That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[jonesy]

Oh deary indeed!

Who cares about the moronic "cyclists". We only need to make sure they get no say, and that everytime they try to publicly open they mouths to spit their nonesense, they are quickly and firmly shut up.

So whenver I point out that the single most frequent cause of conflict with motorists on my journey to work is my non-use of a crappy shared-use pavement, then I must be gagged, silenced, my concerns simply dismissed as tiresome rants? I despair.

 

[Dan B]

Oh look........somebody's shopped us to Copenhagenize. Did you know CC is "the tiresome rants of members of cycling's secret sect who continue to oppose infrastructure for bicycles because it interferes with their testosterone thrill of 'running with the bulls"

Wondering if I should get my avatar subtitle changed to "secret sect member"

 

[Mad at urage]

Actually I'm trying to get people to understand what they need to do to convert the crap stuff into good stuff, so their good intentions produce some results. You're telling them to stuff their good intentions where the sun don't shine. That's not how politics works.

So you admit you are playing at politics.
And inventing stuff to ignore where the hazards of cycling actually come from.

That isn't true. When I was learning to drive a car, 33 years ago, my instructor took a lot of trouble to emphasise that I should pass parked cars "one car door's width away". He wasn't a cycle trainer. Of course, it was unnecessary; as a motorcyclist for 3 years before that, I had already had enough experiences of swerving for car doors to learn about that.


There are still occasions where I forget to move out, or can't because of traffic, when approaching side roads, and I can't count the number of times I've had to brake suddenly because a car was approaching the junction too fast, and even in some cases overshot the junction. That is usually when I'm in a cycle lane. Incidentally, I find probably 25% or 30% of motorists block the cycle lane when waiting to turn out of a side road, so I have to negotiate my way out of the cycle lane.


Your experience is very different to mine. I certainly have far more problems with motorists doing stupid things when I am in a cycle lane than when there isn't one there. See the links that I put in this post.



Cyclists like me? 18 months ago, I was nearly 15 stones in weight, and I though that 8 miles was a big bike ride! To cycle the from Parsley Hay to Ashbourne and back on the Tissington trail was an enormous expedition for me. At 54, I have bad osteo-arthritis in my left hip. 12 months ago when I started commuting by bicycle again, I was always riding cautiously at the side of the road in the gutter as I thought I should be. I experienced so many left hooks that I couldn't count them. On one occasion, in a cycle lane on a left hand bend, I was nearly crushed against a pedestrian fence by an HGV that came up behind me in Farnworth (I actually climbed up the fence to escape).

It was after that last incident that I resolved to read up about how to cycle safely, starting with the Internet, then reading CycleCraft, and looking at Gaz's videos and other stuff. These are personal experiences I'm talking about here, not theories. I don't have quite so many brown trouser moments now, just aggravation from motorists who think I should be in the gutter, especially when there is a crappy cycle lane there. I still do often feel intimidated into using cycle lanes that perhaps I ought not too, particularly over junctions, and that's when I have the remaining scary moments now.

I used to complain that there weren't enough cycle lanes, and that the cycle lanes always seemed to end just where you needed them most, and so on. Now I hate the damn things most of the time. The only places I like them are when there are separate cycle paths adjacent to fast major trunk roads and dual carriageways - like the one by the A59 near Southport.

Richard advocates cycle lanes that increase the risk to cyclists, but it's OK 'cos that is how politics works .

Just slow motorised traffic. After that do nothing else for, oh let's say a decade, to give time to evaluate stuff before embarking on any course of action that may prove counter-productive.

That's not how politics works apparently.

 

[Richard Mann]

Just slow motorised traffic. After that do nothing else for, oh let's say a decade, to give time to evaluate stuff before embarking on any course of action that may prove counter-productive.

If I had a way of doing that I might try it (but your reason for advocating it isn't really very convincing).

Your best hope is probably that people like me can change the game so that speed-limiters get imposed, but currently that's not very likely. You need to get a lot of people out of their cars before the culture will change.

Maybe a campaign to limit anything larger than a private car (SUVs upwards) to 20mph in towns? Divide and conquer!

 

[jonesy]

If I had a way of doing that I might try it (but your reason for advocating it isn't really very convincing).

Your best hope is probably that people like me can change the game so that speed-limiters get imposed, but currently that's not very likely. You need to get a lot of people out of their cars before the culture will change.

Maybe a campaign to limit anything larger than a private car (SUVs upwards) to 20mph in towns? Divide and conquer!

The way in is probably voluntary Intelligent Speed Adaptation linked to in car data loggers, so those who take it up get better insurance rates than those who don't. The differential will grow rapidly with increased uptake, as those who don't want it will disproportionately be the higher risk takers. Then as people start to see the benefits of restricted speeds on their own roads, acceptance will grow further.

 

[Richard Mann]

So whenever I point out that the single most frequent cause of conflict with motorists on my journey to work is my non-use of a crappy shared-use pavement, then I must be gagged, silenced, my concerns simply dismissed as tiresome rants? I despair.

As Mikael says - keep it positive - work out what's good and talk about that. If what he's saying is bad, just point out that it doesn't work and move on.

BTW the CEoGB's page on the "But it doesn't fit" question is still blank

 

[Richard Mann]

The way in is probably voluntary Intelligent Speed Adaptation linked to in car data loggers, so those who take it up get better insurance rates than those who don't. The differential will grow rapidly with increased uptake, as those who don't want it will disproportionately be the higher risk takers. Then as people start to see the benefits of restricted speeds on their own roads, acceptance will grow further.

Yes (and that's very encouraging) but if it only restricts people to 30mph on urban main roads, then we still have a problem. Measuring acceleration should help, but I'm not sure it's enough.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

There are some posts that expressed the right idea on Copenhagenize. (Probably already posted here years ago; sorry if so.)

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I am not reassured. I don't believe that you have fully thought through the consequences of the actions you propose. As matters stand I really do not want you speaking for me on these issues.

+1

 

[SavageHoutkop]

Frankly, seeing what you're advocating so far, I'd much rather that 'people like you' would have enough humility to realise that you don't speak for the majority of cyclists.

er... do we know what the 'majority of cyclists' want? Seeing as the majority is likely, as in most things, to be silent?

 

[Richard Mann]

Well we do know that Richard dismisses any objections as irrelevant ...

That's a gross misrepresentation.

 

[Red Light]

er... do we know what the 'majority of cyclists' want? Seeing as the majority is likely, as in most things, to be silent?

The general rule is that it is for those that are proposing a change to demonstrate there's real support for it, not others to prove there isn't. So until you can show that the status quo of no facility should stand.

And by real support I don't mean doing a "Do you like motherhood and apple pie?" survey.

 

[Richard Mann]

The general rule is that it is for those that are proposing a change to demonstrate there's real support for it...

And if democratically-elected highway authorities put it in, and democratically-elected governments put advice out trying to show you how to do it, and fund it? And if all the parties broadly support that?

 

[Richard Mann]

Is it? I must have misunderstood your comment about the 90% disregarding the 10%.
If that isn't regarding any objections made by those you categorize as being in the 10% group as irrelevant then I can only apologize.

That was after allowing the argument to progress on both sides. That's why it's not "dismissing objections". And I was envisaging some sort of vote, not a decision by one side or the other. We can't move to a vote - we don't have a quorum.

 

[Richard Mann]

The ignoring bit, does it come before or after the voting bit?

After. Unfortunately there's no recognised voting procedure, so the debate continues.

Oh well, at least Tony knows a bit more about the Delft project now.