Boris Johnson as Mayor - what are the implications for London's development?

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

Cycling shouldn't be actively encouraged on these roads.

No. That's bullying vulnerable road users out of the way, it's giving in to aggressive and anti-social behaviour, and it will make the roads more dangerous. It's also directly opposed to government policy of encouraging cycling. You are very exercised on a subject you know next to nothing about, these are major arterial routes, people live and work in the area, they need to be protected, not forced off the roads.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

Most sensible people use routes of least resistence, but cyclists are a rule unto themselves. They think it's fun to throw themselves into traffic when more sheltered alternatives are clearly available. it smacks of looking for trouble.

When you make these sweeping generalisations that are brimming with prejudice it does your argument no favours. It's not tribal, it isn't a battlefield, most cyclists are drivers, cyclists are usually more affluent and alternate bike and cars. It's not cyclists versus divers versus pedestrians, most of us are one or the other at different times. I'm all three. You have a very paranoid and hysterical attitude towards cyclists.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

on most main roads cycle lanes probably should be abolished

Which roads would you remove the cycle lanes from? You could become active politically and lobby for Government policy to be reversed and cycling discouraged, but I don't think you'd be very successful. I know you don't like it and you appear to believe an awful lot of silly myths, but cycling isn't going to go away and cycle lanes aren't going to be removed.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by spindrift

1/ You claimed "millions" of people are delayed by cyclists. This is a claim that can't be found anywhere else. You made it up.

2/ You claimed cyclists take more risks in London. This is a bald assertion without a shred of fact. You made it up.

3/ You claimed cyclists were at fault in accidents. You stated that if cyclists' behaviour were to be addressed the accident rate would drop. This isn't true, risky behaviour by cyclists account for fewer than 5% of accidents. You made it up, and in doing so you effectively slagged off the cyclists killed on London's roads by posting stuff that isn't true. You made it up. You're suggesting that Ms Patel, killed by a drunk driver chatting on a mobile, was to blame for her own death. That's pretty distasteful.

In a way, you can't be blamed, you've fallen for the same hateful propaganda Boris appears to have swallowed but it really makes no difference, you're just a liar with a paranoid and irrational fear of an out-group you're desperate to demonise and belittle.



4/ Genuine question ntc, have you ever actually ridden a bike in London?


I'd do E11 to SE1 in 40minutes, that's 7.5 miles, stopping at every single red light. Did it for 8 years.

Any cyclist in London would tell you you're posting utter claptrap, it's difficult to believe an articulate adult could be so completely wrong on the subject.

Where, seriously, are you getting this nonsense from? Can you find any published evidence that backs up a single word of what you're claiming in the 4 points above? That's a silly question because I know you can't, but I've never encountered anyone so frantically arguing his corner by pulling made-up facts out of his arse.

Really? I do Portchester Station to Portsmouth University in 40min. That is 6.2 miles and mostly segregated with underpasses. If it was a road route I doubt I would make it in 40 when you account for lights. 7.5 miles would likely take me 45-50 with the high level of grade separation Portsmouth has achieved.

I could go on the road on much of this, notably at the junction with Marketway and Unicorn, but I don't. I stick to the sensible routes where I am less likely to encounter heavy traffic.

It is called sensible decision making on the Cyclists behalf. I would be stupid to cross that junction on a Bike but many do (despite the underpass complete with grade separation between Ped's and Bikes).

[NCT]

Originally Posted by spindrift

No. That's bullying vulnerable road users out of the way, it's giving in to aggressive and anti-social behaviour, and it will make the roads more dangerous. It's also directly opposed to government policy of encouraging cycling. You are very exercised on a subject you know next to nothing about, these are major arterial routes, people live and work in the area, they need to be protected, not forced off the roads.

Cycling isn't an end, it's a means to an end that can be easily reached through other means. Planning smarter routes or using other modes aren't going to add journey time or reduce journey options, sometimes even the opposite. Encouraging cycling can be appropriate if targeting short local trips avoiding unsegregated trunk roads.

Originally Posted by spindrift

When you make these sweeping generalisations that are brimming with prejudice it does your argument no favours. It's not tribal, it isn't a battlefield, most cyclists are drivers, cyclists are usually more affluent and alternate bike and cars. It's not cyclists versus divers versus pedestrians, most of us are one or the other at different times. I'm all three. You have a very paranoid and hysterical attitude towards cyclists.

You have a very rosed-tinted view about some cyclists. I see them every day and their impacts some of them are having. Sure there are plenty of responsible cyclists out there but a good chunk aren't and I'm only talking about the latter. I've made that very clear with the qualifiers I've used in pretty much every relevant sentence. There's no need to feel offended on behalf of people who aren't the subject of the conversation. Certain people are dicks whatever mode they use. When they walk they step in front of traffic without looking and when they drive they pip at anything remotely in their way. It's these people who are the most vocal and you just refuse to see them as who they truly are.

Originally Posted by spindrift

Which roads would you remove the cycle lanes from? You could become active politically and lobby for Government policy to be reversed and cycling discouraged, but I don't think you'd be very successful. I know you don't like it and you appear to believe an awful lot of silly myths, but cycling isn't going to go away and cycle lanes aren't going to be removed.

Jumping to a pre-formed conclusion as usual. Why don't you actually read what I said? I am talking about those cycle lanes that are either discontinuous (i.e. end up in parking bays) or have insufficient width, therefore being deceptive about space allocation. You yourself said that these think cause drivers to think cyclists whould be in their own lane when it's not there. These cycle lanes give amateur cyclists a false sense of security and make drivers less aware of cyclists, so their removal would be better for everyone. Of course where protected cycle lanes can be installed (sometimes perhaps via an alternative alignment) they should be.

What's dangerous is yout insistence that cyclists must be on the road unsegregated no matter what. There's no rationality in it whatsoever as there are usually better alternatives. Reccommending the use of safer (and faster!) alternatives isn't shafting cyclists aside. Your self-victimisation is getting tiresome.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

Cycling isn't an end, it's a means to an end that can be easily reached through other means. .

Can you name another method of transport that reduces congestion (despite your laughable claims that cyclists delay "millions" that you've ignored polite requests toback up) reduces pollution, keeps you fit and is free for daily use?

Originally Posted by NCT

Planning smarter routes or using other modes aren't going to add journey time or reduce journey options,.

You're suggesting cyclists use quiet back roads but you feel this won't take longer than the direct route. Right oh.

Originally Posted by NCT

You have a very rosed-tinted view about some cyclists. I see them every day and their impacts some of them are having. Sure there are plenty of responsible cyclists out there but a good chunk aren't

I don't doubt it, but since I've explained to you several times that poor behaviour by cyclists is rarely the cause of accidents it's safe to discount your claims as evidence of your bias, not any reality borne out by the research.

Originally Posted by NCT

I am talking about those cycle lanes that are either discontinuous (i.e. end up in parking bays) or have insufficient width, therefore being deceptive about space allocation. You yourself said that these think cause drivers to think cyclists whould be in their own lane when it's not there.

That's the sixth time you've lied about what I've said. I said nothing of the kind, I said segregation can encourage drivers to have a sense of ownership about non-segregated roads and bully cyclists off them. Why do you keep lying? It has nothing to do with cycle lanes, although I note you dodge the question about what lanes you'd remove.

Originally Posted by NCT

These cycle lanes give amateur cyclists a false sense of security and make drivers less aware of cyclists,

How on earth does a cycle lane make drivers less aware of cyclists? A cycle lane is a white line on the road, do you think drivers lose the ability to drive when they see one? When you start driving you'll find it's something that poses no trouble for a competent driver, you're making stuff up. Again.

Originally Posted by NCT

What's dangerous is yout insistence that cyclists must be on the road unsegregated no matter what.

I have never said that or anything of the kind. There are many roads cyclists are banned from or that have a de facto ban, dual carriageways for example. Can you PLEASE stop lying about what I've said?

You're really posting a load of sub_Clarkson nonsense, you appear ignorant of road traffic law, you make sweeping prejudicial remarks that make you appear unbalanced and you've lied, repeatedly.

If you want to ban cycle lanes then write to your MP, it will never happen.

If you want to believe cyclists are an homogenous entity of criminals then there's little I can say to change your mind, but it's scary someone with your level of paranoia and resentment will one day be driving a car.

[thedurringtondoctor]

He never said they were criminals - you liar!!

Leave it!!! It ain't worth it.

You slaaaaaaag.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by thedurringtondoctor

He never said they were criminals - you liar!!

Leave it!!! It ain't worth it.

You slaaaaaaag.

Originally Posted by NCT

I can count on one hand the number of cyclists I've seen who actually stopped at a red light. Most of them go straight through meandering through horizontal traffic very dangerously. Some of them seem prepared to risk their lives just to protest against motor vehicles just for the sake of it. Then you have the cyclists who insist on going beyond the pedestrian crossing when waiting at the light then wonder why traffic is pipping at them from behind because they can't see the light as they've gone past it!



a majority of cyclists think rules don't apply to them. Of course driver behaviour needs to be looked at and speeding and inconsiderate driving needs to be tackled, but cyclists' behaviour needs to change much more. They need to know they have to look after themselves not to be killed.

He not only labelled most cyclists as criminals he also claimed cyclists' behaviour needs to be addressed MORE than drivers. As if cyclists were killing 3000 people a year, when it's drivers who do that.

It's a weird alternative universe when people claim bad behaviour on the roads is exclusive to cyclists and it is cyclists' behaviour that needs to change when cyclists are as likely to kill anyone as a golf ball or bee.

There is research on this, cyclists are an "out-group" so the sins of a few are used against the entire group. Like I said, it's barmy, it's like opposing new roads because "a driver killed Diana!"

If every cyclists obeyed every road law and carried lights and wore hi-vis it would reduce accidents by less than 5%.

Want to make roads safer? Concentrate on those who kill and maim daily- drivers.

[MatthewGen]

Originally Posted by spindrift

He not only labelled most cyclists as criminals he also claimed cyclists' behaviour needs to be addressed MORE than drivers. As if cyclists were killing 3000 people a year, when it's drivers who do that.

Ofcourse cyclist Behaviour needs to be looked at more than drivers, it's the only vehicle you can ride on the roads that requires 0 knowledge of the roads rules..

[thedurringtondoctor]

I couldn't actually see where he called them criminals. If all cyclists who went throught red lights were criminals, our jails would be overflowing with them. Hardly makes them criminals does it??? And what has any of this got to do with my friend Boris and his attitude towards skyscrapers?

[thedurringtondoctor]

Just did a quick google and found this:-

http://www.myspace.com/thebicyclekillers

[NCT]

Spindrift, it's clear that you have absolutely no interest in debating the actual issue. You are obsessed with personalities and your Ken vs Boris is a prime example of that. Once you've made up your mind that someone is wrong you start putting words into their mouths and attack them. You make out I only care about cars when I've not made reference to them once. Yet you choose to ignore the millions of bus users who are actually the most shafted road user. Any facts just wash completely over your head and when you've run out counter arguments you bring out the usual kind of empty emotive nonsense.

Which part about discontinuity or insufficient width do you not understand? It means It means when cyclists have to pull out to avoid parked cars drivers still have the mentality that they should be in their cycle lane; it also means far from what's suggested by the road markings, there actually isn't sufficient room for a bike and a motor vehicle to pass side by side. That's exactly the kind of situations where cyclists have to use non-segregated space and drivers want to bully them off it, and this is due to the perception of (soft) segregation that doesn't exist. God some people need to have everything spelt out for them, but of course it will just wash straight over your head.

Total traffic volumes have been falling, just look at Travel in London, yet speeds have been decreasing across the board. Go on London Bus Timetable Graveyard and see how many central and inner London routes have had their running times extended over the years. You don't need me to tell you that cycling has been the biggest recent change on the roads.

Cyclists (though not exclusively cyclists) slow down buses, and they make buses more expensive to run, and make bus journeys longer and more pricey for bus users, of whom there are millions a day. That's the first negative externality. Cycling reduces congestion only if the alternative is the car, or when cycling is off the main roads. Cycling adds congestion if cyclists come from public transport. In fact, the speed differential means that in quieter traffic an extra bike has a higher capacity-sapping effect than an extra car that's travelling at the speed of the road.

Speed differential causes congestion and accidents. Just in terms of off-road alternatives there is plenty for most journeys. London's road and path network is so dense and permeable dual-carriageways and big roundabouts can almost always be avoided without sacrificing journey time. Just answer me this, what's wrong with not using Elephant and Castle roundabout?

[Core Rising]

As arbiter of good taste and judgement, I hear by declare NCT to be the winner of this debate. Now can we please move on from this?

[Octoman]

LOL, I think some people are struggling to accept the democratic choice of Londoners. Ken had 2 goes at getting back into power. He had his chance.

People like Spindrift with their car hatred are in the minority. Thankfully for another 4 years we don't have to be dominated by their views when formulating transport policy and can instead work towards a balanced, pragmatic approach that recognises the needs of all stakeholders in London's infrastructure.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Octoman

instead work towards a balanced, pragmatic approach that recognises the needs of all stakeholders in London's infrastructure.

And that, alas, will be its downfall.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by Octoman

LOL, I think some people are struggling to accept the democratic choice of Londoners. Ken had 2 goes at getting back into power. He had his chance.

People like Spindrift with their car hatred are in the minority. Thankfully for another 4 years we don't have to be dominated by their views when formulating transport policy and can instead work towards a balanced, pragmatic approach that recognises the needs of all stakeholders in London's infrastructure.

Agreed, and I am a Cyclist too.

[Octoman]

I support cycling too. But I recognise we have a lot of people to move around this city and sometimes over long distances.

[ill tonkso]

At the end of the day it is about mutual respect. As a cyclist I have a lot of Motorists that do not recognise my right to the road, however this is a minority. Most respect my right to the road and in return I keep to the side unless strictly necessary, signal when I wish to turn off and sometimes give way (when it is my right of way) to a car if it doesn't inconvenience me too much.

Now there are good motorists (the majority) and bad motorists (the minority which leads to all my legenday Facebook Cyclist rants). On the flipped side, there are also bad Cyclists (also a minority around here) which think they are above the rules of the road and cycle on roads that have a sensible, cycle friendly alternative. It is these guys that cause the hassle. Yesterday I was cycling to work, my route - whilst segregated - does envolve crossing the new Naval Base Link Road at grade. The lights for cyclists were red, the lights for motorists were green. I stopped, however a cyclist coming the other way did not and cycled straight in front of a car. He then hurled abuse at the innocent motorist. I actually shouted "The car had right of way you prick" at him.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by MatthewGen

Ofcourse cyclist Behaviour needs to be looked at more than drivers, it's the only vehicle you can ride on the roads that requires 0 knowledge of the roads rules..

Even though bad behaviour by cyclists causes less than 5% of accidents, and 75% are the fault of the driver?

Originally Posted by Octoman

People like Spindrift with their car hatred are in the minority.

Can you find a single post of mine that justifies this claim? Don't fall into ntc's game of making stuff up please.

Originally Posted by NCT

Cyclists (though not exclusively cyclists) slow down buses,

Why do you just making stuff up? I'll pay £100 to a charity of your choice if you can find a single recorded instance of bus delays ever having blamed on cyclists. Deal?

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

In short, yes, London cyclists are more careless.

And your evidence for this is?

Seventh time, you keep making assertions then you disappear when challenged. Making stuff up, in other words.

Originally Posted by NCT

Total traffic volumes have been falling, just look at Travel in London, yet speeds have been decreasing across the board. Go on London Bus Timetable Graveyard and see how many central and inner London routes have had their running times extended over the years. You don't need me to tell you that cycling has been the biggest recent change on the roads.

Cyclists (though not exclusively cyclists) slow down buses

No. You made the claim, you back it up. You claimed "millions" are delayed by cyclists. You have provided no evidence at all for this, because you made it up.