Share the Road

1246719

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Even today, when I walked to my local greengrocers, I had to wait a couple of minutes to cross the road because of the traffic.

    Why do cars have right of way? Okay, I'm not going to just veer out into the road and get run over, but it's pretty obvious I was wanting to cross the road. The first car should go past. The second car should stop and let me cross. That makes sense, right?

    Went to the kids' Easter Service at the Church this morning (CofE primary school). They had to be crocodiled back the half mile to school because of the danger from motor vehicles. If you had to implement a strict protocol to protect children from any other threat you'd start talking in terms of terrorism. Because it's motor vehicles, though, it's somehow fine that pedestrians are corralled by fear of death.

    This is part of the cost of letting motoring be as convenient and unimpeded as possible. That's before we start talking about the verges turned to mud by people who think they're for parking on, or me forced to walk in the road by people who think pavements are parking places. It's time we got a grip.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Even today, when I walked to my local greengrocers, I had to wait a couple of minutes to cross the road because of the traffic.

    Why do cars have right of way? Okay, I'm not going to just veer out into the road and get run over, but it's pretty obvious I was wanting to cross the road. The first car should go past. The second car should stop and let me cross. That makes sense, right?
    No. It doesn't. Whatever moves the most people with the fewest delays makes sense. That will typically mean more an imbalance of pedestrians and vehicles, not turnsies.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You.

    Bollocks. I've said several times I prefer to share it over using substandard infrastructure.
    When presented with the idea of a separate cycle infrastructure, you said you would use it when you felt like it. That is selfish and problematic.

    More bollocks. Cars are a problem because they pollute, they kill, frequently, and slow movement around urban areas because they are massively inefficient users of space when as so often they transport a single person. None of this is true of cycling. It is part of the solution. If you think cyclists are a problem you're smoking something weird.
    No. I am talking reality, you are talking personal preference. If you want truly effective transport within a city, an automated Personal Rapid Transit system is the more effective solution. This would require a reduction of cars and cycles to be at its most effective.
    Cycling is greener, yes. Newton's laws of motion make them less damaging. As mentioned earlier, it is the disparity in velocity that causes much of the danger. Also, because cyclists can manoeuvre in congested traffic, they present more opportunity for accidents.* A complete separation is a much safer option, but you want exemption from that.


    *Yes, it would still be the fault of the driver that hit them.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You. As well as them. Cycling isn't the solution. It is part of the problem. Effective transit in urban areas would reduce cycling as well as cars.

    No.

    Where there is excellent public transport people cycle to the station/tram/bus stop. There are huge cycle parks near the stations. It works very well, all ages of people use their bikes for the short trips to the bus/train/tram. They leave their bikes for the day then pick them up afterwards. My son does this in Heidelberg and he has no use for a car at all.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You.

    Bollocks. I've said several times I prefer to share it over using substandard infrastructure.
    When presented with the idea of a separate cycle infrastructure, you said you would use it when you felt like it. That is selfish and problematic.


    And bollocks again. My cycling on the road instead of using the facilities has no negative impact on anyone else. It is therefore not in the least selfish.

    Motorists think cycles hold them up. They don't. I drive, in fact I drive quite a bit. I am held up by other motorists all the bloody time. I am not ever held up more than a few seconds by cyclists.

    Now please take your obvious prejudice against cyclists and stuff it up your arse. I'm sick of hearing it. Always the cyclist in the wrong. Shouldn't be on the road. Shouldn't be on the path. They all go through red lights. They all ride on pavements. They clog the roads. Typical scapegoating of an outgroup mixed with utter bullshit. According to Marvin upthread it's apparently our fault that the roads are clogged with parked cars so he can't get past.

    Not interested. Your problem is motor vehicles and them alone. Nothing else makes the city roads a nightmare.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You. As well as them. Cycling isn't the solution. It is part of the problem. Effective transit in urban areas would reduce cycling as well as cars.

    No.

    Where there is excellent public transport people cycle to the station/tram/bus stop. There are huge cycle parks near the stations. It works very well, all ages of people use their bikes for the short trips to the bus/train/tram. They leave their bikes for the day then pick them up afterwards. My son does this in Heidelberg and he has no use for a car at all.
    Heidelberg isn't London. Or New York or Los Angeles.
    Its population is just over 150,000, a quarter of which are students. A different set of logistics. London and its commuter zone (the London Metropolitan area) is more than 14,000,000. Over 90 times the size.
    Not at all the same thing.


  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    No, it’s not the same thing, but it could be - given the political will. All ages cycle, not just the students. Of course there must be provision for those who can’t too.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's pretty bloody obvious now who really doesn't want to share the road, isn't it?
    You. As well as them. Cycling isn't the solution. It is part of the problem. Effective transit in urban areas would reduce cycling as well as cars.

    No.

    Where there is excellent public transport people cycle to the station/tram/bus stop. There are huge cycle parks near the stations. It works very well, all ages of people use their bikes for the short trips to the bus/train/tram. They leave their bikes for the day then pick them up afterwards. My son does this in Heidelberg and he has no use for a car at all.
    Heidelberg isn't London. Or New York or Los Angeles.
    Its population is just over 150,000, a quarter of which are students. A different set of logistics. London and its commuter zone (the London Metropolitan area) is more than 14,000,000. Over 90 times the size.
    Not at all the same thing.

    Need I point out that the pattern of cycling short distances to public transport hubs is common in Tokyo, where it also works fine. That's almost 40 million people, about 3 times the size of London. So, a system that works for cities of a few hundred thousand and cities of tens of million doesn't work (according to you) in a city of intermediate size. Perhaps the issue is a factor other than size ... like woeful lack of investment in the necessary infrastructure (cycle roots to transport hubs, and bike storage once there), worship of tin boxes on wheels, inadequate investment in public transport etc.
  • How about we microchip bicycles and pedestrians so cars can detect them? Which is the stupid idea put out by some bike industry people.

    How about instead we fix infrastructure? But you know where this is going don't you? They will press to do this.

    As the article says: "every moose in North America will have to be chipped as well"

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Cycling isn't the solution. It is part of the problem. Effective transit in urban areas would reduce cycling as well as cars.
    Though it's blindingly obvious that effective public transport (everywhere, not just urban areas) is essential, the first statement is simply daft.

    The aim is to have the most efficient means of moving people from A to B. Over relatively short distances (upto 20 miles ish) a bicycle is a very efficient way to travel - no fuel and pollution, no impact on road surfaces, plus the cyclist gets a good workout (so good for other policies too, such as reducing obesity rates).
  • Need I point out that the pattern of cycling short distances to public transport hubs is common in Tokyo, where it also works fine. That's almost 40 million people, about 3 times the size of London. So, a system that works for cities of a few hundred thousand and cities of tens of million doesn't work (according to you) in a city of intermediate size. Perhaps the issue is a factor other than size
    How about Tokyo is a modern city? London is not. That is a massive difference.
    Different cities will require different strategies and implementations. It isn't as simple as saying ride more bicycles. Or cars are the evilz. You are correct in that people need to change how they view things. But the problem is difficult and not only on the motorist end. Look at KLB. When presented with the idea of a separated cycleway, his acceptance is conditional on not having to use it. He does not want to give up his perceived freedom. There is no cyclists utopia in the future. Freedom is a always a compromise.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    How about Tokyo is a modern city? London is not. That is a massive difference.
    Tokyo (OK Edo at the time) was a city of more than 1 million people 300 years ago, that's hardly a "modern city". In many ways similar to London - a metropolitan area that has grown to engulf surrounding towns, a city including a lot of historic buildings (and, royal parks etc), severely damaged during the war and rebuilt afterwards etc. Of course, both cities (in common with every other city) has invested in substantial modernisation with new high rise development, so yes in that sense both are modern cities.

    Where things differ is in investment in infrastructure. A substantial network of underground and overground rail lines (which is fairly integrated, despite a large number of operators), extensive pedestrianised areas - including easy links between different stations - quite often possible to walk for a km or more without ever having to cross a road, many walkways elevated or underground (in wide, well lit and pleasant boulevards more like a shopping mall than pedestrian tunnels linking underground stations). Put simply, as the city has been redeveloped it has been planned, so new buildings aren't built in isolation, but the infrastructure is built in - eg: most new buildings have basement access directly linked to the nearest subway stations. There is no reason why London couldn't have been redeveloped along similar lines, it would just require a bit of planning, a strong metropolitan government that could look at the big picture and make sure developments are more than just another building, but links to and enhances the transport infrastructure.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    ... it would just require a bit of planning ...
    LOL! Don't know about where you live, but this is sadly wanting in my neck of the woods.
    ... a strong metropolitan government that could look at the big picture ...
    More LOL. City officials where I live are almost all in bed with the developers. The one that isn't is facing a recall petition.

  • Since recent posts were about planning and development, it seemed appropriate to point out that if (local) government actually get their act together then cities can be developed to be much more friendly for anyone who isn't in their own little tin box on wheels.

    It goes without saying that the problem about a lack of planning and investment in public transport and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians isn't with the pedestrians, cyclists or even (shock) Audi drivers. The problem is with those responsible for development of cities, and the fact that they don't actually do any planning.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Whatever moves the most people with the fewest delays makes sense. That will typically mean more an imbalance of pedestrians and vehicles, not turnsies.

    I'm not at all convinced by your maths. In a 20mph zone, a car will have to wait for a few seconds to let me cross, then can rapidly proceed. In fact, if they were doing 20mph or less, I could probably cross without holding them up at all.

    But it's the assumption that I have to give way to cars, rather than vice versa that I'm questioning. This is a residential zone, near a school, with a 20mph limit. There's absolutely no reason to have the same rules there than on a 40mph urban clearway.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    ...If you think cyclists are a problem you're smoking something weird.

    It's more likely that you live in the real world, where cyclists run red lights, zip through stop signs without slowing down, blast past pedestrians (usually on sidewalks, where they're illegal) far too close for comfort, and pull out in front of cars that couldn't stop in time if they had to.

    Nothing matters to a cyclist in a hurry; while in France last fall, I stepped into a pedestrian crosswalk and got screamed at by cyclists who'd been a half-block away when I did so, but who couldn't be bothered even to swerve, let alone relinquish the right-of-way. I thought crosswalks were supposed to be sacred to pedestrians, particularly for feebs like me. Wrong again.

    You don't want to share the road. You want everyone else to Just Go Away. (But, of course, motorists should keep paying for the roads, yes?)


  • And, you judge all motorists by the standard of Audi drivers too?
  • Or, maybe we should make sure we also berate the pedestrians wandering around pavements, car parks and practically everywhere as though they owned the place. Headphones on, eyes down tapping away on their phones, oblivious to others who clearly have no right to be walking, let alone riding a bike or driving a car, anywhere within 100 yards of them.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Then goes on to post a lengthy justification of the status quo. Again.
    Which is why my questions are about how to remove some of the cars from the car-driving people whilst leaving them relatively satisfied with the exchange, and how to do it in an economically rational way.

    You can't do that without understanding why people currently drive their cars rather than walking, cycling, or taking the bus.

    If you offer people a bus ride which is slower and more expensive than taking their car, and only goes once an hour, then almost nobody will choose the bus. If you can replace enough car use so that I can own fewer cars, the economics change - now the bus journey doesn't have to compete with the marginal cost of a car journey - it just has to beat the cost of buying the car as well. Which is why the way to reduce car journeys is to enable people to own fewer cars.

    Have autonomous vehicles and the economics changes again - you take the expensive bus drivers out of the equation.

    There remain a number of use cases for which current public transport is very bad - transporting large objects (or large quantities of objects), transporting anything particularly fragile or delicate, or that you don't want to put down on a wet footpath while you wait for the bus. Those needs are met by the private car, or by something that looks a bit like it (private-use autonomous taxi, for example).
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Even today, when I walked to my local greengrocers, I had to wait a couple of minutes to cross the road because of the traffic.

    Why do cars have right of way? Okay, I'm not going to just veer out into the road and get run over, but it's pretty obvious I was wanting to cross the road. The first car should go past. The second car should stop and let me cross. That makes sense, right?

    The efficient way to manage the intersection of a flow of cars with a flow of people is to let them figure it out by themselves if the flows are small (ie. there's always a gap coming along, so nobody has to wait very long), or implement some kind of clumping if the flows are larger (ie. many cars go, then you interrupt the cars to allow a clump of pedestrians to cross, then you interrupt the pedestrians to allow the clump of cars to move, and repeat). One car / one pedestrian alternating is wildly inefficient.

    (I think in both of our locations, pedestrians theoretically have right of way at a marked crossing - once you put a foot on a zebra crossing, the traffic has to stop for you. In practice, it's a brave pedestrian who doesn't wait to see if the car is actually stopping.)

    The even more efficient way is to have some kind of bridge / over / underpass, so that nobody has to stop, but that's a lot more expensive.


  • KarlLB wrote: »
    If you had to implement a strict protocol to protect children from any other threat you'd start talking in terms of terrorism.

    Bollocks :wink:

    I have strict protocols to protect primary-school age children from my power tools. It's got nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with small children not recognizing the risks and/or paying attention.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    And bollocks again. My cycling on the road instead of using the facilities has no negative impact on anyone else. It is therefore not in the least selfish.

    Motorists think cycles hold them up. They don't. I drive, in fact I drive quite a bit. I am held up by other motorists all the bloody time. I am not ever held up more than a few seconds by cyclists.

    Agreed - I am never held up for more than a handful of seconds by a normal cyclist on his way home / shopping / whatever. The only time I am held up by cyclists for significant time is when I encounter a whole peleton of lycra-clad members of one of the local cycling clubs. Even then, they're not as bad as meeting a flock of sheep.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    The efficient way to manage the intersection of a flow of cars with a flow of people is to let them figure it out by themselves if the flows are small (ie. there's always a gap coming along, so nobody has to wait very long), or implement some kind of clumping if the flows are larger (ie. many cars go, then you interrupt the cars to allow a clump of pedestrians to cross, then you interrupt the pedestrians to allow the clump of cars to move, and repeat). One car / one pedestrian alternating is wildly inefficient.

    It's barely less efficient for the car. And for pedestrians, it's great, because they get to cross a residential street where the speed limit is low, as if they were actually on a parity with the person behind the wheel.

    Whereas, outside of a Zebra crossing, pedestrians have to stand for several minutes, watching the traffic drive by, before being grudgingly permitted 20-30 seconds in which they are allowed to swap sides of a single street. If any single thing shows how the roads are designed for motor traffic, and not everyone else, it's this. In the US, the motor lobby agitated for, and got, Jaywalking laws, because cars running over pedestrians was making them look bad.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    If you had to implement a strict protocol to protect children from any other threat you'd start talking in terms of terrorism.

    Bollocks :wink:

    I have strict protocols to protect primary-school age children from my power tools. It's got nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with small children not recognizing the risks and/or paying attention.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    And bollocks again. My cycling on the road instead of using the facilities has no negative impact on anyone else. It is therefore not in the least selfish.

    Motorists think cycles hold them up. They don't. I drive, in fact I drive quite a bit. I am held up by other motorists all the bloody time. I am not ever held up more than a few seconds by cyclists.

    Agreed - I am never held up for more than a handful of seconds by a normal cyclist on his way home / shopping / whatever. The only time I am held up by cyclists for significant time is when I encounter a whole peleton of lycra-clad members of one of the local cycling clubs. Even then, they're not as bad as meeting a flock of sheep.

    And yet people on here want to force cyclists off the road onto slower, less direct infrastructure to release tiny or in many cases non-existent gains for motorists, yet when we object we're the selfish unreasonable ones. It beggars belief.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Then goes on to post a lengthy justification of the status quo. Again.
    Which is why my questions are about how to remove some of the cars from the car-driving people whilst leaving them relatively satisfied with the exchange, and how to do it in an economically rational way.

    You can't do that without understanding why people currently drive their cars rather than walking, cycling, or taking the bus.

    If you offer people a bus ride which is slower and more expensive than taking their car, and only goes once an hour, then almost nobody will choose the bus. If you can replace enough car use so that I can own fewer cars, the economics change - now the bus journey doesn't have to compete with the marginal cost of a car journey - it just has to beat the cost of buying the car as well. Which is why the way to reduce car journeys is to enable people to own fewer cars.

    Have autonomous vehicles and the economics changes again - you take the expensive bus drivers out of the equation.

    There remain a number of use cases for which current public transport is very bad - transporting large objects (or large quantities of objects), transporting anything particularly fragile or delicate, or that you don't want to put down on a wet footpath while you wait for the bus. Those needs are met by the private car, or by something that looks a bit like it (private-use autonomous taxi, for example).
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Even today, when I walked to my local greengrocers, I had to wait a couple of minutes to cross the road because of the traffic.

    Why do cars have right of way? Okay, I'm not going to just veer out into the road and get run over, but it's pretty obvious I was wanting to cross the road. The first car should go past. The second car should stop and let me cross. That makes sense, right?

    The efficient way to manage the intersection of a flow of cars with a flow of people is to let them figure it out by themselves if the flows are small (ie. there's always a gap coming along, so nobody has to wait very long), or implement some kind of clumping if the flows are larger (ie. many cars go, then you interrupt the cars to allow a clump of pedestrians to cross, then you interrupt the pedestrians to allow the clump of cars to move, and repeat). One car / one pedestrian alternating is wildly inefficient.

    (I think in both of our locations, pedestrians theoretically have right of way at a marked crossing - once you put a foot on a zebra crossing, the traffic has to stop for you. In practice, it's a brave pedestrian who doesn't wait to see if the car is actually stopping.)

    The even more efficient way is to have some kind of bridge / over / underpass, so that nobody has to stop, but that's a lot more expensive.


    They generally only oit zebra crossings when they're not really needed. The more common pelican crossings are the ones that cause issues for pedestrian; if you need to cross two or three at a major junction it can take ten minutes or more. I do believe that they should change immediately a pedestrian presses the button unless they've been on the green man within the last minute. If that means that traffic flow is buggered, then it means the crossing is too well used for a light controlled crossing and a bridge or underpass is required. Currently the solution is usually to tell pedestrians "tough, wait" when I think in the urban environment they should be the ones prioritised.
  • It never ceases to amaze me the number of cyclists I see (often at the last minute) after dark in dark clothing and no lights on. Despite being nearly invisible, they still run red lights into the path of faster moving vehicles or move across a busy carriageway to turn right without warning. I really don’t have a problem sharing the road with cyclists and make a conscious effort to look out for them, but they need to take some responsibility themselves.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Look at KLB. When presented with the idea of a separated cycleway, his acceptance is conditional on not having to use it. He does not want to give up his perceived freedom.
    As far as the UK is concerned, if a road is not a motorway or a Special Road (very rare), then it is a right of way, and unless subject to a Traffic Order, then it is, by ancient custom and practice, a right of way for everyone. As a freeborn British citizen I have the right to walk along a 70mph dual carriageway if I so desire, and it is motorists, not cyclists, who are impeding my freedom to exercise that right.

  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    I'm a cyclist, and am aware that there was a very twisty narrow section on my commute when cars couldn't pass me if there was traffic in both directions and would pull over into a side lane to let a queue go past. But that section had nowhere I could pull over safely until I reached that lane.

    Having said that there is an semi-organised annual night bike ride from London to the Suffolk coast, the Dunwich Dynamo, that I have witnessed a few times. Last time I wrote to the organisers to advise them that many of the participants weren't following the guidelines. Instead of riding at a maximum of two abreast, making sure that all bikes had lights, and bikes with lights for country lanes led small groups and following the Highway Code, as in the published advice, we drove back from something six to eight miles up the route facing the oncoming cyclists, who were riding unlit bikes, three or four abreast, cyclists on unlit bikes, dressed in black overtaking other clusters of riders on a dark, unlit, tree-lined, dangerous, busy local narrow road (it's a known accident black spot). And where they were riding is not great for cycling, too many boy racers who try to run bikes off the road, throw things out of car windows at cyclists or have windscreen sprays set up to soak cyclists.
  • Spike wrote: »
    It never ceases to amaze me the number of cyclists I see (often at the last minute) after dark in dark clothing and no lights on. Despite being nearly invisible, they still run red lights into the path of faster moving vehicles or move across a busy carriageway to turn right without warning. I really don’t have a problem sharing the road with cyclists and make a conscious effort to look out for them, but they need to take some responsibility themselves.

    I don't disagree, but if you mow one of these idiots down they'll be a contender for the Darwin awards and you'll have a cracked bumper. A cyclist behaving like this is really only endangering himself, whereas a motorist running red lights without lights on is putting many others at risk. The problem with idiots on bikes is that they're idiots, not that they're on bikes. It's the ones driving Audis who are the real menace.

    On which subject, I was waiting to cross the road at a busy junction near my home yesterday. It's a four way intersection with lots of pedestrian traffic, and the lights have three phases - one road has priority, then the other road, then the various pedestrian lights all turn green. Knowing that the pedestrian lights were about to come on, I was about to step off the pavement when the car next to me suddenly set off in a squeal of tyres and executed a right turn through the red light, forcing people to step back smartly or be hit. Need I say it was an Audi? A red one, with a big (probably illegal) exhaust and blacked out windows. Registration plate in illegibly small (probably illegal) lettering.

    Anecdata is fun, but not terribly useful. It isn't only cyclists who run red lights. Motorists do it all the time, and it's far more dangerous.
  • My pet gripe is cyclists in city centres. It's not a velodrome. Slow down and give pedestrians right of way. Walking through Cambridge in particular can be an experience of absolute terror, especially when turning a corner. The silent menace awaits at every turn.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    It never ceases to amaze me the number of cyclists I see (often at the last minute) after dark in dark clothing and no lights on. Despite being nearly invisible, they still run red lights into the path of faster moving vehicles or move across a busy carriageway to turn right without warning. I really don’t have a problem sharing the road with cyclists and make a conscious effort to look out for them, but they need to take some responsibility themselves.

    Thing is, cyclists and drivers are people. A proportion are arseholes. The problem comes when people view a group to which they do not belong as homogenous; it's classic outgrouping.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Look at KLB. When presented with the idea of a separated cycleway, his acceptance is conditional on not having to use it. He does not want to give up his perceived freedom.
    As far as the UK is concerned, if a road is not a motorway or a Special Road (very rare), then it is a right of way, and unless subject to a Traffic Order, then it is, by ancient custom and practice, a right of way for everyone. As a freeborn British citizen I have the right to walk along a 70mph dual carriageway if I so desire, and it is motorists, not cyclists, who are impeding my freedom to exercise that right.

    And indeed there are plenty of roads where exercising the right to cycle would be suicidal. So being seen as the problem and people wanting to place even more restrictions on cycling boils my piss, frankly. As you may have guessed.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »


    You don't want to share the road. You want everyone else to Just Go Away. (But, of course, motorists should keep paying for the roads, yes?)


    A Daily Mail myth that refuses to die. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK roads are maintained by the Councils (we all pay Council Tax) or in the case of trunk roads by central government (we all pay income tax, VAT etc,). "Road tax" (actually vehicle excise duty, and effectively a tax on pollution) does not pay for the roads. Doesn't come close.

    I pay tax on my car. When I leave it at home and cycle, I should get a rebate.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    If you had to implement a strict protocol to protect children from any other threat you'd start talking in terms of terrorism.

    Bollocks :wink:

    I have strict protocols to protect primary-school age children from my power tools. It's got nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with small children not recognizing the risks and/or paying attention.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    And bollocks again. My cycling on the road instead of using the facilities has no negative impact on anyone else. It is therefore not in the least selfish.

    Motorists think cycles hold them up. They don't. I drive, in fact I drive quite a bit. I am held up by other motorists all the bloody time. I am not ever held up more than a few seconds by cyclists.

    Agreed - I am never held up for more than a handful of seconds by a normal cyclist on his way home / shopping / whatever. The only time I am held up by cyclists for significant time is when I encounter a whole peleton of lycra-clad members of one of the local cycling clubs. Even then, they're not as bad as meeting a flock of sheep.

    And yet people on here want to force cyclists off the road onto slower, less direct infrastructure to release tiny or in many cases non-existent gains for motorists, yet when we object we're the selfish unreasonable ones. It beggars belief.

    You are the one assuming that segregated cycleways would be slower and less direct. There’s no reason why that has to be the case - in many examples they might be faster and more direct (going straight through a park rather than around it, for example).

    It frankly baffles me that I can propose spending large sums of money to provide newer and safer routes for the exclusive use of cyclists and yet still be accused of being anti-bike.

    What if I proposed building new segregated infrastructure for cars so that cyclists can have exclusive access to the existing road system? I’m sure you’d find a problem with that as well, even though in practice it would give you exactly what you want - car-free access to the existing road network.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    You are the one assuming that segregated cycleways would be slower and less direct.
    Now, where could we have got that impression from?

    Also Marvin:
    That's what I've been saying, but apparently it's not an acceptable answer as it may lead to increased journey times for cyclists...


  • I was referring to Karl’s objection to the idea, not stating an independent fact.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Karl was stating that a cycle route that wasn't as direct as a car route could be reasonably ignored. And I agree with him.

    Cycle infrastructure ought not be code for "shunt cyclists away from anywhere they need to go". Because cyclists need to go to all the same places car drivers need to go. I'd simply be tempted to slap a 20mph limit on all roads within a built-up area, and rigorously enforce them. Certainly no harm in London, where it's 16.5mph anyway (central London 7.4mph).
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Karl was stating that a cycle route that wasn't as direct as a car route could be reasonably ignored. And I agree with him.
    No. No he wasn't. Rocinante spoke of a dedicated cycleway infrastructure. Karl said he'd only support that if he could ignore it at will. All his talk of efficiency came after.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    How about Tokyo is a modern city? London is not. That is a massive difference.
    Tokyo (OK Edo at the time) was a city of more than 1 million people 300 years ago, that's hardly a "modern city". In many ways similar to London - a metropolitan area that has grown to engulf surrounding towns, a city including a lot of historic buildings (and, royal parks etc), severely damaged during the war and rebuilt afterwards etc. Of course, both cities (in common with every other city) has invested in substantial modernisation with new high rise development, so yes in that sense both are modern cities.
    Tokyo was more severely damaged. London was largely rebuilt as it had been.
    Tokyo had just over a million people pre WWII. London had more than 8 million.
    Just over 70 years later, Tokyo has 40 million, London has less than 10.
    Where things differ is in investment in infrastructure.
    This is true, but it is not the whole story. Tokyo was essentially rebuilt, whilst London was repaired. Tokyo's growth necessitated a vision of infrastructure than London's (relative) population stagnation didn't. Should London have looked forward? Yes, of course. But that was not as obvious then and certainly not immediate. Also, Tokyo had an influx of cash and investment from the nation who most benefited from the World Wars. It went from crushed nation to the second largest economy in the world. (Though it has recently fallen to #3)
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Yes. Yes he was. The exchange is here. Rocinante's post regarding
    The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure
    comes after this.

    Do keep up.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Yes. Yes he was. The exchange is here. Rocinante's post regarding
    The only way to significantly increase cycling is to build large scale dedicated cycling infrastructure
    comes after this.

    Do keep up.
    Jesus H. :disappointed:
    At the point you linked, Karl and Marvin are talking about current options. Rocinante mentions a dedicated infrastructure after that.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    That whooshing sound you hear is my point flying over your head.
  • To add my fourpenn'oth, I strongly believe that dedicated cycling infrastructure is the only way to significantly increase cycling as it will help those who want to cycle but are put off by the idea of cycling on roads.

    Experienced cyclists may well choose not to use that infrastructure as it may not follow a very direct route and may be full of newbie cyclists doing 8 mph. In those circumstances I for one, would probably stick to the roads. I don't hold anyone up, as I said above cycling around my city is quicker on average than driving.

    Actually the whole idea of cycle infrastructure not being very direct and not taking people to places of work etc., presupposes that cycling is a leisure activity for people who don't really need to get anywhere.

    I liked Marvin's idea of making all city centre roads one-way for private cars and using the space thus released to provide segregated cycle and bus lanes, and improved footways with level access.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    My husband is a very keen cyclist. He has cycled coast-to-coast USA twice, round the whole of Romania, up the Stelvio pass (whatever it’s called). The full length of the Rhine etc etc.

    He won’t cycle in the U.K. - too dangerous. He does all his training at the gym.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It's barely less efficient for the car. And for pedestrians, it's great, because they get to cross a residential street where the speed limit is low, as if they were actually on a parity with the person behind the wheel.

    Ah, I see - you're thinking about the delay for an individual car. I'm thinking about the throughput of the road / footpath.

    (If you were in a car trying to cross a road, you would wait for a gap, and the cars on the road would have priority. What you are asking for is not parity, but precedence.)
    KarlLB wrote: »
    They generally only oit zebra crossings when they're not really needed. The more common pelican crossings are the ones that cause issues for pedestrian; if you need to cross two or three at a major junction it can take ten minutes or more. I do believe that they should change immediately a pedestrian presses the button unless they've been on the green man within the last minute.

    Light-controlled junctions should all work like this. They do, mostly, for cars - if it's late at night, and you come up to a red light, you'll find it changes immediately. Stand-alone pelican crossings usually work like this, too, as far as I know. Certainly I remember the pelican crossing on the main road by my house when I grew up worked like that - if it hadn't been used for a while, then pressing the button would change the lights in 10 seconds or so. Pelican crossings at large junctions are obviously sequenced with the traffic signals. I wouldn't be surprised if the buttons in that case have no effect on the sequencing at all. I don't see a good reason for not interrupting the sequence if some pedestrian traffic comes from an unusual direction just as you would if some car traffic comes from an unusual direction. In short, I agree with you, although we might quibble about some minor implementation details.

    While we're here, I'll add my voice to the list of those claiming that circuitous cycle paths that take the scenic route are completely useless to anyone who is actually trying to get somewhere. Generally speaking, towns already have direct routes between A and B - they're called roads - and so that's where you need to put a cycle path between A and B. Sure - there's a rare case where you might carve a cyclist's shortcut through a city centre park, but that doesn't describe the majority of the need.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    That whooshing sound you hear is my point flying over your head.
    That point is that the problem isn’t motorists, but people. People don't want to give up their perception of freedom (or wants or desires) for the general good. I'm not trying to vilify Karl, just his post served as a convenient illustration.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    That whooshing sound you hear is my point flying over your head.
    That point is that the problem isn’t motorists, but people. People don't want to give up their perception of freedom (or wants or desires) for the general good. I'm not trying to vilify Karl, just his post served as a convenient illustration.

    No, it was a very poor illustration because my giving up my perception of whatever it was would provide no-one any benefit whatever. It obscured rather than elucidated whatever your point was, which was therefore lost in fuckwittery.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    That whooshing sound you hear is my point flying over your head.
    That point is that the problem isn’t motorists, but people. People don't want to give up their perception of freedom (or wants or desires) for the general good. I'm not trying to vilify Karl, just his post served as a convenient illustration.

    No, it was a very poor illustration because my giving up my perception of whatever it was would provide no-one any benefit whatever. It obscured rather than elucidated whatever your point was, which was therefore lost in fuckwittery.
    Rocinante posited a dedicated cycle infrastructure. You said you'd only use it if you felt like it. Pretty sure that illustrates my point.
  • As I recall, Karl said he would use the infrastructure most suited to his needs, which on evidence of most cycle paths in the UK would be the existing roads because most cycle ways are not laid out in a manner that meets his requirements of getting from A to B in the shortest time (or pose hazards to cyclists; we've had mention of cycle ways covered in litter or partially blocked by street furniture, or are not sufficiently segregated from pedestrians).
  • Norwich has the most carefully fucked up cycle provision hopefully ever to be seen
  • As I recall, Karl said he would use the infrastructure most suited to his needs, which on evidence of most cycle paths in the UK would be the existing roads because most cycle ways are not laid out in a manner that meets his requirements of getting from A to B in the shortest time (or pose hazards to cyclists; we've had mention of cycle ways covered in litter or partially blocked by street furniture, or are not sufficiently segregated from pedestrians).
    This is evaluating current cycling paths. And I would agree with him there. But that is not a dedicated cycling infrastructure. And it certainly does not represent what could be done. Again, one of the biggest factors in bicycles being hit is the difference in speed. And visibility. That will never change. If a dedicated cycle infrastructure were built, the fastest and safest thing would be to restrict cyclists to it. The way pedestrians are restricted to theirs.
  • One problem with driving is that if you build it they will drive. Driving needs roads that discourage fast driving and inattention. This is a cause of "I didn't see you": long curvy roads with design that allows speed and only looking at what's in front of cars. We're seeing beginning initiatives here to put centre islands and bulbed out sidewalks by schools but it has taken some killed children to force this and reduced speeds. We need speed discouragement everywhere

    I am more than mildly ticked to have observed 3 situations of snow pushed into the street today. Which is illegal, as is pushing in into bike lanes. Hard to enforce unless the actual act is observed or photographed. I think the underlying issue is similar: people wanting to do what they want without regard for others.

    Up thread it was suggested that cyclists are blameworthy scoflaws. There is actual data on this ( on a mobile right now so links not possible). Which says that drivers don't stop at stop signs, speed and weave in and out of lanes at higher frequencies than cyclists. Though cyclists don't stop because they have the ability to see openings and time intersection crossing, and because it takes 30% more effort to start forward from stopped than slowly rolling. Cyclists often slow 10 or more feet from an intersection letting cars cross and then quickly timing when they go. A problem is that cyclists are noticed more not that they do things wrong more. But also it needs to be re-emphasized that bikes are not cars even if this has is a general perception that they should behave like cars.
Sign In or Register to comment.