Rockets

Who is a member of the Democrats 66 party, deputy mayor and is very much a politician (who has responsibility for traffic)......doh! Yup. Please see above about how fact checking is very important...ahem.. No. They are called Fatbikes. The clue is in their name but the suggested changes are for not just fat bikes but a whole range of bikes that are causing problems and injuries for their riders and others. Fatbikes are a particular problem. Is quite ridiculous. Yup but, you know, in your mind I clearly know nothing of the challenges posed by cyclists in the inner city and am just saying things to "agitate" and "troll". But you claim there are no challenges after a 30 minute run around the city and a check of StreetView. Right......

What on earth was he on about? Air brakes - but I doubt you need to be idling for a long time to get the pressure to a level where they will work.

There was an interesting chat about this on the budget The Rest Is Politics and they highlighted a challenge that taxation levels are now getting to Scandinavian levels yet our public services are nowhere near as good as theirs and the government is pouring money in to, for example, the NHS but people aren't seeing the improvement as (the politically dreaded) productivity is actually going down. They cited 20% to 30% more investments in nurses etc yet productivity is at around 7.8%. This is a big challenge for the government because if people don't feel the difference or feel they are getting good value for money they will turn on them very quickly.

It is factually wrong but very typical of your posts. There are plenty of examples of me supporting public realm improvements and local road safety measures throughout the many years of this on-going debate....I just think you're choosing to ignore them because you think it legitimises your attacks. You're wrong. Very wrong (and not for the first time). As I say, I am not the one acting in a troll-like manner here. Go take a look - I will await your apology. Absolutely 100% this. @march46 no-one has ever claimed that high-vis is the solution on this forum (I am not sure how some are getting to this conclusion but I think it is another case of putting words in people's mouths to suit their own personal narrative) but clearly high-vis certainly helps to be seen - I mean that's just commonsense. Granted, no amount of high-vis is going to help with a driver with their head in their phone and they are a scourge of our roads and I hate it if I see people doing this and glad that you were ok @march46. As far as I am concerned it should be a long driving ban for anyone caught using their phone whilst driving.

@Earl Aelfheah do you have anything constructive to add or just here for the name-calling - and the irony is you're calling me the troll...?! Never let the truth get in the way of a good story hey! 😉

@Raeburn no I do not think you have won anything - if that was your motivation then you have failed spectacularly. I am wondering when the penny will drop for you that the whole inner-city area being a nightmare due to cyclists is the catalyst for efforts by local authorities to reduce it being a nightmare. Anyway I am off to Google Street View to assess whether my experiences and views about Amsterdam, based on actually spending time there, are correct or not......... I mean a local politician is saying this: "I receive messages every week from Amsterdammers who say they no longer dare to go out on the road and who beg me to ban fat bikes. So I feel it is my duty to try everything within my power to address this problem,” Perhaps they need to spend more time on Google Street View to see what's really going on......

@Raeburn you seem to be trying to put words into my mouth - what I actually said was: You seem to have decided what I want this to be. What is driving this is, according to Dutch media reports, is the increasing number of injuries caused by, and to, those riding e-bikes - especially fat bikes. Apparently figures from Amsterdam hospitals show an increasing number of injury admissions to those riding e-bikes - especially in the younger age groups. Here is just one such story: https://nltimes.nl/2025/11/26/amsterdam-plans-fat-bike-ban-busiest-areas-city And lo, look what a local politician says in that article - reflecting exactly what I was saying about downtown Amsterdam - : “I receive messages every week from Amsterdammers who say they no longer dare to go out on the road and who beg me to ban fat bikes. So I feel it is my duty to try everything within my power to address this problem,” says traffic alderman Melanie van der Horst. “For 3 years, we’ve been asking the national government to introduce measures to deal with fat bikes. And in the meantime, the problems have only gotten worse, with more unsafe fat bikes on the road and more accidents, sometimes involving very young children.” And I provided my first-hand commentary - we clearly disagree but I suppose the difference is I didn't resort to a knee-jerk accusatory language and accuse someone of being an "agitator" and "troll" because I have an opinion that differs to theirs. Nor did I accuse them of posting "deliberate untruths". Pretty aggressive and inflammatory language don't you think - but it's a definite pattern displayed by many who won't hear a negative word said about cycling. Can you not see what you are all doing here? It's getting ludicrous. And this really is beyond laughable. Imagine if I had said that - can you imagine the pile on!?

Maybe that's because folks like you and I who actually stop are by far the exception rather than the rule....sorry, couldn't resist! 😉

Agitator and troll - they're two new ones I can add to the names I have been called! 😉 All because I dared offer an opinion that differs from yours. Ho hum - par for the course. Spend some more time there, maybe have a chat to the locals - I think you'll find they'll agree with me more than you! They'll probably tell you during the summer months, and especially during the height of the tourist season, that the inner-city is blighted by cyclists (especially tourists). Oh and if you drink beer avoid the Texels cloudy beer - it goes down like fruit juice but is lethal!!! 😉

I think we all are - you can't keeping putting words into people's mouths all the time. If we said it fine but if we didn't say it don't claim we did - it's not playing fair. Please try to refrain from doing that.

And you seem to be arguing with me based on a 30 minute run in late November.....ho hum....maybe chat to some of the locals about the joys of cyclists in the city centre (especially in the summer months). Interesting though that local authorities across the Netherlands are looking to ban certain types of bikes using cycle paths in cities....perhaps ask some locals about their thoughts on that too! BTW if you want any good restaurant recommendations I have plenty!

Imagine Singelgracht like a ring-road canal that encircles the inner city - it has an entrance/exit to both the north and the south of the city. My reference to that was that the area within the Singelgracht canal - the actual inner-city, is a nightmare because of cyclists. Outside of it everything works well but inside it is a cycle nightmare.

We will agree to disagree on that one.... Downtown Amsterdam is the thing of cycle nightmares. @Raeburn let me explain - Singelgracht is one of the main canals (so I doubt any bikes or cars will be using that! ;-)) and I was using that to say anything the other side of it towards the city is a nightmare. The other side is ok. Additionally, the potential banning of e-bikes, cargo bikes, fat tyre bikes etc in bike lanes is being considered for the whole of Amsterdam - in fact a number of cities in the Netherlands are considering similar bans. Can we just make this a standard automatic response?! If only it were true of course and not just a knee-jerk response anytime anyone reads something I post that they don't agree with! 😉

@Raeburn we will agree to disagree on that one - anywhere inside Singelgracht is a nightmare for pedestrians. Granted everything works nicely the further out of the city you get but inside it is an utter nightmare - it's why Amsterdam is looking at banning certain types of bikes from bike paths in the city (e-bikes, cargo bikes etc).

No I am not I am pointing out that you are putting words into my mouth and then trying to take us down a rat hole when I challenge you on it. It happens every single time anyone tries to debate something/anything with you. Why not? That's how reputation's are built and wrecked. As a cyclist who obeys the rules and is mindful and considerate to other road users (and actually knows the rules and guidance in relation to cyclists) it is of enormous frustration to me that I see growing numbers of cyclists who care not one jot for any other road users, who put themselves and others in harm's way because of their selfish attitude to the way they cycle. No-one notices the good behaviour only the bad. No I am not, I think I am reflecting the general perception towards cyclists which is being dictated by the growing bad behaviour by many cyclists. Some may be happy to to put their heads in the sand and defend cyclists and bad and inconsiderate cycling (after all cars kill far more people than cyclists - which seems to be the mitigation offered by many) but the perception is growing amongst the wider (probably non-cycling - given some cyclists seem to be a bit selective about what they see) public that there is a problem with cycling. It's a bit like estate agents - there are good estate agents but their reputation has been tarnished. If you want to see the manifestation of how bad things can get go to downtown Amsterdam where the frustration and anger towards cyclists is palpable. Closer to home it is interesting that the Mayor is closing Oxford Street West (a huge swathe of Oxford Street between Great Portland Street and Orchard Street) to cyclists as well as vehicles - clearly they don't want to mix pedestrians and cyclists. Why might that be?

Who mentioned injuries? You did. You then tried to put those words into my mouth...but this is what you do...repeatedly. Many people on this forum have warned you about putting words into people's mouths and misrepresenting what people have actually said.

@exdulwicher are you turning on one of the cycling journals now? Maybe write them a strongly worded letter! Yes I see cyclists behaving/dressing/acting appropriately all the time but I also see an increasingly large number who do not and who give those of us that do a bad name and actually put themselves at huge risk - only last week I was in a cab travelling up the Brixton Road, sat at red lights at the junction of Vassell Road heading towards the Oval and the lights turned green - a bus started to pull away travelling in the opposite direction on the other carriageway and suddenly a girl on a Lime bike shot across the junction from Vassell (wearing over-ear headphones) causing the bus to slam on it's brakes and she was then narrowly missed by one of the cars in front of us. It's that type of thing that infuriates people and if she had been hit by the bus I am sure the narrative would have been about another cyclist being injured when it was a result of her own utter stupidity. Clearly anyone who cycles would be best advised to wear bright clothing - it's kind of commonsense but seeing the blinkered reactions of some of the usual suspects on here just speaks volumes. You're putting words in my mouth again @Earl Aelfheah - you have been warned about this type of behaviour before.

No @Earl Aelfheah try reading what it says and digesting it in the context of your accusation of me "victim blaming". I mean, that's advice from www.cyclist.co.uk. My sage advice would be listen to them and don't listen to some of the posters on this forum for they know not of what they talk about and seem lost in their own blinkered view of the world....

@Earl Aelfheah read what cyclist.co.uk says about this....are they, and the courts, victim blaming as well I presume???? Honestly this thread..... Rule 59 of the Code states that cyclists should 'wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light.' If a cyclist was injured in the day, or in poor light conditions, and was not observing Rule 59, this could compromise their legal position. If the cyclist brings an injury claim against a driver, the driver could successfully challenge the claim, on the basis of a Rule 59 breach. @Earl Aelfheah you still haven't answered the question - do you think it is advisable for cyclists to invest a few pounds in clothing items that help make them more visible? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. I think the £6 or so I spent on my high-vis reflective jacket was money well spent and I would hardly call that "special clothes".

Who said anything about maximising the impact of deaths - I said maximise the impact of car accidents - get your facts right please. You're clearly trying to put words into people mouths again. It seems to me, and probably many other sensible folks on here, that no-one is trying to minimise the impact of road deaths or injuries - it's just a narrative you like to try and peddle to deposition anyone who dares try to discuss anything with you. You're doing what you always do - never actually answer the questions posed to you just default to your usual responses. We have seen it time and time again. Ho hum....

Huh, did you see how much the council spent on Dulwich Square? There is money to do this type of thing, they are making millions from PCNs, CPZs etc. I think we can all agree Lordship Lane needs some TLC - the pavements are awful. Why is it that the councillors are happy to throw millions at Dulwich Square but next to nothing to Lordship Lane that gets 1000x more visitors every day? Perhaps a Goose Green resident can email one of the councillors to ask them.

Errr it's hardly victim blaming is it: pointing out that wearing dark clothing doesn't help you be more visible. It's commonsense. Come on @Earl Aelfheah would you not recommend cyclists invest in items to make them more visible to other road users? I do and I know a lot of others do as they take their safety very seriously. If that's the case then you are surely also showing bias. If everyone used roads and was considerate to other road users then everyone could co-exist very nicely. As a cyclist and a driver I pride myself on being able to find the happy balance - I am neither an obnoxious driver or obnoxious cyclist. I think we can all agree there are plenty of both around at the moment. Or maybe you don't. I pasted what the Highway Code says earlier...perhaps you should re-read it? This thread is hilarious (if it wasn't such a serious issue), the reactions from the usual suspect shows how entrenched, dangerously ill-informed and bereft of commonsense, some people are.

Yup too many deaths on our roads. But whilst you accuse some of trying to minimise the impact of car accidents it must equally be true then that there are some who clearly want to maximise the impact of car accidents too - just look at the title of this thread and then some of the posts throughout. Some have clearly gone a bit "Dulwich Roads" - where any accident involving a car is an excuse to suggest excess speed, dangerous/careless driving without ever establishing what actually happened.

It wasn't a few seconds - it was along the full stretch of the A205 - even alongside the bit with a designated cycle lane on the pavement....and you're really stretching now aren't you? What they were doing was being that awful type of cyclist known as the obnoxious ones....we all know a few if we cycle - the ones who don't give a single thought to anyone other than themselves, think the world revolves around cycling and suffer from that awful affliction thrown at many car drivers called "entitlement". Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you....you allowed yourself to get dragged into the anti-car black hole! 😉

So @Earl Aelfheah were the two cyclists riding two-abreast along the A205 right to do so? My point remains, and actually the Bikeability chap in the @malumbu video really highlights the problem, that many of the supposed experts aren't actually giving good advice to people or are giving incomplete advice to cyclists - much of which I think is leading to examples of bad cycling we see on the road every day and the catalyst for a lot of the anger directed at cyclists. As a cyclist who cycles a lot in London I really disagree with this statement - in fact, most cyclists don't subscribe to this - perhaps I just cycle around other pragmatist cyclists like myself but most cyclists in London do not cycle in the primary position "more often than not". Yes I take primary position when approaching junctions especially if there is a bike box (when the traffic conditions allow). On quiet roads do I keep my distance from parked cars (you don't have to cycle down the middle of the road/lane to do this), but am I also mindful to move out of the way of faster vehicles approaching - yes. But do I ever engage in the Bikeability chaps narrative of I took the space first so I basically tough - no, never. But they aren't helping the likelihood of being hit are they - sympathy if you get hit, less sympathy if you made yourself harder to see? It's still seems nonsensical to me that people would not try to make themselves as visible as possible - a reflective high-vis jacket that goes over any type of clothing costs a few quid on Amazon - a small price to pay to make sure you're seen. Maybe it's a "why should I have to" type mindset - good luck with that - I hope it works out for them.