Share the Road

145791018

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    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.

    Actually, I'm putting the bicycle being a practical means of transport against it being virtually useless.

    A safe speed amongst pedestrians would be no more than 10mph, average less. My 15 mile commute becomes unfeasible.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    sionisais wrote: »
    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?

    This is exactly what is meant by "outgrouping" - treating a group to which you do not belong and with which you do not identify as homogenous. Do you consider it possible that the cyclists who want to use pedestrian facilities and fast utility cyclists like Rocinante and me, are different people?

    I am cool with shared facilities and I'm currently supporting a new one in my area. I am not cool with being forced to use it myself because I do not consider myself its target user group.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    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?

    This is exactly what is meant by "outgrouping" - treating a group to which you do not belong and with which you do not identify as homogenous. Do you consider it possible that the cyclists who want to use pedestrian facilities and fast utility cyclists like Rocinante and me, are different people?

    I am cool with shared facilities and I'm currently supporting a new one in my area. I am not cool with being forced to use it myself because I do not consider myself its target user group.


  • [quote="sionisais;16690Bollocks. Your comment shows the self-righteous "aren't I doing good for the environment" attitude that too many cyclists adopt.

    ??? Who said anything about the environment? That comment says more about you than me. You still haven't said why you think cyclists should always have to give way to pedestrians when motorists don't. Total non-sequitur.
    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?

    Often they have no choice. It's a case of use inadequate cycling infrastructure or risk your life on insane urban motorways.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    sionisais wrote: »
    Bollocks. Your comment shows the self-righteous "aren't I doing good for the environment" attitude that too many cyclists adopt.
    Do you also tell people who turn lights off when they leave a room that they're being self-righteous?
    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?
    They don't want to die. That is, unsurprisingly, quite a decent motivator.

    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.
    Except that's not what they're doing. I'd much rather be in the road, being a vehicle, travelling around where there's essentially zero differential in speed between road users (motor vehicles and bikes) than being on a shared path where there's a large differential in speed (bikes and pedestrians). Since there's nothing inherent in the nature of a motor vehicle that means it has to travel at 30 mph plus, the only conclusion I can reach is that the thing that makes cycling dangerous is the attitude of town planners and, mainly, drivers.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Since there's nothing inherent in the nature of a motor vehicle that means it has to travel at 30 mph plus, the only conclusion I can reach is that the thing that makes cycling dangerous is the attitude of town planners and, mainly, drivers.
    Could it be that the higher speeds are for more efficient transport? Could it be that they are planning for general use rather than the specific use you would choose? No, it must be that planners hate cyclists or just Don't Understand.
    You demonstrate the blindness people exhibit when what they consider precious is threatened.

    BTW, the danger in the speed differential is not only about top speed limit. It is because, even within that limit, bicycles and cars have different speeds, acceleration profiles and manoeuvrability.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    The bit I don't get is where the solution to cyclists being a problem to the only group to which they can actually present a threat - pedestrians - is to force them to mix with pedestrians. No-one gains; cyclist journeys take twice as long, pedestrians get spooked, motorists occasionally get to the back of the next queue quicker. And then we get abuse when we say we don't want that.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Since there's nothing inherent in the nature of a motor vehicle that means it has to travel at 30 mph plus, the only conclusion I can reach is that the thing that makes cycling dangerous is the attitude of town planners and, mainly, drivers.
    Could it be that the higher speeds are for more efficient transport? Could it be that they are planning for general use rather than the specific use you would choose? No, it must be that planners hate cyclists or just Don't Understand.
    You demonstrate the blindness people exhibit when what they consider precious is threatened.

    BTW, the danger in the speed differential is not only about top speed limit. It is because, even within that limit, bicycles and cars have different speeds, acceleration profiles and manoeuvrability.

    On any journey, the most important consideration is the average speed. I've said before on this thread that the main reason I choose to cycle to work is that it's quicker. By bike it takes me 16 minutes, give or take one, every time. In a car it would take about 10 minutes at 2AM, but during the day it's 20-30 minutes, even without a major "incident". If one of the main routes into the city is blocked, it can take over an hour. I also don't have to spend 5-10 minutes crawling around the car park looking for a space.

    When I cycle I invariably pass many dozens of single-occupant cars sitting in a gridlocked mess. If I was driving I would be part of that problem. A cause of it, not a victim.

    More efficient my arse.

  • Yeah, your short commute is representative of all commutes. Try reading a traffic study or two.
  • " From the evidence, I believe their wisdom must walk hand and hand with their idiocy. Their emotions must rule their brains. They must be warlike creatures who gives battle to everything around them."** Mine certainly does.

    Infrastructure costs for driving, walking and cycling come out of general taxation revenue, not from anything specifically collected from modes of use. This should change. The technology exists to easily charge for use of roadways so that they're paid for by users.


    ** Dr Zaius, describing humanity in Planet of the Apes.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Yeah, your short commute is representative of all commutes. Try reading a traffic study or two.

    ??? Where did I claim that????

    I live in a compact city, with few steep hills, which would be well suited to mass cycling if the political will were there. I have several colleagues who live closer to work than me, who are younger than me and able-bodied, but who choose to drive, largely because they don't want to cycle in traffic.

    I have read numerous traffic studies, thanks. A recent one here indicated that over 50% of non-cyclists would like to cycle. The most common reason for not cycling? The roads are too dangerous.

    <<Bangs head against wall>>
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Yeah, your short commute is representative of all commutes. Try reading a traffic study or two.
    I
    No, it doesn't work that way. You present the evidence that cycling is inefficient, if that's what's passing for your point
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    ...Infrastructure costs for driving, walking and cycling come out of general taxation revenue, not from anything specifically collected from modes of use. This should change. The technology exists to easily charge for use of roadways so that they're paid for by users.

    Again, some (I never said all) infrastructure costs come from gasoline taxes, paid by motorists who also pay for insurance and licensing, and who are fined when they're caught disobeying the law. I'm all in favor of requiring licenses and insurance from cyclists, both for their own protection and the protection of others - and, as you say, charging for the use of roadways. I trust that you, in the interests of fairness, can see the need for that.

    By the way @KarlLB, my suggesting that cyclists should observe stop signs and red lights and not hang in blind spots was a rhetorical device. I recognize that you, like your avatar Jef, are wont to take everything personally, but I was really speaking to those cyclists who act like jerks. The whole idea is to avoid accidents, but that requires both courtesy and common sense from all parties.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    No, it doesn't work that way. You present the evidence that cycling is inefficient, if that's what's passing for your point

    It's pretty obvious that the efficiency, or inefficiency, of cycling depends on the journey.

    As I've mentioned before, I used to live in London, and cycled about 6 miles to work in about 25 minutes (depending how lucky I got with traffic lights). This was the fastest way to get to work. The Tube took about half an hour; the bus probably 45 minutes (I never took the bus. It would have required either two buses or a bus and a walk) and walking with a one-wheeled bicycle took two hours. In a car? I could probably have covered the distance in half an hour (stop-start traffic), but would then have had to find somewhere to park the thing, and then walk to work from the parking spot.

    Here in US suburbia, my commute is now about 10 miles, or about 20 minutes in the car, from my garage to my employer's car park. On a bike, when I was fitter than I am now, it would have taken me about 40 minutes or so. So for my current journey, cycling is less time-efficient.

    To be honest, if the weather here was more favourable, I'd probably still cycle: yes, I'd have to get up 20 minutes earlier in the morning - actually, call it 40 minutes earlier because I'd still want to get home in time to put the small ones to bed - but I'd get a reasonable workout for free. But I've mentioned my issues with the weather here before, and for me, spending the extra time cycling is something I'd have to commit to as a regular thing (otherwise there's too much risk I'd discover some vitally important reason why I had to drive today.)

    How heavy is your traffic? Any time the traffic is sufficiently heavy that you have to wait multiple cycles of the traffic lights to get through a junction, you start losing heavily to the bikes, who will all have filtered to the front of the queue. If you're on residential roads, the car has only a modest advantage over the bike; on roads with higher speed limits (and a lack of congestion), the bike obviously loses.

  • Groceries, children, disabled people, elderly people, longer commutes are all inefficiently transported by bicycle.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Groceries, children, disabled people, elderly people, longer commutes are all inefficiently transported by bicycle.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Infrastructure costs for driving, walking and cycling come out of general taxation revenue, not from anything specifically collected from modes of use. This should change. The technology exists to easily charge for use of roadways so that they're paid for by users.

    Again, some (I never said all) infrastructure costs come from gasoline taxes, paid by motorists who also pay for insurance and licensing, and who are fined when they're caught disobeying the law. I'm all in favor of requiring licenses and insurance from cyclists, both for their own protection and the protection of others - and, as you say, charging for the use of roadways. I trust that you, in the interests of fairness, can see the need for that.

    No. It's ridiculous.

    Driving licences and compulsory insurance for motorists were introduced in response to the massive damage motor vehicles can, and regularly do, cause when driven incompetently or carelessly. By comparison, the potential harm of cycling has never prompted such a requirement in any country in the world, except (IIRC) Switzerland, which abandoned it because the cost of administration and enforcement was out of all proportion for any gains achieved. Do all cyclists have to take this test? Does my nine year old when she cycles to school? Are you going to have police waste their time checking 10 year old's papers as they nip to the shops? Ditto levying a fee to pay for the roads; even in your area apparently some road funding is from general taxation; motorists were only required to pay more because they are the ones who cause most of the damage and demand for new roads. In the UK, the local roads are funded by council tax so we're already paying in full
    By the way @KarlLB, my suggesting that cyclists should observe stop signs and red lights and not hang in blind spots was a rhetorical device. I recognize that you, like your avatar Jef, are wont to take everything personally, but I was really speaking to those cyclists who act like jerks. The whole idea is to avoid accidents, but that requires both courtesy and common sense from all parties.

    What was the point then? I can't control the behaviour of other cyclists any more than you can stop the berk in a private ambulance tailgating on a wet M25 yesterday.
  • I can get a lot of groceries in my rear carriers.

    The inclusivity thing is well covered and has been for some time:

    https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/v2-Nov-2017.pdf

    You've never encountered a cargo bike? or someone towing a trailer with children in it? they're getting quite commonplace round here.

    Longer commutes? On a fine spring morning I wish I had twice as far to go. (On a wet winter's night, not so much, I admit)


  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Could it be that the higher speeds are for more efficient transport?
    Not in an urban setting with mixed-use roads, where the average speed of traffic is 20mph or less.
    Could it be that they are planning for general use rather than the specific use you would choose?
    No, they're planning for a specific use. That of cars. This is demonstrable.
    No, it must be that planners hate cyclists or just Don't Understand.
    Planners don't cycle. This is also demonstrable.
    You demonstrate the blindness people exhibit when what they consider precious is threatened.
    I demonstrate the anger people exhibit when their lives are threatened.
    BTW, the danger in the speed differential is not only about top speed limit. It is because, even within that limit, bicycles and cars have different speeds, acceleration profiles and manoeuvrability.
    Thank God we have you to tell cyclists what our problems are. We'd be lost with out you.

    Remember this exchange the next time someone tries to explain racism to you.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »

    Remember this exchange the next time someone tries to explain racism to you.

    Drawing any kind of equivalence between a supposed bias against cyclists and racism shows just what a lousy argument you have. Don't fall under a bus.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I wasn't. I was drawing equivalence between lB's eagerness to explain cyclists' problems to cyclists and her abhorrence of white folk explaining racism to her.

    Do keep up.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    fuels Tor wrote: »

    Remember this exchange the next time someone tries to explain racism to you.

    Drawing any kind of equivalence between a supposed bias against cyclists and racism shows just what a lousy argument you have. Don't fall under a bus.

    We live in a world which is rapidly being tarmac'ed over, roads are choked with traffic and rates of obesity and related diseases are rocketing. Air quality in our cities is deteriorating to the point where it threatens health, and general environmental catastrophe is only decades away.

    But arguments for more cycling are "lousy" because it's a weird thing that normal people don't do.

    Seems to me that the comparison with racism is quite apt.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rocinante wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    fuels Tor wrote: »

    Remember this exchange the next time someone tries to explain racism to you.

    Drawing any kind of equivalence between a supposed bias against cyclists and racism shows just what a lousy argument you have. Don't fall under a bus.

    We live in a world which is rapidly being tarmac'ed over, roads are choked with traffic and rates of obesity and related diseases are rocketing. Air quality in our cities is deteriorating to the point where it threatens health, and general environmental catastrophe is only decades away.

    But arguments for more cycling are "lousy" because it's a weird thing that normal people don't do.

    Seems to me that the comparison with racism is quite apt.

    Instead we get suggestions to make cycling less attractive - take twice as long to get to work dodging pedestrians and putting up barriers by introducing taxes, compulsory insurance and licences for cyclists, despite all those things only being needed for motor vehicles because of their specific features, being two ton plus lumps of metal travelling at high speed.

    All done in the name of protecting cyclists, while the one thing that will actually work - reducing the danger from motor vehicles through 20mph limits, actual prosecutions when drivers endanger vulnerable road users (NPs injuries not resulting in prosecutions is typical, so much for the "persecuted motorist") - no, that makea you just ridiculous and "anti-car".
  • KarlLB wrote: »

    All done in the name of protecting cyclists, while the one thing that will actually work - reducing the danger from motor vehicles through 20mph limits, actual prosecutions when drivers endanger vulnerable road users (NPs injuries not resulting in prosecutions is typical, so much for the "persecuted motorist") - no, that makea you just ridiculous and "anti-car".

    Karl, exactly what do you mean by "when drivers endanger vulnerable road users"? Isn't that a bit subjective and/or vague?
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Lots and lots of examples on this thread - another example: half way across a side road last night, as a pedestrian, I had to leap back onto the pavement as a driver swung into said side road, without indicating or slowing down. Same sort of thing that happens to bikes all the time. Because of course cars own the road and anyone else using them are trespassers not paying road tax. (Yes, I know it's wrong, but I have had that shouted at me too.)
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Close passing (within 1.5m, perhaps 2m at > 40mph), left hooks (when a driver overtakes and immediately turns left; forcing a cyclist or motorcyclist to swerve and/or brake hard); when a collision has occurred, whenever the insurer has admitted liability. Opening car doors in a cyclist or motorcyclist's path without looking. Following too close when waiting to pass (2 second rule?) All quite objective.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Lots and lots of examples on this thread - another example: half way across a side road last night, as a pedestrian, I had to leap back onto the pavement as a driver swung into said side road, without indicating or slowing down.

    This one particularly annoys me. A vehicle turning into a side road is cross the path of pedestrians going straight on on the pavement and should give way (yield to the colonials). They almost never do; that pedestrians do have to check for turning vehicles and give way to them if they want to stay alive is just one part of the way in which some drivers bully less protected road users out of their right to use the highway. It doesn't help when cycle paths are painted to enforce giving way at side roads; this is not only inconvenient for anyone using them (who would have priority over the side road if they stuck to the main carriageway, which I therefore do), it's also dangerous. Most collisions on segregated facilities occur where it crosses the main carriageway and priority is given to that main carriageway. In more enlightened European countries cycle paths crossing minor road entrances have priority to avoid this problem, and also to make the facility more attractive to use.
  • Thanks for the examples: they are pretty much what occurred to me. The road markings and design are but a small part of the solution, and while enforcement can have an effect it will have to be a cultural change and as we all know the British aren't Europeans.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Well, this is true. I've just come back from Italy which is - different again...
  • Road markings, share the road signs and things like telling cyclists to wear helmets do little for safety of cyclists. Rather, it supports the status quo re road design. There's quite a bit about "complete streets" which refers to road design for all users, with indication of changes in attitudes amd feel of a city area when it's done right.

    The problem with that status quo is that it reinforces the idea that cycling is dangerous and it frankly keeps it that way.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I think SS' point was that changing the road markings won't achieve much. This is probably true, but some more forward thinking authorities have found that cycle path priority can be made effective by using cushions or other changes to road appearance to reinforce the fact that users of the main carriageway must give way at the cycle path, not after it.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Thank God we have you to tell cyclists what our problems are. We'd be lost with out you.

    Remember this exchange the next time someone tries to explain racism to you.
    I cycle. When it was practical for me, it was my main form of transportation. The fact that I also love to drive doesn't change this. That I don't think cycling is the solution to urban transport also doesn't change it. I am actually arguing for my least favourite form of transport whilst you are justifying your preference.
    You are comparing thinking that cycling isn't the solution for all traffic ills, and that cyclists aren't more perfected than everyone else, to being being racist? You perfectly demonstrate the blindness of which I spoke.
    You are a moron.
  • edited April 2018
    A large portion of the problem is equivalence. Auto travel is the defacto standard. Everything else is more difficult and usually more dangerous.

    Public transit and cycling and walking are what many of us think should be the easiest. With barriers via cost and convenience to auto travel being necessary. The benefits of making Auto travel more difficult are public health (e.g. lower stress, less obesity) and environmental re climate change pollution. Also must factor in the manufacturing costs to the environment of both vehicles and roads. Which is also why electric cars are not the answer. Neither is ride sharing like Uber. Uber etc have been shown to entice people away from other less covenient modes of travel.

    Driving isn't a right. It is necessary for some journies and people. Cycling isn't a right either. But driving and cycling need to be considered for costs and benefits. I personally am back to driving's impact on others and the environment and making people pay for the priviledge. Walking, transit and cycling may pay as as well for their costs. (Which I am informed are much less or even negative, ie people might be actually paid to walk or cycle and have transit subsidized)
  • "Negative road tax" on bicycles is an idea that's been floated before. In practice it would probably be a government subsidy on bike purchases, either a fixed sum (so that low-end bikes would be given away F.O.C.) or a percentage discount.

    It is entirely logical, at least in the UK, where Vehicle Excise Duty is effectively a tax on pollution.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Point of order - not sure if by "right to cycle" you mean legal or moral right, but in the UK at least there is a legal right to use a pedal cycle (or for that matter to pass on foot) on any highway or bridleway that is not subject to a Traffic Restriction Order or part of the motorway network.

    There is no legal right to use a motor vehicle. You must prove your competence in order to be granted a licence to drive, pay VED, have a valid MOT test certificate if the vehicle is more than three years old and carry third party insurance in order to do so by licence, not right.
  • I'm not sophisticated enough to know the answer to that (I think I introduced the idea) KarlLB.

    [This is just plain lousy. Auto makers agreed on level of emissions, and now renege because of porno president.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Thank God we have you to tell cyclists what our problems are. We'd be lost with out you.

    Remember this exchange the next time someone tries to explain racism to you.

    You are comparing thinking that cycling isn't the solution for all traffic ills, and that cyclists aren't more perfected than everyone else, to being being racist? You perfectly demonstrate the blindness of which I spoke.
    You are a moron.

    Oh dear Lord, is there something in the water? Someone else who can't parse a simple sentence...

    Look, you want to bikesplain to me, you'd better get it right. You didn't. Own it.
  • You are a moron.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Never were strawmen so eagerly knocked down...
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Never were strawmen so eagerly knocked down...
    WTF are you talking about?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Never were strawmen so eagerly knocked down...
    WTF are you talking about?

    The simple fact that no-one had proposed that cycling is the solution to all traffic issues, for starters. Or that cyclists are "more perfected", whatever that means. Just more easily squished by those who don't look, don't care, or both.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Never were strawmen so eagerly knocked down...
    WTF are you talking about?

    The simple fact that no-one had proposed that cycling is the solution to all traffic issues, for starters. Or that cyclists are "more perfected", whatever that means. Just more easily squished by those who don't look, don't care, or both.

    And so all of us. :kissing_closed_eyes:
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    edited April 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    No. It's ridiculous. ...

    Well, there we have it.

    Except, of course, that it isn't. I used to live in a place that had licenses for bicycles, and it was great. For a nominal fee, your bike was inspected for safety, and if lost or stolen and reclaimed, the police knew whom to call.

    I see unsafe bicycles all the time, with no lights and no reflectors; many have no bell or horn. With bicycle licensing, those would have be fixed up, or the rider could be ticketed.

    I see unsafe cyclists all the time, ignoring the laws. Cyclists should absolutely be licensed; then, if one causes an accident, there's some recourse. (Very few children are riding on the kinds of roads people here write about; I hope you don't let your child weave in and out of traffic on a busy road. Obviously some allowance would have to be made for children.)

    Cyclists should absolutely have to have insurance, for their own benefit and protection as well as that of others. If a cyclist is knocked down by an uninsured motorist, they're protected. And if I get knocked over by a cyclist barreling down a sidewalk or foot path, I'm protected.

    You want equal rights, Karl, and I agree with that: All should share the road. But with rights go responsibilities, at least in most societies.



  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I mean, it's really not difficult. The current barriers to a wider uptake of cycling are twofold.

    Firstly, it's that car drivers are generally mediocre at keeping to the Highway code. That includes looking out for potential hazards, driving under the speed limit, passing other vehicles safely and respecting pedestrian's rights of way.

    The second is that the architecture of the road is wholly biased in favour of motor vehicles: stop signs, traffic lights (where the sensors don't recognise bikes), roundabouts (deliberately forcing cars to cut quickly in front of bikes), one way streets (sending cyclists sometimes miles out of their way), and then traffic calming furniture which from a cyclists' point of view is almost deliberately designed to kill them.

    Fixing either would be brilliant. Fixing both seems almost too much to ask.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Never were strawmen so eagerly knocked down...
    WTF are you talking about?

    The simple fact that no-one had proposed that cycling is the solution to all traffic issues, for starters.
    That was hyperbole. Mild hyperbole, but hyperbole none the less.
    Or that cyclists are "more perfected", whatever that means.
    When a post criticises cyclists, you jump to defend as if what they said could not be true. And exaggerate the claim they made.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oh dear Lord, is there something in the water? Someone else who can't parse a simple sentence...

    Look, you want to bikesplain to me, you'd better get it right. You didn't. Own it.
    You do not deserve a response, but I will give it.
    First, I.RIDE. I've said this more than once. You want credit for sentence structure? How about reading the fucking posts first.
    Second, Even if I didn't, you are still comparing cycling to being black. Cate-motherfucking-gory error.
  • edited April 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    No. It's ridiculous. ...

    Well, there we have it.

    Except, of course, that it isn't. I used to live in a place that had licenses for bicycles, and it was great. For a nominal fee, your bike was inspected for safety, and if lost or stolen and reclaimed, the police knew whom to call.

    I see unsafe bicycles all the time, with no lights and no reflectors; many have no bell or horn. With bicycle licensing, those would have be fixed up, or the rider could be ticketed.

    I see unsafe cyclists all the time, ignoring the laws. Cyclists should absolutely be licensed; then, if one causes an accident, there's some recourse. (Very few children are riding on the kinds of roads people here write about; I hope you don't let your child weave in and out of traffic on a busy road. Obviously some allowance would have to be made for children.)

    Cyclists should absolutely have to have insurance, for their own benefit and protection as well as that of others. If a cyclist is knocked down by an uninsured motorist, they're protected. And if I get knocked over by a cyclist barreling down a sidewalk or foot path, I'm protected.

    You want equal rights, Karl, and I agree with that: All should share the road. But with rights go responsibilities, at least in most societies.

    Can we be more nuanced that car-bicycle, driver-cyclist equivalency, which I thought we'd gotten over on this thread. :sigh:

    Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car collisions. (University of Toronto study)
    While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

    Aggressive and inattentive driving is the primary problem, not aggressive cycling. Which makes sense since cyclists are so much more vulnerable.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    ...Aggressive and inattentive driving is the primary problem, not aggressive cycling. Which makes sense since cyclists are so much more vulnerable.

    It's still a problem. Were I not a careful and attentive driver, several lawbreaking cyclists might have ended up as hood ornaments.

    And cyclists are a real threat to pedestrians in many circumstances; I've come close to being creamed many times in France (several locations), New York City, and Chicago. In all of those cases, I was in a pedestrian crosswalk or on a sidewalk. Aggressive cycling is absolutely a problem.


  • Testimonial versus data. Guess which always wins this one.
  • Testimonial versus data. Guess which always wins this one.
    What Rossweisse said does not contradict what you said.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What Rossweisse said does not contradict what you said.
    Thank you. Of course, we're dealing with people who apparently feel that motorists are All Bad, and that cyclists are All Good. The fact that I was almost killed by a cyclist last fall whilst gimping through a pedestrian crosswalk with my cane is merely "testimonial." One must not inconvenience a cyclist in any way.

Sign In or Register to comment.