So your plans are not feasible in London then!!! So why do you keep harping on about them?
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
kr79:
‘Every single one of us’ would actually obviously include me.When I used a bicycle I only rode the thing on the pavement and ever since as a pedestrian I’ve got absolutely no problem with cyclists using the pavements within reason whenever and wherever possible.Just so long as cyclists show the same,much easier for them to provide,consideration for pedestrians as the,much more difficult if not impossible to provide,amount of consideration which cyclists currently expect from large vehicle drivers.Obviously it would include you, that was my point. While you may not have had a problem with cyclists on the pavement, that doesn’t give you the right to speak for those with small children or the elderly or anyone who might feel vulnerable faced with what is basically a vehicle invading their space. I don’t quite understand how you can’t grasp the concept that not all cyclists are pootlers out for a Sunday stroll, as it were. Racing cyclists, or even cyclists trying to get from here to there at 15mph, have no place on the pavement. And you never seem to realise that there isn’t a national network of pavements …
So let’s keep the status quo of ordinary cyclists who have no intention of ever taking part in cycle racing getting wiped out on the roads because the racers wouldn’t be able to do tour de france type speeds on the pavements around pedestrians.In which case what happens assuming the cyclist lobby somehow gets it’s non existent cycleways taken out of the non existent road space when the ‘racers’ have to share their bs dreamland ‘cycle ways’ with the slower everyday cyclists.
Which just leaves the inconvenient fact that the truck operators and drivers obviously don’t intend to remove the trucks from the roads during the daytime hours and the cyclists want the right to use all roads at all times as they please just to please the tour de france wannabees and eco warriors.So the casualty list just gets bigger. 
Carryfast:
So let’s keep the status quo of ordinary cyclists who have no intention of ever taking part in cycle racing getting wiped out on the roads because the racers wouldn’t be able to do tour de france type speeds on the pavements around pedestrians.In which case what happens assuming the cyclist lobby somehow gets it’s non existent cycleways taken out of the non existent road space when the ‘racers’ have to share their bs dreamland ‘cycle ways’ with the slower everyday cyclists.Which just leaves the inconvenient fact that the truck operators and drivers obviously don’t intend to remove the trucks from the roads during the daytime hours and the cyclists want the right to use all roads at all times as they please just to please the tour de france wannabees and eco warriors.So the casualty list just gets bigger.
No, let’s train all parties to use the road properly. Train cyclists not to ride up the inside of lorries at traffic lights and to take up their road space like the road users they are, and train drivers to understand just why they might be doing that. All your replies assume that your idea is the only possible solution. Which it isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. It just wouldn’t work.
Descending into abuse and generalisations doesn’t help to get your point across either.
chester:
So your plans are not feasible in London then!!! So why do you keep harping on about them?
The fact is the bs selective scenario which you’ve shown isn’t representative of the situation throughout so called ‘Greater London’ and therefore TFL’s turf let alone nationally.Nor for that matter in the case of the locations of certain of the recent casualties.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
So let’s keep the status quo of ordinary cyclists who have no intention of ever taking part in cycle racing getting wiped out on the roads because the racers wouldn’t be able to do tour de france type speeds on the pavements around pedestrians.In which case what happens assuming the cyclist lobby somehow gets it’s non existent cycleways taken out of the non existent road space when the ‘racers’ have to share their bs dreamland ‘cycle ways’ with the slower everyday cyclists.Which just leaves the inconvenient fact that the truck operators and drivers obviously don’t intend to remove the trucks from the roads during the daytime hours and the cyclists want the right to use all roads at all times as they please just to please the tour de france wannabees and eco warriors.So the casualty list just gets bigger.
No, let’s train all parties to use the road properly. Train cyclists not to ride up the inside of lorries at traffic lights and to take up their road space like the road users they are, and train drivers to understand just why they might be doing that. All your replies assume that your idea is the only possible solution. Which it isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. It just wouldn’t work.
Descending into abuse and generalisations doesn’t help to get your point across either.
According to the cyclist lobby your idea obviously ( rightly ) isn’t an option because the casualty list proves that cyclists can’t co exist at least on urban roads in large numbers with large vehicles hence the calls for seperation by way of large vehicle bans.Which of course won’t work without equal cyclist bans at the times and/or places where large vehicles are in use,which obviously includes buses.Exactly what abuse are you referring to.
Carryfast:
chester:
So your plans are not feasible in London then!!! So why do you keep harping on about them?The fact is the bs selective scenario which you’ve shown isn’t representative of the situation throughout so called ‘Greater London’ and therefore TFL’s turf let alone nationally.Nor for that matter in the case of the locations of certain of the recent casualties.
But you agree it’s a pavement?
chester:
Carryfast:
chester:
So your plans are not feasible in London then!!! So why do you keep harping on about them?The fact is the bs selective scenario which you’ve shown isn’t representative of the situation throughout so called ‘Greater London’ and therefore TFL’s turf let alone nationally.Nor for that matter in the case of the locations of certain of the recent casualties.
But you agree it’s a pavement?
But you agree the locations of at least two of the recent fatalities were in locations where the ‘type’ of ‘pavement’ which I’m referring to existed ?.In just the same way that plenty of other similar types of pavement space exist in ‘London’ and nationally.
Carryfast:
chester:
Carryfast:
chester:
So your plans are not feasible in London then!!! So why do you keep harping on about them?The fact is the bs selective scenario which you’ve shown isn’t representative of the situation throughout so called ‘Greater London’ and therefore TFL’s turf let alone nationally.Nor for that matter in the case of the locations of certain of the recent casualties.
But you agree it’s a pavement?
But you agree the locations of at least two of the recent fatalities were in locations where the ‘type’ of ‘pavement’ which I’m referring to existed ?.In just the same way that plenty of other similar types of pavement space exist in ‘London’ and nationally.
Answering a question with a question. You sound like a politician, and nt a very good one
It’s like being carpet bombed in here.
In the grand scheme of London traffic the amount of cyclists killed and injured is a tiny proportion of all bike journeys. I’m not saying life’s cheap but on the whole it does sort of work.
More education of the dangers needs to be promoted and a proper cycle network using segregated bits of pavement where it’s practical and roads where practical. Tfl have turned cable st which runs parallel with the highway in to a cycle street. The parks and canal towpaths should be utilised the post office has a disused underground rail system in Central London maybe that could be used.
Anything has to be better than a half cocked bit of bluepaint on the road that doesn’t really help anyone.
I count 6 cycling threads on this forum at the moment. I’m not sure if I should be happy the topic is being discussed or annoyed that more truck stuff is not on. Think I’ll nip over to bike radar for a while, see if I can find any Tacho questions.
Slackbladder:
I count 6 cycling threads on this forum at the moment. I’m not sure if I should be happy the topic is being discussed or annoyed that more truck stuff is not on. Think I’ll nip over to bike radar for a while, see if I can find any Tacho questions.
We could have the best cycle paths in the world, but the cyclists still won’t use them…
rambo19:
We could have the best cycle paths in the world, but the cyclists still won’t use them…
They would, and in places where there are good cycle paths they do.
and now the top plod steps into the debate
Is this top plod a cyclist?
If not then, I would agree that most non cycling folks would not cycle in London either.
A bit like a non-swimmer saying that they would not attempt to swim the English Channel.
chester:
Is this top plod a cyclist?If not then, I would agree that most non cycling folks would not cycle in London either.
A bit like a non-swimmer saying that they would not attempt to swim the English Channel.
I think the comparison would be more the difference between the average swimmer swimming at a swimming pool or the beach as opposed to abandoning a ship mid Channel or mid Atlantic without a life jacket.
Carryfast:
chester:
Is this top plod a cyclist?If not then, I would agree that most non cycling folks would not cycle in London either.
A bit like a non-swimmer saying that they would not attempt to swim the English Channel.
I think the comparison would be more the difference between the average swimmer swimming at a swimming pool or the beach as opposed to abandoning a ship mid Channel or mid Atlantic without a life jacket.
So if we’re talking life preservation aids the chief constable should be riding a bicycle fitted with stabilisers?
As of yet we don’t know if this chief plod can ride a bike?
Just for the record my 88 year old grandmother just placed her glass of Baileys down and also said she would never ride a bicycle in London.
Just to clear any confusion.
chester:
Carryfast:
chester:
Is this top plod a cyclist?If not then, I would agree that most non cycling folks would not cycle in London either.
A bit like a non-swimmer saying that they would not attempt to swim the English Channel.
I think the comparison would be more the difference between the average swimmer swimming at a swimming pool or the beach as opposed to abandoning a ship mid Channel or mid Atlantic without a life jacket.
So if we’re talking life preservation aids the chief constable should be riding a bicycle fitted with stabilisers?
No we’re talking the difference between the risks of swimming in a swimming pool without a lifejacket as opposed to doing the same thing mid Channel or mid Atlantic.IE a bit like the difference between riding my bicycle to school on the pavement or amongst the trucks and buses along the A 243 dual carriageway and round the Ace of Spades roundabout.Aalthough in that case maybe I should have said mid Pacific amongst the sharks.