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

[Tin Pot]

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

I stand by my posts, you think it's silly because you think I have said that a cyclist cannot make the decision. I have referred to the group as an entity , the decision maker is likely to be a human being who has ridden a bike and driven a car at some point in their life - I have said nothing about the qualities of the decision maker so far.

I've described objective and subjective approaches to decision making above - try not to get hooked on the semantics but in the practical application. It really helps good decision making.

 

[Profpointy]

I stand by my posts, you think it's silly because you think I have said that a cyclist cannot make the decision. I have referred to the group as an entity , the decision maker is likely to be a human being who has ridden a bike and driven a car at some point in their life - I have said nothing about the qualities of the decision maker so far.

I've described objective and subjective approaches to decision making above - try not to get hooked on the semantics but in the practical application. It really helps good decision making.

Can you elaborate on how you think you can make an objective decision on a policy or relative value thing like cycle lanes? (as opposed to weighing apples or an engineering solution even).

You've lost me entirely on the "cyclists shouldn't decide thing" so we should let that go I think

 

[mjr]

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

And yet, they balance the demands of commuter drivers, motorist shoppers, pleasure drivers, motoring activists plus many others like freight when it comes to carriageway design. Why can't they handle the less diverse range of cycling?

Is it because even some cyclists will let them off the hook and say they were always onto a loser?

 

[Tin Pot]

Can you elaborate on how you think you can make an objective decision on a policy or relative value thing like cycle lanes? (as opposed to weighing apples or an engineering solution even).

You've lost me entirely on the "cyclists shouldn't decide thing" so we should let that go I think

Sure.

It's an objective approach to decision making.

In this case, the problem is not whether we should have cycle lanes or not. I would take it up to the most abstract goal first; we want to enable travel through our city. Then bring in context, travel in several different modes, what the stats on effectiveness, safety, whatever other elements.

What the problems are - this would take some analysis.

The specific elements and goals, say to encourage cycling. Desired safety levels, ie deaths per million miles or whatever.

Then analyse all the ways similar problems have been addressed elsewhere, and hownthey might be appropriate or inappropriate for London.

Now obviously this is a strawman, but by laying out this level of definition nixes all arguments about desiring speed - it's not the goal, safety is.

You progress like this logically and rationally until you have all the pros and cons, and their relative importance until it is clear what the preferred solutions are.

Then a cost benefit analysis should wittle it down to one. If two or more remain, then you can choose randomly because your analysis has already satisfied the need.

 

[SD1]

Pedestrians don't have a side, they are free to use the whole width AFAIK.

But in reality you are never sharing the space with everyone traveling at the speed and ability so you need to be aware and prepared to slow down.

I have seen many cycle lanes/pavement clearly segregated with signs painted on one half with pedestrian and the other half cyclist. The end result is that I cycle much slower even though I warn the pedestrian that I am coming past. Instead of doing 10 miles an hour I am doing 4 or 5. At least that's the way I behave. I would hate to hit a child who suddenly decided to step in front of my bike. Might as well be walking. I sometimes get the feeling that these pavement cycle paths are for benefit of car drivers not cyclists.

 

[SD1]

Or pedestrians

 

[summerdays]

I have seen many cycle lanes/pavement clearly segregated with signs painted on one half with pedestrian and the other half cyclist. The end result is that I cycle much slower even though I warn the pedestrian that I am coming past. Instead of doing 10 miles an hour I am doing 4 or 5. At least that's the way I behave. I would hate to hit a child who suddenly decided to step in front of my bike. Might as well be walking. I sometimes get the feeling that these pavement cycle paths are for benefit of car drivers not cyclists.

You don't have to cycle at their pace just slow down to pass them, to a speed that you could stop quickly. I frequently use cycle paths and I cycle at over 10 mph, and manage to avoid hitting pedestrians and dogs.

 

[swansonj]

Sure.

It's an objective approach to decision making.

In this case, the problem is not whether we should have cycle lanes or not. I would take it up to the most abstract goal first; we want to enable travel through our city. Then bring in context, travel in several different modes, what the stats on effectiveness, safety, whatever other elements.

What the problems are - this would take some analysis.

The specific elements and goals, say to encourage cycling. Desired safety levels, ie deaths per million miles or whatever.

Then analyse all the ways similar problems have been addressed elsewhere, and hownthey might be appropriate or inappropriate for London.

Now obviously this is a strawman, but by laying out this level of definition nixes all arguments about desiring speed - it's not the goal, safety is.

You progress like this logically and rationally until you have all the pros and cons, and their relative importance until it is clear what the preferred solutions are.

Then a cost benefit analysis should wittle it down to one. If two or more remain, then you can choose randomly because your analysis has already satisfied the need.

Yup. And the fact remains that if you think you, or anyone else, are able to work through that process with absolute objectivity, you are engaged in self deceit of epic proportions.

 

[SD1]

You don't have to cycle at their pace just slow down to pass them, to a speed that you could stop quickly. I frequently use cycle paths and I cycle at over 10 mph, and manage to avoid hitting pedestrians and dogs.

I never said cycle at their pace. You are constantly slowing down depending on how many people are on the path.

I frequently use cycle paths and I cycle at over 10 mph, and manage to avoid hitting pedestrians and dogs.

Are you saying you pass people from behind at over 10mph?

 

[raleighnut]

Does the Oaf plan on changing the road traffic act in order to force this on cyclists, last time I looked we had as much right to be on the roads as horse riders, steam engines and milk floats all of which travel slowly in comparison to those vehicles with infernal combustion engines.
Oh and by the way Boris riding a bike in an ill-fitting 'suit' (that quite frankly could do with an iron waving at it) whilst having a colander on your head does not make you a cyclist.
Thankfully I'm never going to ride a bike in that there London (in fact if it was submerged by the rising sea levels I for one would be celebrating.)

 

[summerdays]

I never said cycle at their pace. You are constantly slowing down depending on how many people are on the path.

Are you saying you pass people from behind at over 10mph?

Yes you adjust your speed to the conditions, just as you would on the road, so continually changing your speed. I do use various shared space areas including the Bristol and Bath railway path and I don't shout at people or ring my bell to demand that they get out of the way either. If a pedestrian or dog does run of out in front of me I don't shout either, you just stop.

I don't cycle very often on dedicated separated lanes, I can think of two I sometimes use, one is fine, it feels like the road and rarely has people in it (it came from road space), the other is more at the path level and pedestrians do walk in it, somehow it doesn't feel different to the path that is beside it, though it also came from reducing the road space.

 

[SD1]

Sorry mate don't agree with that
A You should never pass a Pedestrian at that speed on these narrow cycle/pedestrian lanes and it amounts to harassment.
B/ Not letting them know your there just makes it worse. A cyclist suddenly coming passed them at speed can often startles them. 10 miles an hour is to fast. Would you do that with a horse and rider? They don't know your there. A simple "coming past" is all you have to do. Wherever it's a horse rider pedestrian or someone walking along road with no footpath. Even another cyclist. Is it really that hard to let them know your there?

 

[summerdays]

Sorry mate don't agree with that
A You should never pass a Pedestrian at that speed on these narrow cycle/pedestrian lanes and it amounts to harassment.
B/ Not letting them know your there just makes it worse. A cyclist suddenly coming passed them at speed can often startles them. 10 miles an hour is to fast. Would you do that with a horse and rider? They don't know your there. A simple "coming past" is all you have to do. Wherever it's a horse rider pedestrian or someone walking along road with no footpath. Even another cyclist. Is it really that hard to let them know your there?

Can you imagine the noise in a shared space if everyone let everyone know if they were passing someone it would be continual bells and voices! Depends on the space and the number of people and if they are expecting passes etc. I never said I never say anything it varies depending on the conditions.

Anyway this is off topic if you wish to discuss how to cycle in a share space then start a fresh thread.

 

[subaqua]

Does the Oaf plan on changing the road traffic act in order to force this on cyclists, last time I looked we had as much right to be on the roads as horse riders, steam engines and milk floats all of which travel slowly in comparison to those vehicles with infernal combustion engines.
Oh and by the way Boris riding a bike in an ill-fitting 'suit' (that quite frankly could do with an iron waving at it) whilst having a colander on your head does not make you a cyclist.
Thankfully I'm never going to ride a bike in that there London (in fact if it was submerged by the rising sea levels I for one would be celebrating.)

Traffic regulatory orders can be made. Like the ones that prevent vehicles over 16.5 tonnes using the ring road between certain times ( the times that activists want them to use instead of daytime )

 

[raleighnut]

. Like the ones that prevent vehicles over 16.5 tonnes using the ring road between certain times ( the times that activists want them to use instead of daytime )

Yeah that's OK for car drivers (i.e. selfish feckers) but what about the people who live near ring roads, HGVs rattling their windows all night.