Should drivers in London start paying for the damage, deaths and misery they cause?

[NCT]

Originally Posted by spindrift

If you listen to experts, the police, the Institute of Advanced Motorists then you can learn from their experience and take steps to make yourself safer on the roads. It's the same principle in law- a bus driver MUST COMPLY with various regulations, stipulations and laws before they can drive a bus in London. A cyclist has no such compunctions because it is recognised that the potential for harm is much greater if you are in charge of a twenty ton vehicle. That some people think peoples' rights are diminished according to what vehicle they choose to use is quite chilling when you think about it- it seems to follow the principle that Might is Right so if I took a Sherman tank on the roads anybody who gets killed it's their fault.

Why on earth do drivers get so angry when they are held up for 30 seconds by a cyclist? What difference will that 30 seconds make to their day? There's too much anger, both on the roads and on this thread.

For a bus it is important when it's 30 seconds at every stop and there are about 30-40 stops on a central London bus route. Cycle related delay (including that built into the timetable) can be between 5 to 15 minutes, which is significant. It's not the cumulative extra unproductive minutes suffered by all bus passengers, but the extra PVR required to maintained the same level of service. A 15-minute delay each way adds 6 buses for a route with a 5-minute headway.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by NCT

Cycle related delay (including that built into the timetable) can be between 5 to 15 minutes, which is significant.

You keep claiming this, I keep asking for any actual evidence, you've never posted any, because it's simply not true.

[spindrift]

10 December 2012

Traffic congestion is costing the economy more than £4.3 billion a year, according to a survey.

The cost of the jams is equivalent to £491 per car-commuting household, the survey showed.

More than £426 million is wasted on fuel alone a year, the survey by the Centre for Economics and Business Research and traffic information company Inrix said.

The cost in terms of lost time is £331 per commuter a year, or £2.7 billion, while hold-ups to business or freight vehicles amounts to £1.1 billion annually being added to household costs.

Around 40% of the gridlock costs occur in the London area, with commuting drivers spending 66.1 hours a year stuck in jams.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...r-8398562.html

Today's Standard. Cyclists aren't mentioned.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by spindrift

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...r-8398562.html

Today's Standard. Cyclists aren't mentioned.

Because causes are not disaggregated to mode level.

It didn't say cars caused the congestion either.

Originally Posted by spindrift

You keep claiming this, I keep asking for any actual evidence, you've never posted any, because it's simply not true.

Originally Posted by spindrift

Why on earth do drivers get so angry when they are held up for 30 seconds by a cyclist? What difference will that 30 seconds make to their day? There's too much anger, both on the roads and on this thread.

Short memory span?

[spindrift]

The picture accompanying the article shows a traffic jam of cars. What on earth do you think causes congestion if it isn't cars and motor vehicles? Traffic jams are queues of motorised traffic, to argue otherwise is just silly.

I've already explained that in my experience of cycling fifty thousand miles through East London, any delay to cars is temporary because I will invariably catch them at the next lights. So, they weren't actually delayed at all, I filter past and leave them behind. Cyclists simply do not delay buses, no bus company has ever claimed this, tfl don't claim this, the only person who claims this is you, and since you've failed repeatedly to offer a scrap of evidence I'm happy to call bs.

[Gigamac]

Originally Posted by spindrift

If you listen to experts, the police, the Institute of Advanced Motorists then you can learn from their experience and take steps to make yourself safer on the roads. It's the same principle in law- a bus driver MUST COMPLY with various regulations, stipulations and laws before they can drive a bus in London. A cyclist has no such compunctions because it is recognised that the potential for harm is much greater if you are in charge of a twenty ton vehicle. That some people think peoples' rights are diminished according to what vehicle they choose to use is quite chilling when you think about it- it seems to follow the principle that Might is Right so if I took a Sherman tank on the roads anybody who gets killed it's their fault.

Why on earth do drivers get so angry when they are held up for 30 seconds by a cyclist? What difference will that 30 seconds make to their day? There's too much anger, both on the roads and on this thread.

Agreed. I thought I would be contributing to a discussion, but instead I seriously thought of asking the moderators why they are allowing trolls to post...

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Gigamac

Agreed. I thought I would be contributing to a discussion, but instead I seriously thought of asking the moderators why they are allowing trolls to post...

They're not trolls. They're just people with a different opinion. That is allowed on this forum, you know, and people don't generally take kindly to those with a clear (possibly single issue) agenda who, soon after first posting in a forum, start trying to police it. So wind your neck in, fella.

And just for the record, I say that as someone who cycles in London.

[spindrift]

If NCT genuinely believe cyclists should ride in the gutter he could perhaps lobby for it to become law or set up a campaign to promote gutter-riding. I think he'd fairly quickly become persuaded he's spouting dangerous nonsense. I don't think he's a troll, I think he's typical of a dangerous mindset typified by this driver:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...w-8399206.html

I've said it before, but 4x4s with pimped-up tinted windows that park near a junction effectively block visibility completely, you can't see approaching vehicles because the large vehicle blocks the view, and you can't even see through the vehicle.

[JimB]

The truth of the matter is that our roads would be all the better if everyone - drivers and cyclists - acted with consideration for other road users. And I would say that, by large, the vast majority of road users do. It is only an angry, inconsiderate and militant minority on either side of the debate who make the roads a more unpleasant, aggressive and even dangerous place to travel.

[Gigamac]

Originally Posted by JimB

They're not trolls. They're just people with a different opinion. That is allowed on this forum, you know, and people don't generally take kindly to those with a clear (possibly single issue) agenda who, soon after first posting in a forum, start trying to police it. So wind your neck in, fella.

And just for the record, I say that as someone who cycles in London.

OK, but why does the language get so hot so fast unless it's main purpose is confrontation or inflammatory? I will wind my neck in, but only because I am interested in good provision for all transport and believe cycling needs proper development of routes, and all views considered. Maybe I was jut trying to say some comments have something to say, but are saying it with disrespect an to be inflammatory, in other words pretty close to trolling. Sorry if I genuinely offended some people who mean to set a good path, not sorry if I p1553d off some others who had their balloons pricked.

[Gigamac]

And by the way who has a single agenda?

[Gigamac]

Originally Posted by JimB

The truth of the matter is that our roads would be all the better if everyone - drivers and cyclists - acted with consideration for other road users. And I would say that, by large, the vast majority of road users do. It is only an angry, inconsiderate and militant minority on either side of the debate who make the roads a more unpleasant, aggressive and even dangerous place to travel.

Oh and by the way I agree with what you said here.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Gigamac

And by the way who has a single agenda?

Given that you joined the forum yesterday and have since posted exclusively in this thread, I think it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that you might "possibly" have a single issue agenda!

Nothing wrong with having a single issue agenda, by the way.

[spindrift]

I think calling cyclists who follow government standards in cycling "autistic" and "arseholes" and cheering violence against cyclists is, if not trolling, extremely offensive.

[cosmictanya]

Originally Posted by Loathing

Absurd. One doesn't have to study the subject of bloody "Cycle Craft" to get on one's bike and experience the road. I've cycled (carefully) in cities across the world, and no where but in London have I experience the nasal, autistic, arrogant pedant-cyclists such as those being so vociferous in this thread.

Anyone with a brain understands that a cyclists can't have the same rights/presence on a road as a car or a bus, for so many reasons it's not worth my time to delineate. If you're a cyclist, you need to be extra-aware, you need to be looking behind you whenever you manoeuvre, and you need to be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary. And it's not bloody safe to travel on a flimsy, unstable, noiseless bicycle at 30mph ever. If you're already such a cyclist-martyr and safety-obsessive, then you should bloody well be prepared to sacrifice a little speed for the safety of pedestrians and your own safety.

And that comment above vis-à-vis double-standards: how is it even possible for you do be so solipsistic that you can't understand why a fucking bus should take precedence over a cyclist?

well said that man!

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Gigamac

OK, but why does the language get so hot so fast unless it's main purpose is confrontation or inflammatory? I will wind my neck in, but only because I am interested in good provision for all transport and believe cycling needs proper development of routes, and all views considered. Maybe I was jut trying to say some comments have something to say, but are saying it with disrespect an to be inflammatory, in other words pretty close to trolling. Sorry if I genuinely offended some people who mean to set a good path, not sorry if I p1553d off some others who had their balloons pricked.

It only seems to you that the language became "so hot, so fast" because you have only just joined the discussion. It's actually been going on for the past three weeks in both this thread and another, similar thread which had to be locked because of rising tempers on both sides.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by spindrift

I think calling cyclists who follow government standards in cycling "autistic" and "arseholes" and cheering violence against cyclists is, if not trolling, extremely offensive.

Come on now......there were some pretty silly posts on both sides of the argument. Don't dredge it up again.

[Gigamac]

Ok, but I don't, and I understand NCT has an opinion that has a right to be expressed, and like I said all sides make a shape, but why the rude? And surely that rude deserves an answer? I don't see myself as militant, judge dredd, or all knowing, but I do know the roads are one sides, and human powered transport gets the bad press AND the knocks.

[spindrift]

Cavendish won gold in the madison at the 2005 and 2008 World Championships riding for Great Britain:

Mark Cavendish has been shaken by a run-in with a car that he says tried to run him and fellow cyclist Russell Hampton off the road.

Yesterday afternoon he tweeted a picture of the offending vehicle, adding: "This man just tried to run me & @russellhampton off the road."

The photo clearly showed the numberplate of the car, a white Citroen, and an elderly-looking man in a fisherman's cap.

He added: "Just noticed in the photo of my road-rage friend, he looks old & fragile. Can assure you he was far from it. Angry, patronising & aggressive.

“He could have ended our careers or worse. He looks old and frail but he was angry, patronising and rude.”

http://road.cc/content/news/71860-ma...d-run-him-road

People who use their vehicles as a weapon are almost certainly are of the mindset that cyclists are "arseholes" or "autistic". Ascribing a developmental disability to people based on the mode of transport they choose is just..odd.

[.Adam]

'Up to 9% of deaths in London caused by air pollution'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20664807


Up to 9% of deaths in the capital's most polluted areas are down to air pollution, a new London Assembly paper has reported.

The paper highlights the percentage of deaths attributable to man-made airborne particles is highest in the City of London.

Research has shown air pollution contributes to problems including lung and heart conditions.

London is among the worst in Europe for air pollution.

The paper, Air Pollution in London, produced by the Assembly's Health and Environment Committee reports that 8.3% of deaths in Westminster are attributable to man-made airborne particles.

In Kensington and Chelsea it is 8.3% and in Tower Hamlets 8.1%.

Bromley and Havering have the lowest proportion of pollution-related deaths in London, both 6.3%, but are still above the England average of 5.6%.

The Department of Health figures relate to research in 2010 and are based on estimates.

A 2008 study estimated there are over 4,267 extra deaths each year in London from particulates in the air.

Breast cancer and diabetes have been attributed to air pollution as well as respiratory problems.

Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi, chairman of the Health and Environment Committee, said the borough-level figures should make "interesting reading" for the Mayor of London.

He added: "Hopefully they will give the problem of air pollution the emphasis it warrants."

'Illegal levels'

City Hall says it has taken measures to cut pollution from buses and taxis and improve the Low Emission Zone.

The Mayor's Air Quality Strategy aims to reduce levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter by:

-reducing transport emissions

-cutting pollution from construction and energy generation

-taking pollutants from road surface treatment and

-reducing exposure by warning people of high pollution days

Environmental Organisation ClientEarth recently warned that in terms of European Union rules, London will have "illegal levels of air pollution until 2025".