dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Is this really so hard to understand? I originally quoted your post in full and commented "might not would". You asked me which " would", as there were two instances. I went back and pared down the quote to show just one instance of the word "would".

It was hard for me because your 5 min edit of the quote didn't show up. Thanks for the effort, anyhow- I now gather you are doubtful these schemes as designed would increase cycling. This is a straightforward disagreement. I think that as designed it's a dead cert they will. If butchered about under pressure from limo drivers on the one front and an appearance of large scale disagreement among cyclists on the other, I'm sure they have the potential to join the ranks of @bollocksinfra -but this is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

So I can only suggest you educate yourself to a point of discernment, and, with luck, and the flavour of your remarks there's no reason why you couldn't do that. You will however attract implacable hatred from some quarters if you confess to furthering your researches through some channels, so either curtail yourself to only considering the opinions of DZ, or acquire a thick skin and read up.

I'm sure wOOhoo_kent, who seems to have displayed a laudable openness in this thread, is quite capable of making his or her mind up. Your post looks a tad patronising to me.

(For the record, though I'm very uneasy about those built out bus islands, I'm not averse to having adequate segregated facilities available. Not in a ''Cyclists This Way Only'' kind of way, mind. At least it will help us know how many of the non-cyclists who cite traffic dangers as their reason for not cycling will eventually use them.)

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

So no problem for you to evidence then.

"Increase" is a low hurdle. And the evidence for more than that is there if I'm allowed to cite places in the world that have actually installed this kind if infra.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

I'm sure wOOhoo_kent, who seems to have displayed a laudable openness in this thread, is quite capable of making his or her mind up.

Agreed -emphatically stated, indeed. I'm not entirely sure what you thought wOOhoo_kent ought to find patronising, however. My suggestion was, there's more for wOOhoo_kent to consider while making his/her mind up than the opinions of DZ. That wrong?

For the record, though I'm very uneasy about those built out bus islands, I'm not averse to having adequate segregated facilities available. Not in a ''Cyclists This Way Only'' kind of way, mind. At least it will help us know how many of the non-cyclists who cite traffic dangers as their reason for not cycling will eventually use them.

Clarification noted. But about the bus islands -they been in operation around the world for decades. Is your concern based on this experience?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Clarification noted. But about the bus islands -they been in operation around the world for decades. Is your concern based on this experience?

NO, just an apprehension based largely on the explosion of hand-held elsewhere devices amongst the general pedestrian population and my own experience of how they can behave in the path of cyclists and motors.

 

[mjr]

NO, just an apprehension based largely on the explosion of hand-held elsewhere devices amongst the general pedestrian population and my own experience of how they can behave in the path of cyclists and motors.

Ring your bell when you see an iZombie. I've had them step out abruptly into the road in front of my bike because they've not looked, they've just not heard a motor and assumed it's clear to go - Darwin may be along soon with an electric car!

 

[Dan B]

Ring your bell when you see an iZombie. I've had them step out abruptly into the road in front of my bike because they've not looked, they've just not heard a motor and assumed it's clear to go - Darwin may be along soon with an electric car!

I find it is usually more conducive to a relaxing and enjoyable ride if I slow down and take up a position further from the kerb when I see an izombie, that way even when they do step out it does not become an instant calamity. And really, they have the same right to the road as the rest of us.

Of course, this depends on having either the lane width to do so or an adjacent lane to move into without having to bunnyhop anything,

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

I find it is usually more conducive to a relaxing and enjoyable ride if I slow down and take up a position further from the kerb when I see an izombie, that way even when they do step out it does not become an instant calamity. And really, they have the same right to the road as the rest of us.

Of course, this depends on having either the lane width to do so or an adjacent lane to move into without having to bunnyhop anything,

In the same way that their stepping into the road depends on things like, whether their footway is wide enough for capacity, whether there are enough pedestrian crossings on desire lines, what the light timings are, and so forth. All of which comes back to whether motor vehicles are being honoured over active travel, with road space and so forth.

What you really need is a scheme that puts in more pedestrian crossings and takes away space from motor vehicles- which is precisely what the proposed E-W does.

 

[mjr]

I notice you've not quoted the part of mjray's post where he goes on to say he doesn't think that's what's actually happening.

Knocker is allowed to disagree with me. I hope my attempt at rephrasing his belief clarified things.

Furthermore, I think if I'm right and anti- infrastructure cyclists are being used as a scapegoat, then if antis are dealt with, some other reason would be given. I think it's better to support calls for fairer funding than to berate other riders.

 

[mjr]

I find it is usually more conducive to a relaxing and enjoyable ride if I slow down and take up a position further from the kerb when I see an izombie, that way even when they do step out it does not become an instant calamity. And really, they have the same right to the road as the rest of us.

Of course, this depends on having either the lane width to do so or an adjacent lane to move into without having to bunnyhop anything,

Yeah, I prefer half-kerbs (as shown in Making Space for Cycling) or posts for that reason, too. I do slow down too (else I'd be describing a collision with an iZombie) but a bell's a good way to tell them you're there and reduce the risk of them jumping as you pass. Walkers have a right to the road, but also some responsibility to be aware of their surroundings.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

We could always have more pedestrian crossings without a cycle lane scheme.

Cars are such a massively inefficient use of space (parking, at junctions, just driving along) that any mode switch from motor vehicles to bicycles has the potential to free up a lot of space for pedestrians- both for crossings and on the pavement.

Where in the world have they achieved such a mode switch, and how did they do it? Oh but we aren't to breathe the name of that dread country on Cyclechat.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Yeah, I prefer half-kerbs (as shown in Making Space for Cycling) or posts for that reason, too. I do slow down too (else I'd be describing a collision with an iZombie) but a bell's a good way to tell them you're there and reduce the risk of them jumping as you pass. Walkers have a right to the road, but also some responsibility to be aware of their surroundings.

Yes. It's both a mystery and annoyance to me that antis go on about the hated kerbs, given that the Dutch have 45 degree kerbs at the edges of the fietspad for precisely the reasons noted. So the LCC and others have been loudly demanding the same 45 degree curbs- but instead of supporting THAT call, you will find people from this thread actually resisting the 45 kerbs as another municipal extravagance. It's as if they ENJOY hating the 90 degree kerb, and so want it insitsted upon, so that the useable width of any path be minimised and their prejudices coddled in warm beer!

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

You can say what you like, don't try to pretend you are being in any way suppressed or censored here.

The Netherlands,provisions in which you may learn about by visiting and also by reading these following blogs [BOOO!! HISSS!! "ACCOLITE"!!! "GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH"!!! BAH!! DOES HE REALLY CYCLE?!! "SOCKPUPPETT!!"]

 

[Dan B]

Yes. It's both a mystery and annoyance to me that antis go on about the hated kerbs, given that the Dutch have 45 degree kerbs at the edges of the fietspad for precisely the reasons noted.

Have you ever tried skating along a path demarcated by a 45 degree kerb?

 

[theclaud]

Cars are such a massively inefficient use of space (parking, at junctions, just driving along) that any mode switch from motor vehicles to bicycles has the potential to free up a lot of space for pedestrians- both for crossings and on the pavement.

Where in the world have they achieved such a mode switch, and how did they do it? Oh but we aren't to breathe the name of that dread country on Cyclechat.

Yes, that's why you've barely mentioned it at all...