Kamikaze Cyclists!

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

...even though the paths are completely useless for cyclists.

...

I suspect that you would be one of those cyclists who would refuse to use a designated cycle path because you actually enjoy your confrontations with motorised road users.

Ha ha ha! :rotfl:

So it wouldn't be anything to do with the fact that, by your own admission, the paths are completely useless!

Must troll harder.

Strider590

modsandmockers wrote: »

I suspect that you would be one of those cyclists who would refuse to use a designated cycle path because you actually enjoy your confrontations with motorised road users.

Seriously......

You need to try riding down some of these cycle lanes, you'll find they're full of rubbish, full of potholes, full of slippery leaves in Autumn, full of water/ice in winter and almost always full of parked cars. There are even stupid ones that take cyclists all the way around the outside of roundabouts, which leads to drivers cutting them up.

They're not designed by cyclists, they're designed by drivers and only because the local councils have to meet cycle lane construction targets.
When cyclists can't use a cycle lane, blame the idiots who planned/designed them.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

You make some good points. The reason why there is so little infrastructure for cyclists is because the decline in cycling during the last few decades of the 20th century was expected to continue, and the money was better spent on motorways. On new housing developments now, there is usually a token network of paths, which are mainly designed for buggy-pushing shoppers. If those paths are designated for joint use, then the target has been met, even though the paths are completely useless for cyclists.

No - the decline in cycling in this country is a direct result of car-centric policy. Look at the Netherlands - in the 1970's they were heading in the same direction as Britain, but made a conscious choice to build cycle infrastructure and reduce car use.


You seem to think that saying something is 'for' cyclists means it is good enough to be used by everyone on bikes (from kids riding independently, lycra-clad roadies and grannies off to the shops) - this is clearly not the case in this country. You have to design FOR bikes, not 'allow' bikes on paths that are designed for other things.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Vehicle registration is enormously useful in helping to identify motoring offenders, and I suspect that you would be one of those cyclists who would refuse to use a designated cycle path because you actually enjoy your confrontations with motorised road users.

I don't really understand the link you're making here.


Vehicle identification CAN be useful to identify offenders AFTER any offence has taken place, but it doesn't prevent them in the first place. If it worked to catch offenders, why are there millions of uninsured drivers? Why are there people speeding? Your system simply doesn't work.


There are some actually quite good cycle paths near me that I ride on a daily basis (they could and should be better though), and also some that I avoid because they are not fit for purpose (because they're a painted line on what used to be pedestrian-only pavement, and to ride on them puts cycles and pedestrians into direct conflict - something I wish to avoid). Why do you take the jump to this meaning I have confrontations with drivers, and that I actively ENJOY any confrontation?





You said earlier that you're a pedestrian and a driver - what would it take to get you to cycle? How would the physical environment need to change for YOU to see cycling as a viable option for your journey?

armyknife

Well you've let this troll have is 'fun', maybe it's time to put him to bed (ignore his 'I'm trying to engage in a debate' BS) and celebrate the new year with a cycle ride or two instead?

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

You said earlier that you're a pedestrian and a driver - what would it take to get you to cycle? How would the physical environment need to change for YOU to see cycling as a viable option for your journey?

Marco - I think you need to read the thread a bit more carefully - I am no longer a driver - I am an occasional cyclist as well as a pedestrian and bus user. Your earlier quote from the 1999 Paul Boateng document was a repeat of a quote which I had already made myself. I accused you of enjoying your confrontations with other road users because I thought it was time to join in with what seems to be the normal practice of resorting to unsubstantiated personal abuse as an alternative to rational discussion.

I think everyone is agreed that if there was a functional network of cycleways, then there would be no problem - it would certainly get me back onto my bike, because I thoroughly enjoy cycling when I am not surrounded by motor vehicles.

The problem is that, whilst there is absolutely no serious intention to provide such a network, there is a political imperative to pay lip service to the idea that cycling is some kind of cure-all for everything from traffic congestion and carbon emissions through to heart failure, strokes and obesity. In practice, what we mostly get is painted white lines which, as you say, are quite likely to create more confusion and conflict rather than any kind of meaningful separation between different types of road user.

The Boateng quote states that many cyclists, especially children, are in fear of other types of traffic, and that was 15 years ago. If cyclists are in fear of other traffic, then they should stop riding their bikes and become pedestrians - the idea that they should be allowed - nay, encouraged - to bump up onto the pavement is mad. And why on earth are ten-year-old children allowed to get anywhere near the public highway without any kind of training or supervision, and very often on bikes which are little better than toys, whose brakes have probably never been checked or adjusted since the day they left the shop?

I have no problem at all with cyclists who choose to exercise their legal right to use the public highway, but I don't understand why they should be allowed to feel that they are entitled to demand any kind of special measures on the grounds of their self-imposed vulnerability. I am in total support of the campaign for a dedicated network of cycleways, but I think it is nothing but a pipe-dream.

I think the government should stop pretending, and come clean about the fact that there is no chance of cyclists being given their own dedicated space, and that cyclists need to understand that, in the 21st century, motor vehicles have acquired the greater claim to the use of the public highway. I think they should also make it clear that in no circumstances is it reasonable for any cyclist to ride on the pavement, even if they are in fear of the other road users with whom they chose to share.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Marco - I think you need to read the thread a bit more carefully - I am no longer a driver - I am an occasional cyclist as well as a pedestrian and bus user. Your earlier quote from the 1999 Paul Boateng document was a repeat of a quote which I had already made myself. I accused you of enjoying your confrontations with other road users because I thought it was time to join in with what seems to be the normal practice of resorting to unsubstantiated personal abuse as an alternative to rational discussion.

I think everyone is agreed that if there was a functional network of cycleways, then there would be no problem - it would certainly get me back onto my bike, because I thoroughly enjoy cycling when I am not surrounded by motor vehicles.

The problem is that, whilst there is absolutely no serious intention to provide such a network, there is a political imperative to pay lip service to the idea that cycling is some kind of cure-all for everything from traffic congestion and carbon emissions through to heart failure, strokes and obesity. In practice, what we mostly get is painted white lines which, as you say, are quite likely to create more confusion and conflict rather than any kind of meaningful separation between different types of road user.

The Boateng quote states that many cyclists, especially children, are in fear of other types of traffic, and that was 15 years ago. If cyclists are in fear of other traffic, then they should stop riding their bikes and become pedestrians - the idea that they should be allowed - nay, encouraged - to bump up onto the pavement is mad. And why on earth are ten-year-old children allowed to get anywhere near the public highway without any kind of training or supervision, and very often on bikes which are little better than toys, whose brakes have probably never been checked or adjusted since the day they left the shop?

I have no problem at all with cyclists who choose to exercise their legal right to use the public highway, but I don't understand why they should be allowed to feel that they are entitled to demand any kind of special measures on the grounds of their self-imposed vulnerability. I am in total support of the campaign for a dedicated network of cycleways, but I think it is nothing but a pipe-dream.

I think the government should stop pretending, and come clean about the fact that there is no chance of cyclists being given their own dedicated space, and that cyclists need to understand that, in the 21st century, motor vehicles have acquired the greater claim to the use of the public highway. I think they should also make it clear that in no circumstances is it reasonable for any cyclist to ride on the pavement, even if they are in fear of the other road users with whom they chose to share.

Please, please can people stop feeding this imbecilic troll. I know I have succumbed several times, but he really is a pointless time thief.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

... and I also think that if there is a cycle track (shared or otherwise) running parallel to the road, then it should be compulsory for cyclists to use it, and illegal for them to stay on the road.

modsandmockers wrote: »

I have no problem at all with cyclists who choose to exercise their legal right to use the public highway...

Ha ha! So, you don't have a problem with cyclists using the road when there's a cycle path available, yet you think it should be illegal!!! :rotfl:

Once again, must troll harder. You must be new to this game.

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

So, you don't have a problem with cyclists using the road when there's a cycle path available, yet you think it should be illegal!!! :rotfl:

You are tying yourself in knots. I do have a problem with cyclists using the road when there's a cycle path available. And, yes, I think it should be illegal.

I also didn't realise that we are playing a game - I thought we were trying to find some kind of answer to the many unanswered questions about why there is so much conflict between cyclists and motorised road users.

It is very noticeable that all the aggression and personal abuse on this thread comes from the militant wing of the pro-cyclist movement, including at least one serving police officer.

On this thread, I can't recall a single constructive reply to any of the points which I have tried to make (but I have little doubt that somebody else will immediately trawl through the entire thread in order to prove me wrong). Everything I say is met with an automated contradiction or denial or personal insult, but a carefully considered alternative point of view is rarely offered. I have no expectation that anybody on a cycling forum is likely to agree with me, but it would be nice for somebody to occasionally explain precisely why they think it is reasonable, for example, for a ten year old child to be legally permitted to ride a toy bike on a busy High Street with no parent anywhere in the immediate vicinity.

If all you can do is shout louder and louder that you are the only ones who know the truth, then you are more or less admitting that your opinions are without any real foundation.

hugheskevi

So often the answer to a perceived problem of current rules being neither observed nor enforced is to call for more rules.

Strange response I'd have thought, but a very common one

modsandmockers

hugheskevi wrote: »

So often the answer to a perceived problem of current rules being neither observed nor enforced is to call for more rules.

Strange response I'd have thought, but a very common one

You make a good point - it is cyclists who insist upon being given all sorts of special dispensations - motorists and pedestrians are mostly pretty well satisfied with the rules which have existed for centuries, but they are increasingly having to learn all the new rules which cyclists are gradually managing to impose upon the majority of road users, most of whom can see no pleasure or advantage in cycling to work.

A very good example of what you mean is that we now have a rule which states that if a cyclist is in fear of other road users, then he or she should simply bump up on to the pavement and transfer their fear onto the unsuspecting, and even more vulnerable, pedestrians.

In the absence of any serious intention to provide an effective network of cycleways, the whole idea of painting white lines onto roads and pavements in order to satisfy some politically correct target should be abandoned, and cyclists should be told that if they choose to ride on the highway, then it will be entirely at their own risk. That would not be a change of rules, it would be a confirmation of the rules which have existed for centuries.