Cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined ....

[Profpointy]

There's no point in asking cyclists what they want. They'll just moan. Decide objectively what is best and impose it on them by law. Same with drivers. And bankers. And schools.

two problems (1) "objectively decides"
and (2) who does the deciding, just supposing for a moment it's just a teensy bit subjective

 

[Tin Pot]

two problems (1) "objectively decides"
and (2) who does the deciding, just supposing for a moment it's just a teensy bit subjective

So, are you saying that you don't know how to make objective decisions? I do it for a living.

The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.

 

[PK99]

There's no point in asking cyclists what they want. They'll just moan. Decide objectively what is best and impose it on them by law. Same with drivers. And bankers. And schools.

Sometime last year I went to a public meeting run by Merton Council on the subject of the Mayors cycling infrastructure initiative and Merton's bid proposal.

It was clear that the council were on a loser from the off as there were several cycling constituencies with differing requirements:

Through borough Commuter - I want fast clear routes to and from central London (eg along A24 and to Kingston, Putney, Wansworth) no segregation, I want to use the roads

Local shopper mum - I want segregated cycle lanes in and around the town centre and local shops

Sport cyclist - I want fast clear routes out into the country and to Richmond park

Cycling activist - I want to make life a difficult as possible for drivers to keep them off the road (I exaggerate not, that was his stance)

 

[summerdays]

The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.

So it should be by non cyclists.....? Haven't we already tried that system and found it wanting!

 

[Profpointy]

So, are you saying that you don't know how to make objective decisions? I do it for a living.

The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.

Now you're just being silly (sorry if I've missed the sarcasm).

 

[Profpointy]

You reckon?

So, are you saying that you don't know how to make objective decisions? I do it for a living.

The deciding should never be done by a cyclist, they are too close to the problem to be objective.

Umm, following that logic, then in order to make your objective decisions (at work) your primary qualification is knowing nothing about the subject so that you can avoid being too close.

 

[Tin Pot]

Both of you are intelligent enough to see the flaws in your points, you've chosen to ignore them, so there isn't any value in me debating it.

 

[Profpointy]

Both of you are intelligent enough to see the flaws in your points, you've chosen to ignore them, so there isn't any value in me debating it.

I'm assuming you mean something slightly different from what you said.

But you did say cyclists were disqualified from designing cycle lanes as they are too close to it, presumably implying they'd over value special pleading. Unstated is the implication that motorists are somehow not so disqualified from designing cycle lanes or roads for that matter. I just can't see how a non cyclist can even have a sensible opinion on cycle lanes to be honest - and I don't believe a (dispassionate/ detatched )High court judge (say) can weigh up different views on this any more than he could choose between different options for new magnets for the LHC

I also take issue that relative prioritisation of needs can be genuinely objective. The mass of the Higgs particle might be an objective fact, but whether to spend a billion on the LHC versus a mission to Europa can never be an objective decision.

 

[Tin Pot]

I'm assuming you mean something slightly different from what you said.

But you did say cyclists were disqualified from designing cycle lanes as they are too close to it, presumably implying they'd over value special pleading. Unstated is the implication that motorists are somehow not so disqualified from designing cycle lanes or roads for that matter. I just can't see how a non cyclist can even have a sensible opinion on cycle lanes to be honest - and I don't believe a (dispassionate/ detatched )High court judge (say) can weigh up different views on this any more than he could choose between different options for new magnets for the LHC

I also take issue that relative prioritisation of needs can be genuinely objective. The mass of the Higgs particle might be an objective fact, but whether to spend a billion on the LHC versus a mission to Europa can never be an objective decision.

You have misquoted me. It is your interpretation that you are stating.

It's not of value to divert the discussion to what will ultimately be the unanswerable question of whether one (or many) objective reality exists.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_approach
Your concerns are documented there too.

I'd love to hear your argument for why I'm wrong, and that a subjective approach would be much better.

 

[Tin Pot]

If you think your decisions are all purely objective, you are delusional.

If I thought that, you would be right.

Shame really.

 

[Tin Pot]

So why make the obviously stupid claim?

Quote my "obviously stupid claim" so I can respond , or, figure out what my posts mean - rather than what you would like them to mean.

 

[Profpointy]

You have misquoted me. It is your interpretation that you are stating.

It's not of value to divert the discussion to what will ultimately be the unanswerable question of whether one (or many) objective reality exists.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_approach
Your concerns are documented there too.

I'd love to hear your argument for why I'm wrong, and that a subjective approach would be much better.

Ok - I don't agree than only non cyclists can decide cycle lane policy - evidence is apparent in all the manifestly unsuitable lanes we see (I am admittedly assuming non-cyclsts designed them). A non cyclist (to me at least , self-evidently) won't have a clue

On "objectivity" I fail to be see that conflicting goals and priorities such as cyclists' safety (and convenience) versus motorists' convenience, versus small children-cyclist convenience can be objectively decided by some scientific measure. The weight given to prioritising these aims is inherently a subjective or political decision

If you're saying something else then you need to elaborate - preferably not by a wikipedia entry on logical positivisim or whatever

 

[steveindenmark]

I'd like to see a design for a segregated path that stops drivers from blocking it when waiting to join the main road from a side road

This certainly applies in Denmark.

I have had cars edge out into the cycle path but as soon as they see you they back up or if that is not possible they stay still. I have never had one try to get across in front of me. The reason for that is twofold I think. First of all cyclists have absolute Rights on cycle paths. In fact cyclists are King of the road. But the other factor is that most Danes start off on bikes and even if they give bikes up as they get older, their kids will ride bikes or other family members will ride bikes. All Danes have a close link with bikes.

Junctions and roundabouts.

They have recently built a big roundabout near me. All the cycle paths go under it. But it is not all dark and grim, its very pleasant. The cycle paths usually go round the outside of roundabouts and we do have to cross the paths of vehicles entering the roundabout. But the "King of the road" rule applies and I have never had a problem. The same goes for junctions.

I will have to film some of this.

The CTC reason for not adopting the Danish system is shocking. If that is true I would not be renewing my membership.

 

[Tin Pot]

Ok - I don't agree than only non cyclists can decide cycle lane policy - evidence is apparent in all the manifestly unsuitable lanes we see (I am admittedly assuming non-cyclsts designed them). A non cyclist (to me at least , self-evidently) won't have a clue

On "objectivity" I fail to be see that conflicting goals and priorities such as cyclists' safety (and convenience) versus motorists' convenience, versus small children-cyclist convenience can be objectively decided by some scientific measure. The weight given to prioritising these aims is inherently a subjective or political decision

If you're saying something else then you need to elaborate - preferably not by a wikipedia entry on logical positivisim or whatever

Really the link is quite simple, it's not positivism.

There are broadly two approaches one can take to decision making (this is better and more simply described in wiki); objective and subjective. Without even considering approaches, most people immediately leap to the subjective (I think this because of my personal experience and it stands to reason that X is the answer). You put two or more of these people together and they will never agree on the solution. One on their own and you'll have an answer that is unlikely to solve the actual problem, rather than the individuals perceived problem (E.g. Cars, lack of helmets, blah blah).

An objective approach is to step back and analyse the fundamental problem, line up potential solutions by calling on many sources and analyse them with one or many people with as little vested interest in the outcome as possible.

Once the hypothetical solution options are clear, add other known information, be they facts or estimates with clarity on their source and reliability.

You then have a decision basis from objective analysis, and the problem space and solution space are not obfuscated by opinion.

This then frames the decision making process and makes it hard for emotional decisions to win the day, and if they do, it is at least clear that the objective analysis is being rejected.

This is too much like work for a Saturday so I'm off to maim foxes or something now. I hope I was clear enough to help.

 

[Profpointy]

Really the link is quite simple, it's not positivism.

There are broadly two approaches one can take to decision making (this is better and more simply described in wiki); objective and subjective. Without even considering approaches, most people immediately leap to the subjective (I think this because of my personal experience and it stands to reason that X is the answer). You put two or more of these people together and they will never agree on the solution. One on their own and you'll have an answer that is unlikely to solve the actual problem, rather than the individuals perceived problem (E.g. Cars, lack of helmets, blah blah).

An objective approach is to step back and analyse the fundamental problem, line up potential solutions by calling on many sources and analyse them with one or many people with as little vested interest in the outcome as possible.

Once the hypothetical solution options are clear, add other known information, be they facts or estimates with clarity on their source and reliability.

You then have a decision basis from objective analysis, and the problem space and solution space are not obfuscated by opinion.

This then frames the decision making process and makes it hard for emotional decisions to win the day, and if they do, it is at least clear that the objective analysis is being rejected.

This is too much like work for a Saturday so I'm off to maim foxes or something now. I hope I was clear enough to help.

I do know what objective and subjective means. I do however "put it to you" that a decision on the relative priority given to cyclists versus cars doesn't lend itself to objective decision even if some objective evidence might be considered as part of the asessment. Some decisions are objective in a practical sense, if not absolute sense - "what is the best tarmac for a cycle lane" say.

Your comment "cyclists are to close to do the deciding" was just silly though, even if I accept there's a risk if cycle-evangelists do the deciding