are morons, some car, bus, lorry etc drivers are morons, so this discussion has no winners.

I think Jacob just likes to pour petrol on these kind of debates, then retires while everyone else "fights" there corner.
People, there are no winners in these type of discussions as there are to many people who will always think they are right.

Probably time for one of the mods to lock this thread, and lets move on. life really is to short.

Right, behind the settee now, so start hurling the abuse lol.

Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training

Some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training

As you are determined to drag this trolling back up I'll correct that for you.

Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training
However, some cyclists choose to be morons after their training
Also some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training

There, that's all tidy now.

Because cycle trainings in not mandatory ( I believe it should) the cyclists that do seek out and undertake training do so to become better cyclists

 

[Finial]

As you are determined to drag this trolling back up I'll correct that for you.

Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training
However, some cyclists choose to be morons after their training
Also some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training

There, that's all tidy now.

Do you see all this as trolling? I call it discussion and see no reason to close it down.

I think you and Andy are both wrong on this point. There are not many morons on the road, cycling or driving, just people. Blaming or getting rid of morons is not going to improve safety. There are plenty of careless people and people who make mistakes. Many are willing to take chances, often perhaps without thinking. Bike riders are risking their own lives, drivers often other people's.

That's why cycling and driving don't mix, though some hardy individuals cycle on the road. The problem is unforgiving infrastructure that generally prioritises motor vehicles over other traffic. We need proper cycle tracks.

 

[RogerS]

.... We need proper cycle tracks.

So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?

 

[Jacob]

.... We need proper cycle tracks.

So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?

Same way as all the other road developments we all take for granted. Many millions spent on motorways, bypasses, inner/outer ring-roads and sundry traffic schemes in every town in Britain, including demolition of acres of old town centres.
Luckily cycle provision is far less demanding and would be far cheaper and less destructive. Arguably the car has had it's day - we've reached "peak car" and driving is becoming yesterdays mode of transport.

 

[Finial]

.... We need proper cycle tracks.

So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?

No. As Jacob said, that has been done to accommodate motor vehicles, but bikes are far more efficient in terms of space needed. People assume it can't be done here, but it is done in other countries and will work here too.

Cycling first has to be recognised as a legitimate form of transport needing development, which is now beginning to happen. Then roads are categorised either as through routes or as residential streets.

Residential streets can easily and cheaply be closed to through motor traffic, remaining open for access, so traffic levels are low. The streets become quiet cul-de-sacs with no rat runners, and suitable for cycling. Most residents are happy with that treatment for their own street at least.

Traffic routes get separate bike tracks, designed for cycling on, which most aren't currently. It takes some width from pavements, motor traffic lanes, central reservations, parking, or all of those, but very many roads have room to spare. When roads don't have space for this treatment, priority is given to bikes and pedestrians instead of motors. For example, the road can be made one way for motors, freeing up a lane. Traffic still moves, though motor routes may be longer. The work can be done when a road or street is resurfaced.

All this is well-known and normal practice in less backward countries. Here, we don't even have a standard, and new roads are still being built the same old way. Parts of London and some other places are making progress, though still getting a lot wrong. The work is cheap compared to what is spent on motoring or the railways, and reckoned to pay for itself, but at present cycling gets only a tiny fraction of the transport budget even where much of the traffic is bikes.

Most people have some degree of choice in the way they travel. Lots would like the option to cycle, but as cycling is difficult they drive or use public transport. Make it easier and many switch. With good facilities people feel safe and anyone who wants to can cycle, including children and old people. The school run becomes just a busy cycle track. Some of the squeezed motor traffic and congestion evaporates. Conversely, if driving is made easier or given more space, people switch to that and traffic increases.

 

[RogerS]

.... We need proper cycle tracks.

So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?

No. As Jacob said, that has been done to accommodate motor vehicles, but bikes are far more efficient in terms of space needed. People assume it can't be done here, but it is done in other countries and will work here too.

Where? Evidence please. Are we comparing like with like? I doubt it.

Cycling first has to be recognised as a legitimate form of transport needing development, which is now beginning to happen. Then roads are categorised either as through routes or as residential streets.

Residential streets can easily and cheaply be closed to through motor traffic, remaining open for access, so traffic levels are low. The streets become quiet cul-de-sacs with no rat runners, and suitable for cycling. Most residents are happy with that treatment for their own street at least.

Residents are happy? Evidence please or are you making an assumption? Where do residents park their cars? There is not enough roadside parking in many cities now. Delivery vans? How are they going to deliver?

Traffic routes get separate bike tracks, designed for cycling on, which most aren't currently. It takes some width from pavements, motor traffic lanes, central reservations, parking, or all of those, but very many roads have room to spare.

Outside cities perhaps.

When roads don't have space for this treatment, priority is given to bikes and pedestrians instead of motors. For example, the road can be made one way for motors, freeing up a lane. Traffic still moves

I thought you said you lived in London? Removing a lane and making it one way? You're having a laugh! London would really grind to a halt.

All this is well-known and normal practice in less backward countries.

Where? What are the demographics compared to the UK?

Most people have some degree of choice in the way they travel.

Not outside the major cities, they don't.

Not Lots A FEW would like the option to cycle, but as cycling is difficult they drive or use public transport. Make it easier and many switch. With good facilities people feel safe and anyone who wants to can cycle, including children and old people. The school run becomes just a busy cycle track.

Reality check required. Again, OK for some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Hopeless in the real world. Anyone want to sing Kumbaya ?

 

[Jacob]

........
Residents are happy? Evidence please or are you making an assumption? Where do residents park their cars? There is not enough roadside parking in many cities now. .......

There never was enough room.
When I worra lad (50s) there were no cars, nothing, parked on our wide post-war housing estate street. The only two car owners had their own drives and/or garages. This was normal throughout the country
The assumption that you have the right to park your car permanently on your street is very recent, came from nowhere, and perhaps was a fundamental mistake in early traffic policy.
Before the explosion of car use there was nothing at all parked permanently on the streets and roads. They were empty except for moving traffic and traffic stopped for delivery/visitors etc. Not much of that either - we could play hopscotch in the middle of the road.
I think we are slowly having to return to that very civilised condition.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... in-britain

Arguably if you haven't got space to keep it the right to park a car could be seen in the same light as the right to park a skip - normally charged £50 to £100 per week

 

[RogerS]

........
Residents are happy? Evidence please or are you making an assumption? Where do residents park their cars? There is not enough roadside parking in many cities now. .......

There never was enough room.
When I worra lad (50s) there were no cars, nothing, parked on our wide post-war housing estate street. .....

Wide street? When I were a lad, we had nowt but shoe-box in t'field t'live in. We used t'Guardian to keep our feet warm. All that hot air in it kept ours toes real toastie-like

 

[NazNomad]

1. I wouldn't know it from your comments.
2. Correct me if I've got it wrong, but you've commented as if people who pay car tax have exclusive rights to the road.
3. You've endorsed foolish comments about the causes of accidents.
4. You've threatened assault, possibly against small children.
5. You've shown no recognition that cycling is a legitimate form of transport.
6. You've shown no comprehension of the reasons why people might cycle on the pavement.
7. You've ignored government advice on that issue.
8. You've belittled commenters you disagree with.
9. You've commented as if poor driving is irrelevant to cycling.
10. The reasons to increase walking and cycling seem to have washed right over you.
11. You haven't offered any alternatives that could address those reasons.

1. Correct, you wouldn't.
2. You're wrong.
3. Yes, because bike-lane threads on a woodworking forum are foolish.
4. DAFUQ? Seriously? Those sort of accusations will get straight to the top of my ''threatened assault against'' list.
5. It's not where I live, the nearest town is 15 miles away.
6. ... because there IS no reason why they should.
7. I wasn't advised by the Govt. (at least I'm almost sure I never received that letter, maybe it's in the post?).
8. I have? Where?
9. In the same way that poor apples are irrelevant to bananas.
10. They have? You presume a lot.
11. You said earlier that the Govt. were doing that. I'd rather not confuse them further by offering sensible solutions.



... and 12. Take a chill pill and lighten the Hell up, it's all a laugh, innit.

 

[stuartpaul]

Well I don't care what any of you think or say, - I use a jig for sharpening and will continue to do so!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I don't care what anyone else does or doesn't do.

 

[andys wood shed]

... it's all a laugh, innit.

What a mindless, irresponsible and stupid comment to post and you received thanks for it :roll:

 

[RogerS]

... it's all a laugh, innit.

What a mindless, irresponsible and stupid comment to post and you received thanks for it :roll:

Assumption, again. I suspect that the 'thanks' were for the other 11 points.

 

[Finial]

.... We need proper cycle tracks.

So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?

[/quote]

Roger, you fell at the first hurdle. If you only look for objections and not solutions the change will appear impossible to you. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo. Clearly the change will be easier in some places than others and it needs traffic engineers to sort it out properly. But the principles I outlined do work, and are being implemented in London and Leicester for example. The motoring world hasn't come to an end there.

As for closing residential streets, if you think people like having you roaring down their street rat running to somewhere else you are kidding yourself. Where are house prices likely to be higher, in a quiet cul-de-sac or on a busy rat run?

There are plenty of one way roads in London and plenty of very wide ones too.

 

[Finial]

1. I wouldn't know it from your comments.
2. Correct me if I've got it wrong, but you've commented as if people who pay car tax have exclusive rights to the road.
3. You've endorsed foolish comments about the causes of accidents.
4. You've threatened assault, possibly against small children.
5. You've shown no recognition that cycling is a legitimate form of transport.
6. You've shown no comprehension of the reasons why people might cycle on the pavement.
7. You've ignored government advice on that issue.
8. You've belittled commenters you disagree with.
9. You've commented as if poor driving is irrelevant to cycling.
10. The reasons to increase walking and cycling seem to have washed right over you.
11. You haven't offered any alternatives that could address those reasons.

1. Correct, you wouldn't.
2. You're wrong.
3. Yes, because bike-lane threads on a woodworking forum are foolish.
4. DAFUQ? Seriously? Those sort of accusations will get straight to the top of my ''threatened assault against'' list.
5. It's not where I live, the nearest town is 15 miles away.
6. ... because there IS no reason why they should.
7. I wasn't advised by the Govt. (at least I'm almost sure I never received that letter, maybe it's in the post?).
8. I have? Where?
9. In the same way that poor apples are irrelevant to bananas.
10. They have? You presume a lot.
11. You said earlier that the Govt. were doing that. I'd rather not confuse them further by offering sensible solutions.



... and 12. Take a chill pill and lighten the Hell up, it's all a laugh, innit.

It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the highway code, then being told here it was my own fault.

And if you wanted to convince me that you do understand the issues, you've failed. Your comments show that you don't have a clue. Why don't you try cycling in traffic for a bit then come back and tell us about it?

 

[RogerS]

.... We need proper cycle tracks.

So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?

Roger, you fell at the first hurdle. [/quote]
Not at all, you're making assumptions again.

If you only look for objections and not solutions the change will appear impossible to you. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo.

No, I'm a pragmatist and a realist. I don't believe in rose-tinted spectacles.

Clearly the change will be easier in some places than others and it needs traffic engineers to sort it out properly.

It can't work and won't work in far too many areas.

But the principles I outlined do work, and are being implemented in London and Leicester for example. The motoring world hasn't come to an end there.

Anywhere in London you have in mind specifically? I remember seeing a kerbed off cycle lane near Tottenham Court Road where I used to walk at different times of the day, different days of the week. Statistically over a year, you'd expect me to see at least one cyclist. But I saw none. Zip. Nada. I saw gridlocked traffic though as a result of this.

As for closing residential streets, if you think people like having you roaring down their street rat running to somewhere else you are kidding yourself. Where are house prices likely to be higher, in a quiet cul-de-sac or on a busy rat run?

Have you read what you've written? A cul-de-sac won't have any through traffic. Cycles, horses or landaus. And you still have not answered my question. Where will residents park their cars? How do they get the groceries home? How do they get van deliveries ?

There are plenty of one way roads in London and plenty of very wide ones too.

Rose-tinted spectacles again. You will find that in many cases the one way roads complement each other. Adjacent roads flow in opposite directions. Your idea is totally impractical for most of London.

 

[Finial]

The assumption that you have the right to park your car permanently on your street is very recent, came from nowhere, and perhaps was a fundamental mistake in early traffic policy.

You can see what streets used to be like in old photos. They were almost empty where I lived too. Now many of those streets have a line of parked cars on each side and the remaining two-way single lane has a line of barely-moving vehicles. Many drivers park on the pavement now, either to let motor traffic move or to avoid damage to their cars, and often the council encourages it. So the pavement gets blocked by vehicles (and dustbins) and pedestrians end up walking in the road. But people still say bike riders cause congestion.

 

[andys wood shed]

It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the Highway Code

Was the drivers names RogerS, Wuffles and NazNomad by any chance

 

[RogerS]

It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the Highway Code

Was the drivers names RogerS, Wuffles and NazNomad by any chance

You do like making assumptions, don't you ?

And unnecessarily churlish.