Share the Road

13468919

Comments

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited March 2018
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Chris Froome trains in your manor, does he? otherwise it must be a 20 zone at the bottom of a long hill.

    Geez, pops. My bike (steel frame, tourer) can hit 26 in the big gears without changing my cadence. Downhill I hit 40. On the tandem, with the Mrs on the back, we've clocked 50.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Sure, I can maintain 25 or so on a level, clear country road. But in my local cluttered urban environment you'd need explosive acceleration to get up to that before hitting the next obstruction. (usually a double parked vehicle or a vehicle unable to get past a double parked vehicle)

    I've never seen a cyclist overtake a car going at speed round here.
  • The residential roads around here have 20mph limits. It would be impossible to get even close to that speed in any sort of vehicle. Too many cars parked restricting the width of the usable road, even without the cars the sections of road between junctions are too short to reach that sort of speed, or with too many bends. But, that's the way our roads were laid out and I guess other areas it would be less of an issue (eg: if the houses had drive ways to reduce the number of cars parked on the road, had straight sections of road which didn't end at a give way sign longer than 200m etc).

    I'm in favour of introducing a universal 20mph limit on residential roads, as this will make these roads safer for everyone. It happens that in my immediate neighbourhood it'll make no difference because of the state of the roads (and, it's already a 20mph zone).
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I dunno, I don't drive on rural hilly roads very often so I may be typing rubbish. But I'd have thought that if visibility is too poor for me to overtake a cyclist, then I should be travelling at significantly less than 60mph anyway.
  • Sometimes visibility isn't too poor ... it's perfectly good enough to see the stream of traffic coming the other way preventing you from pulling out enough (as far as you'd pull out to pass a car) to pass.
  • We have just had a weekend in Lincoln which involved a good deal of motorway driving. What is it with these prats who overtake on the approach to a sliproad then swing across in front of you to get off the motorway?? Hell's bells, it isn't as it we are crawling and on occasion we are in the middle lane overtaking a lorry but they still do it, taking a "racing line".

    Oh well, I suppose we need organ donors and I'm sure these bright young things are physically in a good state, even if they are lacking something between the ears.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I'm sure there's a cyclist to blame, somewhere...
  • Two hours previously he'd been held up by a cyclist before joining the motorway, and it's now vitally important that he make up that 15s delay in his journey by driving like a total dick.
  • Two hours previously he'd been held up by a cyclist before joining the motorway, and it's now vitally important that he make up that 15s delay in his journey by driving like a total dick.
    Actually, I’ve observed many times people increasing driving speed after being held back by traffic. Typically it is other cars that caused the problem, but I’ve also seen it after a driver is held back by a cyclist.
    Extra speed, unless it is a massive increase or over long distance, doesn’t give appreciable gain. The maths are simple. But psychologically, it is a different thing. Humans are less driven by rationality than we like to think.
    Hence Doc’s comment.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Humans are less driven by rationality than we like to think.
    No shit. Really? And here was I thinking that people conduct a full risk assessment before deciding whether to do 75mph on the motorway, or any other driving decision. Is there anything humans do that can actually be called rational?
    Hence Doc’s comment.
    Which I took as a facetious reflection on how the conversation (if that's the right word) recently has been about how big a menace bikes are. If you considered my response to be a rational assessment of how a cyclist could be responsible I suggest a re-adjustment of your sarcasm monitor.

  • Is there anything humans do that can actually be called rational?
    No posting, if your latest is an example.
    Hence Doc’s comment.
    Which I took as a facetious reflection on how the conversation (if that's the right word) recently has been about how big a menace bikes are. If you considered my response to be a rational assessment of how a cyclist could be responsible I suggest a re-adjustment of your sarcasm monitor.
    You really don't see the irony in your statement, do you? The most people have been saying is that cyclists are a problem as well. Not that they are a bigger problem, as Doc Tor has alleged, but not substantiated.


  • balaambalaam Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Or even better, readily refutable allegations.

    How about this for starters (and not even an allegation, something that actually happened).

    One evening not long ago I wanted to cross the road. (Not even driving a car - see what I just did there?). I pressed the button and waited for the traffic lights to change. The lights changed to red and two lanes of traffic came to a stop. The green man illuminated, so I proceeded to cross the road. Suddenly, I nearly got knocked flying by a cyclist who shot between the two lanes of stationary traffic. I hadn’t seen him because he was in dark clothing and had no lights on and couldn’t hear him because pedal cycles tend to make no noise. He then had the nerve to swear at me for having the audacity to use a pedestrian crossing according to the Highway Code while interfering with his God given right to ignore a red traffic light.

    Pedestrians get injured too you know.
    How about this that actually happened.

    One afternoon I wanted to cross the road. I pressed the button and waited for the traffic lights to change. The lights changed to red and the traffic in both directions came to a stop, the vehicle next to me was a double decker bus. The green man illuminated, so I proceeded to cross the road, Suddenly, I nearly got knocked flying by a car driver who shot past the stationary bus.

    Car drivers can be equal dicks you know.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited March 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Humans are less driven by rationality than we like to think.
    No shit. Really? And here was I thinking that people conduct a full risk assessment before deciding whether to do 75mph on the motorway, or any other driving decision. Is there anything humans do that can actually be called rational?
    Hence Doc’s comment.
    Which I took as a facetious reflection on how the conversation (if that's the right word) recently has been about how big a menace bikes are. If you considered my response to be a rational assessment of how a cyclist could be responsible I suggest a re-adjustment of your sarcasm monitor.

    I have no idea how lB could have taken my comment seriously.

    Sorry, I'll try that again.

    [sarcasm] I have no idea how lB could have taken my comment seriously. [/sarcasm]

    Is that clearer?
  • I know he isn't liked around here, but Jeremy Clarkson (pbuh) came up with the best safety feature for cars... the removal of all seatbelts and the fitting of a large metal spike sticking out from the steering wheel.

    I would agree with him.

    Love what you've done with the place by the way!
  • I know he isn't liked around here, but Jeremy Clarkson (pbuh) came up with the best safety feature for cars... the removal of all seatbelts and the fitting of a large metal spike sticking out from the steering wheel.

    I would agree with him.

    Love what you've done with the place by the way!

    Clarkson may well have said that, but it wasn’t original. That was around long before anyone had heard of him.
  • The problem with safety is that little things that drivers think are excusable, like forgetting to put on a turn signal, weaving in the lane. as they fumble for their radio or Starfucks coffee range from frustrating to life-threatening for a cyclist or ped.

    And then we have the problem that the dominant road user status "car" defines cyclists and pedestrians as an outgroup. That one cyclist who cites in front of you as you drive becomes the representative of the minority group, which you then roll all of your prejudices onto. Forgetting the dickish behaviour of your own group. So when driving can you please remember you will always walk away from hitting a ped or cyclist. Just pay attention and give them a little more room.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Yes. Whenever there's a death, the report always includes "the driver was not injured". No shit, Sherlock...
  • And then we have the problem that the dominant road user status "car" defines cyclists and pedestrians as an outgroup.
    This is logical and rational. That is not the problem, the problem is sharing the road. Even if everyone practised safe driving and intended to pay attention to cyclists and pedestrians as well as cars, there would still be accident and death.
    That one cyclist who cites in front of you as you drive becomes the representative of the minority group, which you then roll all of your prejudices onto. Forgetting the dickish behaviour of your own group.
    This is something that is true of users of any form of locomotion. The difference is that some forms have a greater consequence for failure.


  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Here's yesterday's "Pearls Before Swine" strip, which seemed apropos for at least one regular on this board.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Here's yesterday's "Pearls Before Swine" strip, which seemed apropos for at least one regular on this board.

    You really haven't understood a word cyclists here have posted, have you? From the way you've posted I start to wonder if your reaction to us being mown down is "good riddance."
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Think of Guide Dog owners who can neither drive nor cycle. They also need to share the road. The worst thing for them is pavement parking - forcing them to walk round the car on, often, busy roads.

    I think pavement parking should be illegal and enforced - as should parking in cycle lanes.

    Us drivers need to learn that we do not need to park five strides from our destinations - we can walk a little too :rolleyes:
  • I've not seen anyone suggest that cyclists should be the most important road users. Equally important as other road users would be a significant improvement.

    Well apart from the tendency among a minority of road users to consider that they are the most important people on the road. Perhaps that minority of cyclists can be identified by their choice of clothing developed for Tour de France riders as they pop out for some messages, much as can identify that minority of car drivers by choice of an Audi, or propensity to punch TV producers.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Here's yesterday's "Pearls Before Swine" strip, which seemed apropos for at least one regular on this board.

    I can't post what I want to in response to this even in Hell. Use your imagination. It's Anglo Saxon. That plus what Karl said.
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Here's yesterday's "Pearls Before Swine" strip, which seemed apropos for at least one regular on this board.

    I can't post what I want to in response to this even in Hell. Use your imagination. It's Anglo Saxon. That plus what Karl said.
    Really? There are many Jeff the Cyclists in the world. They do not represent the majority of people who ride bicycles, but they are not uncommon.
    I ride bicycles and I think that strip is funny. It is representative of a sub-set of cyclists who deserve every bit of scorn they get. Not every Lycra-wearing cyclist is a douche, but most of the douches who ride bikes wear Lycra.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018

    I can't post what I want to in response to this even in Hell. Use your imagination. It's Anglo Saxon. That plus what Karl said.
    Really? There are many Jeff the Cyclists in the world. They do not represent the majority of people who ride bicycles, but they are not uncommon.
    I ride bicycles and I think that strip is funny. It is representative of a sub-set of cyclists who deserve every bit of scorn they get. Not every Lycra-wearing cyclist is a douche, but most of the douches who ride bikes wear Lycra.

    Define 'douche' in this context, because most of the dangerous and illegal cycling I see is done by youths on mountain bikes and BMXes - immaturity, essentially. All the serious cyclists - the ones who wear lycra - are also serious regarding their place on the roads. And all of them have been abused and called douches- well, worse mostly - 'fucking cunt' is more popular - for doing no more than existing and objecting to being bullied off the road by people who mistakenly think VED gives them the right to do so.

    Frankly, cyclists being killed is the "cycling problem".

  • I stopped cycling for 7 years in the 1980s. Vertebra x2 fractured. "I didn't see you". Followed by "are you alright?". To which all I could muster was "I'm not happy." My worst.

    Car door openned, bashed it, punched woman in face with my head. I didn't see her idiot move. She didn't see me.

    Car from off street parking pulls out into bike lane. 3 broken ribs. I went over his hood. He didn't see me he said. I didn't stop riding with this one. Needed a front wheel.

    Why are drivers always angry with me when they hit me?

    Why do so few people realize that travel involves a journey which you should try to enjoy like any other human activity? We must physically travel: we cannot be beamed up instantly. Why all the impatience?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Here's yesterday's "Pearls Before Swine" strip, which seemed apropos for at least one regular on this board.

    I can't post what I want to in response to this even in Hell. Use your imagination. It's Anglo Saxon. That plus what Karl said.
    Really? There are many Jeff the Cyclists in the world. They do not represent the majority of people who ride bicycles, but they are not uncommon.
    I ride bicycles and I think that strip is funny. It is representative of a sub-set of cyclists who deserve every bit of scorn they get. Not every Lycra-wearing cyclist is a douche, but most of the douches who ride bikes wear Lycra.

    Now you're just creating an outgroup within the outgroup. There are plenty of sensible and considerate cyclists who wear Lycra (and who don't look like Charles Atlas) because it is the most practical fabric to wear when you're exercising more of your body than your right foot.

    That cheap shot of a cartoon contributed exactly nothing to even a hellish discussion of road-sharing, and showed a complete disregard of everything that had gone before.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    All the serious cyclists - the ones who wear lycra - are also serious regarding their place on the roads. And all of them have been abused and called douches- well, worse mostly - 'fucking cunt' is more popular - for doing no more than existing and objecting to being bullied off the road by people who mistakenly think VED gives them the right to do so.
    All? Really? All?
    Frankly, cyclists being killed is the "cycling problem".
    No. It is one problem. Yes, the most serious one, but not the only one.
    Rocinante wrote: »
    That cheap shot of a cartoon contributed exactly nothing to even a hellish discussion of road-sharing, and showed a complete disregard of everything that had gone before.
    No, not everything. The thread began with motorist bashing motorist, merged through bashing and argument about infrastructure design to cyclist bashing motorist with a little of pedestrian bashing cyclist. So it actually fits right in.
    Lycra shorts are a practical piece of clothing for riding a bike. Lycra top, emblazoned with sponsors the rider doesn't have, is not about practicality. But, yes, there are people fitted out for Le Tour de France whilst cycling the Tour de Aberystwyth who are very decent people. If you'll notice, I did not say all. Absolutes are rarely appropriate.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    All the serious cyclists - the ones who wear lycra - are also serious regarding their place on the roads. And all of them have been abused and called douches- well, worse mostly - 'fucking cunt' is more popular - for doing no more than existing and objecting to being bullied off the road by people who mistakenly think VED gives them the right to do so.
    All? Really? All?
    Frankly, cyclists being killed is the "cycling problem".
    No. It is one problem. Yes, the most serious one, but not the only one.
    Rocinante wrote: »
    That cheap shot of a cartoon contributed exactly nothing to even a hellish discussion of road-sharing, and showed a complete disregard of everything that had gone before.
    No, not everything. The thread began with motorist bashing motorist, merged through bashing and argument about infrastructure design to cyclist bashing motorist with a little of pedestrian bashing cyclist. So it actually fits right in.
    Lycra shorts are a practical piece of clothing for riding a bike. Lycra top, emblazoned with sponsors the rider doesn't have, is not about practicality. But, yes, there are people fitted out for Le Tour de France whilst cycling the Tour de Aberystwyth who are very decent people. If you'll notice, I did not say all. Absolutes are rarely appropriate.

    Mea Culpa - somewhere the words "that I know" got lost in editing. All the serious cyclists that I know are not "douches". I'm intrigued to know what constitutes one.

    As regards the other point, stop people killing us and then we can address the less urgent issues. Whilst we're still treated as shit by too many motorists don't expect is to want to be diverted from that.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I stopped cycling for 7 years in the 1980s. Vertebra x2 fractured. "I didn't see you". Followed by "are you alright?". To which all I could muster was "I'm not happy." My worst.

    Car door openned, bashed it, punched woman in face with my head. I didn't see her idiot move. She didn't see me.

    Car from off street parking pulls out into bike lane. 3 broken ribs. I went over his hood. He didn't see me he said. I didn't stop riding with this one. Needed a front wheel.

    Why are drivers always angry with me when they hit me?

    Why do so few people realize that travel involves a journey which you should try to enjoy like any other human activity? We must physically travel: we cannot be beamed up instantly. Why all the impatience?

    And let me guess - none of those drivers were later deemed by a court incompetent enough to lose their licence?
  • KarlLB wrote: »

    Mea Culpa - somewhere the words "that I know" got lost in editing. All the serious cyclists that I know are not "douches". I'm intrigued to know what constitutes one.
    Many of the "serious" cyclists, runners, tri-atheletes, etc. I know are dickish. I've not done a count to determine actual percentage, but it is significant. What constitutes douche? Acting as if their hobby is the shit. Treating with disdain those who share the hobby, but not are not "serious". Acting with disdain towards other hobbies. Riding in the middle of a road and not yielding when they can for faster modes of transport. Forcing the non-Lycra clad riders into the dangerous shoulder or middle of the road when passing or being passed by them.
    Douche is not a trait which is exclusive to cycling. It is very common amongst people who are "serious" about their hobbies. I am not targeting cyclists as being worse, but you seem to be giving them a pass as being better.
    As regards the other point, stop people killing us and then we can address the less urgent issues. Whilst we're still treated as shit by too many motorists don't expect is to want to be diverted from that.
    Bullshit. Not how it works. That is the "you cannot complain about X because Y is worse" rubbish. That does not typically fly around here, so I am not sure why it should on this subject.
  • Why do so few people realize that travel involves a journey which you should try to enjoy like any other human activity? We must physically travel: we cannot be beamed up instantly. Why all the impatience?

    Sometimes, I travel to places on an aeroplane. There is absolutely nothing enjoyable about the process. You get herded from pillar to post like cattle, the security experience is pretty horrible both for the passengers and for the security workers, and when you eventually get on the plane, you're sat in a cramped seat with insufficient legroom, pressed up against some similarly situated stranger and fed small quantities of indifferent food.

    I'm never going to enjoy that journey. The best I can hope for is a few little things that make it more tolerable - perhaps the stranger with whose thighs I am acquiring rather more intimate acquaintance than I would prefer is a congenial traveling companion. Perhaps the food isn't too bad. Perhaps there's a spare seat next to me, and I manage to get a couple of hours' sleep. Perhaps there's even something worth watching on the TV.

    But enjoy it? You're having a laugh.

    Coming back to the more mundane, consider my typical Monday evening: leave work in the car, pick up kid A from a class on the way, drive home, exchange kid A for kid B, drop kid B off at a different class, return home and eat dinner before kid B needs to be collected. Again, there's nothing intrinsically enjoyable about the journey. I chat with my kids, which is nice, but frankly I'd rather chat with them at home, where I have a comfortable sofa and a large mug of tea.

    If I could teleport from A to B without spending the time traveling, I'd be all over it. Roll on Star Trek. (Not quite true - there are times when I appreciate a 10-minute walk to clear my head between activities. But guess how many of the different things I do are separated by a 10-minute walk? None of them.)
  • Karl:
    I got payment for half of the front wheel in the broken ribs episode. From his insurance. He tried to blame me, and otherwise offended the agent AFAIK. All the rest, I was on my own. As you guessed.

    Leorning Cniht:
    If you don't like people, please stay at home. My heart pumps pure piss for such while listening to the world's smallest yodelling cowboy sing hurting songs. You describe the sort of impatience which leads to harm and punching. The attitude leads to impatient dangerous behaviour just once and someone is on the pavement, bleeding. So if you have a job that requires travel by air or car, please get a different one or cough up extra money for an upgraded seat. And your children, they know you hate driving them right and although you will probably think it's the driving they will detect you hate while you love them, it will rub off on them. And impatience like this is dangerous in drivers. And also to them: stress is bad for you.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited April 2018
    You describe the sort of impatience which leads to harm and punching.
    Oh fer cryin' out loud. This is one of the stupider things you've said lately. I'm sure our mom wasn't having a lot of fun driving me and my brothers to stuff when we were kids, but we never got the idea it had any affect on her feelings for us.

    I'm not giving up my car. I don't especially enjoy driving, but I'm perfectly willing to do it, given the things that I want to do. I drove home from a play last night in 45 minutes. Public transit would have taken three hours. And biking over 30 miles at 10:30 pm is not exactly a great option.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    You really haven't understood a word cyclists here have posted, have you? From the way you've posted I start to wonder if your reaction to us being mown down is "good riddance."

    Hardly, Karl - but you are definitely the person I had in mind in posting that strip, Lycra and all. Karl can't be inconvenienced, but drivers can, because they're drivers and deserve it; pedestrians are in the way of cyclists, and how dare they; and so forth.

    Remember, I was a dedicated cyclist for years, until my health forced me to give it up. I'm a pedestrian who gets tired of cyclists who mow down (or threaten to mow down) people who walk on sidewalks and walking paths. And I'm a driver who is courteous to everyone else on the road, but who gets really, really tired of cyclists to whom the laws - whether the actual laws, or the law of common courtesy, or the laws of physics - do not apply. Stop at the goddamned stop sign; observe red lights; don't assume that I can see you when you're hanging in my blind spot. When are you going to start sharing the road?


  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Why are you addressing those questions to me when I've already told you I don't do those things?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    I should add, and vaguely non-Hellishly, that "sharing the road" means different things to different people. If it means "ride an inch from the kerb so motor vehicles can squeeze past you" then the answer is "never". I never said cyclists should "never be inconvenienced"; of course lights, pedestrians crossing, road priority can make our journeys slower as well; there's one light on my commute from the railway station which can be red for a minute and a half. What I objected to was proposals to banish us to circuitous routes shared with pedestrians which inconvenience pedestrians and take twice as long, in order that motor vehicles can get to the back of their next queue a little quicker.

    We are not more important, but we are equally important, and, crucially we are much easier to kill than drivers. That is why driver behaviour is so crucial, having an order of magnitude greater impact on overall safety.
  • Resentful, speeding cyclists scything through pedestrian areas do more than inconvenience pedestrians. This is the problem with cyclists' view of pedestrians - we're not just walking bollards, we have rather bruisable bodies and breakable limbs. Just like theirs in fact. And they have momentum in their favour, which they forget.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Resentful, speeding cyclists scything through pedestrian areas do more than inconvenience pedestrians. This is the problem with cyclists' view of pedestrians - we're not just walking bollards, we have rather bruisable bodies and breakable limbs. Just like theirs in fact. And they have momentum in their favour, which they forget.

    You're doing the outgrouping thing - cyclists do this, they do that. Tarring all with the same brush
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Resentful, speeding cyclists scything through pedestrian areas do more than inconvenience pedestrians. This is the problem with cyclists' view of pedestrians - we're not just walking bollards, we have rather bruisable bodies and breakable limbs. Just like theirs in fact. And they have momentum in their favour, which they forget.

    You're doing the outgrouping thing - cyclists do this, they do that. Tarring all with the same brush

    As opposed to "drivers mow us down, serious cyclists aren't douches"? (Paraphrase, of course.)
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Resentful, speeding cyclists scything through pedestrian areas do more than inconvenience pedestrians. This is the problem with cyclists' view of pedestrians - we're not just walking bollards, we have rather bruisable bodies and breakable limbs. Just like theirs in fact. And they have momentum in their favour, which they forget.

    You're doing the outgrouping thing - cyclists do this, they do that. Tarring all with the same brush

    90% of the posts on this thread do the very same thing. All it shows is that the different groups of road users can't share the road because of the different characteristics of the various modes of transport. For that reason it is I fear pointless to expect road users to "share the road". The only practicable and safe solution is to separate motor vehicles from non-motorised vehicles completely, and give pedestrians right of way over cyclists.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    If you don't like people, please stay at home.

    You describe the sort of impatience which leads to harm and punching. The attitude leads to impatient dangerous behaviour just once and someone is on the pavement, bleeding. So if you have a job that requires travel by air or car, please get a different one or cough up extra money for an upgraded seat. And your children, they know you hate driving them right and although you will probably think it's the driving they will detect you hate while you love them, it will rub off on them. And impatience like this is dangerous in drivers. And also to them: stress is bad for you.

    Goodness, you talk a lot of nonsense, don't you? Shall I describe some of the other things I do that I don't enjoy very much? How about cleaning the bathroom? That's not much fun. I do it, because I like it when the bathroom is clean, and Mrs. C likes it when the bathroom is clean, but I derive no enjoyment from the act of cleaning.

    So why do I do it? I want a clean bathroom, and I can't afford to pay someone to do it. I can assure you I have never felt the desire to punch the bathroom, or any of the people who use it.

    I can list any number of things I do routinely that aren't sources of particular pleasure.

    But you seem to have a peculiarly binary view of the world. In your nonsense description above, everything is either something you enjoy, or something you hate. That's just bizarre. There seems to be no room in your worldview for bland, dull, or indifferent.

    You also seem to own an infinite money tree, where anyone can just buy their way out of chores they don't enjoy much. I'm happy for you, but that doesn't describe most people's reality at all.

    Just like Ruth, I don't hate driving. I don't particularly like driving either - it's just a necessary task that gets me to places I do want to be in a reasonably efficient and cost-effective manner.

    So yes, I'll happily support measures that allow me to make the journeys faster without being cost-prohibitive (autonomous cars with some efficient route-switching scheme that minimizes contention at junctions? Replacing personal cars with an autonomous taxi network? The technology isn't there yet, but it doesn't seem like it's that far away.)
  • sionisais wrote: »
    All it shows is that the different groups of road users can't share the road because of the different characteristics of the various modes of transport. For that reason it is I fear pointless to expect road users to "share the road".
    Sharing the road, beyond the neutral value of Pay Attention, is stupid. Humans are not capable of the levels of attention necessary for this to be safe.
    The only practicable and safe solution is to separate motor vehicles from non-motorised vehicles completely, and give pedestrians right of way over cyclists.
    Well, no. Cyclists should be separated from pedestrians as well. For the same reasons cyclists and motorized transport don't mix. They are just a slower, less lethal, demonstration of the same problem.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    All it shows is that the different groups of road users can't share the road because of the different characteristics of the various modes of transport. For that reason it is I fear pointless to expect road users to "share the road".
    Sharing the road, beyond the neutral value of Pay Attention, is stupid. Humans are not capable of the levels of attention necessary for this to be safe.
    The only practicable and safe solution is to separate motor vehicles from non-motorised vehicles completely, and give pedestrians right of way over cyclists.
    Well, no. Cyclists should be separated from pedestrians as well. For the same reasons cyclists and motorized transport don't mix. They are just a slower, less lethal, demonstration of the same problem.

    OK, let's start somewhere, and I'd suggest separating the motorised and non-motorised modes first. We aren't going to get everything done at once. Just so long as cyclists give way so pedestrians don't have to dive into hedges.

    Apologies for ditching Hellishness and trying to be constructive but this thread has wasted too many pixels already.
  • Just like Ruth, I don't hate driving. I don't particularly like driving either - it's just a necessary task that gets me to places I do want to be in a reasonably efficient and cost-effective manner.
    I love driving. LOVE it. Except for heavy traffic. But it is not the responsible future of personal transport. Neither are self-driving cars. Actually, personal transport should become as limited as possible. Cities should be trains, centrally controlled buses and Personal Rapid Transit. Between cities/villages should be trains and buses. Towns and villages, except for the very tiny, should be PRT.
    Much as it pains me, cars should become a rarity.

    Calm down, pedal pushers and pavement pounders, pavements(aka sidewalks) and cycleways should be part of the mix too. But PRT within cities will make both of those much safer. And the exact solution for any particular city will vary, of course.
    But we should not have what we want, but what is best.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    All it shows is that the different groups of road users can't share the road because of the different characteristics of the various modes of transport. For that reason it is I fear pointless to expect road users to "share the road".
    Sharing the road, beyond the neutral value of Pay Attention, is stupid. Humans are not capable of the levels of attention necessary for this to be safe.
    The only practicable and safe solution is to separate motor vehicles from non-motorised vehicles completely, and give pedestrians right of way over cyclists.
    Well, no. Cyclists should be separated from pedestrians as well. For the same reasons cyclists and motorized transport don't mix. They are just a slower, less lethal, demonstration of the same problem.

    OK, let's start somewhere, and I'd suggest separating the motorised and non-motorised modes first. We aren't going to get everything done at once. Just so long as cyclists give way so pedestrians don't have to dive into hedges.

    Apologies for ditching Hellishness and trying to be constructive but this thread has wasted too many pixels already.

    You think you're being all common-sensical and objective, but this is just a retreaded anti-cycling post. Why should cyclists have to give way to pedestrians when motorists don't? That's totally illogical.

    Mixed-use pedestrian/cycleways are completely bloody useless and a waste of public funds. Dangerous to pedestrians and obstructive to cyclists. As I said upthread, we need to eradicate this view of cyclists pottering about in their leisure time ringing their little bells before passing pedestrians at little more than walking pace with a cheery "Good Morning". To be a mass transport mode that can be used to travel quickly by non-lycra-clad mere mortals it needs dedicated infrastructure like they have in oh, almost everywhere else in Europe.
  • It seems to me that the only model of cycling acceptable to some is one that belongs exclusively in velodromes. It has no place in an urban environment where separation is not possible.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Exactly. In cities, motor traffic speeds are often around 15-25mph; cycles 10-15mph. Compare walking at 2-4mph and it's obvious that if you're going to segregate into two groups, it should be legs versus wheels.

    Most near-misses that happen to me happen because of a motorist who cannot see that getting to the back of the next queue at 15 mph behind me is no worse than getting there at 25mph and hitting the anchors. It doesn't even get him past me, as I filter past a few seconds later. If we could just educate people out of Must Get In Front and Must Pass Tbe Cyclist much friction would be gone
  • It seems to me that the only model of cycling acceptable to some is one that belongs exclusively in velodromes. It has no place in an urban environment where separation is not possible.

    It seems to me that the only model of driving acceptable to some is one that belongs exclusively on racetracks. It has no place in an urban environment where there are vulnerable road users and pedestrians.
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    All it shows is that the different groups of road users can't share the road because of the different characteristics of the various modes of transport. For that reason it is I fear pointless to expect road users to "share the road".
    Sharing the road, beyond the neutral value of Pay Attention, is stupid. Humans are not capable of the levels of attention necessary for this to be safe.
    The only practicable and safe solution is to separate motor vehicles from non-motorised vehicles completely, and give pedestrians right of way over cyclists.
    Well, no. Cyclists should be separated from pedestrians as well. For the same reasons cyclists and motorized transport don't mix. They are just a slower, less lethal, demonstration of the same problem.

    OK, let's start somewhere, and I'd suggest separating the motorised and non-motorised modes first. We aren't going to get everything done at once. Just so long as cyclists give way so pedestrians don't have to dive into hedges.

    Apologies for ditching Hellishness and trying to be constructive but this thread has wasted too many pixels already.

    You think you're being all common-sensical and objective, but this is just a retreaded anti-cycling post. Why should cyclists have to give way to pedestrians when motorists don't? That's totally illogical.
    Bollocks. Your comment shows the self-righteous "aren't I doing good for the environment" attitude that too many cyclists adopt.
    Mixed-use pedestrian/cycleways are completely bloody useless and a waste of public funds. Dangerous to pedestrians and obstructive to cyclists.
    If it's obstructive to cyclists then why do cyclists use pedestrian-only pathways and road crossings? Do they want their cake and to eat it?
    As I said upthread, we need to eradicate this view of cyclists pottering about in their leisure time ringing their little bells before passing pedestrians at little more than walking pace with a cheery "Good Morning". To be a mass transport mode that can be used to travel quickly by non-lycra-clad mere mortals it needs dedicated infrastructure like they have in oh, almost everywhere else in Europe.
    One day we might have the ideal state of motor vehicles, cycles and pedestrian having separate carriageways but it won't happen at once, I'm trying to suggest the first step and we still have cyclists who put speed over personal safety. You choose.
Sign In or Register to comment.