binary_star

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't mind being banned from the road if it's to > a proper segregated cycle lane. > Plenty of that to come!

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't believe people are biting! Always. One day I'm going to start a thread about cycling through dog poo. I just need to see some on the pavement outside Iceland first...which needs to happen before they turn it into a Waitrose obviously as you'd never get dog poo outside Waitrose. In other news, houses are getting more expensive apparently.

Absolutely no chance, London has clear policies and objectives to promote a modal shift away from the car by meeting cycling growth targets and (sorry Louisa) giving increased priority to buses Also a growth in cycling is integral to the Mayor?s 'vision' for London.

Sorry, yes there is no 'tax' there is a reduction in the housing benefit already given. However, what in principle does this mean for council tenants? Does the council say we want you to move to smaller accommodation but we can't provide anything smaller? Seems counter-intuitive. It looks like there are, in real terms, two options: A. You have the option to move somewhere cheaper B. You have to stay where you are and pay extra If the latter, surely this is not the fault of the tenant if the councils area able to provide smaller/cheaper accommodation?

How does the bedroom tax work in principle? If I was renting a 2 bed in the private sector and my landlord said "Your rent's going to go up, unless you want to move to one of my one bed flats", depending on whether or not I could afford it I might choose to lose the spare room. But I didn't think the council had many one beds to actually house people in? How are they coping with the amount of tenants who can't justify/afford the extra room and would prefer to downsize?

Applespider, I got really excited about these when I saw them on kickstarter then forgot all about them. Reading your comments though has just convinced me to get one!

Loz, what Otta or anyone else reads into your posting history is up them. I'm very active on the cycling threads and even when I'm not contributing, I'm likely reading them. Yes, I do challenge opinions and comments that I believe to be inflammatory, especially if they originate from prejudice rather than evidence. I don't think there is anything wrong with that - I haven't singled you out, you just happen to be a frequent poster on the topic but unlike the typical nonsense you'd expect from threads like these, you also make some rather bold assertions you claim are backed up with statistical analysis: "Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are - per mile travelled - similarly lethal to pedestrians' figures again, henryb?" "That is my analysis. It proved that cycling causes relatively, by total mileage, more casualties that [sic] cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous." These kind of comments are inflammatory because not everyone reading is going to look at the data to draw their own, more logical, conclusions. These statement posts appear to legitimise attacking cyclists because on the surface it looks like there are stats to back up the anti-cycling prejudices.That is what is really worrying, because when a thread like this one comes up which is purely anecdotal, out come the nonsense stats again to add fuel to the fire. It's ammunition and a false sense of justification to fire it (exactly how you have used the blog post by 'Matt from Sheffield' to legitimise your own opinions on here). Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact, the only controversial thing I've said in this thread has been studiously ignored by you. I don't know you're referring to. Seems like we have differing ideas about what constitutes controversial.

Loz wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, LD, I'm glad you asked that simple > question. It's something that BS never bothered > to ask - he/she just kept telling me what they > thought I believed. No. I only quoted what you said you believed (or in some instances believed you had proved). Unless you didn't believe it? In which case, you are in the habit of posting inflammatory things you don't believe to provoke a reaction...rather trollish behaviour, don't you think?

Have PM'd you :)

Just out of interest, how is the helmet cam working out LD? I bought one ages ago but when I chucked out my previous helmet the camera attachment was still on it so only got to use it a couple of times. Thinking of giving it another go though...

13 Problems You Often Encounter In Waitrose http://www.buzzfeed.com/scottybryan/13-problems-you-often-encounter-in-waitrose

"Boris Johnson announced today a plan to invest ?290 million into making 33 of London?s most unfriendly roundabouts and junctions safer. The plan includes segregated cycle lanes and a redesign to signalling systems giving cyclists and pedestrians priority." http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2014/02/26/a-future-of-safer-cycling-lies-ahead-with-new-290m-plan-to-make-london-roundabouts-safer/

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah - name calling. Classy. Bit of context... Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, I give up binary_star. You and stats were just never meant be in the same universe together. > You remind me of an old adage: I should never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time. And it annoys the pig. ETA: have removed 'pig' reference - not constructive in the slightest.

.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mayor Boris announced work to thirty most > dangerous roundabouts and junctions in London > today, to make them safer for cyclists. Elephant > and Castle roundabout is in there. The spend will > be ?300 million. That has to be a good thing. Saw that in the paper on the way home and thought of this thread! It will be good, finally getting segregated lanes :)

grumpyoldman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Be careful if you question a cyclist on the pavement, this was tragic and i am not suggesting it would happen again. grumpyoldman, this is an extremely tragic story and very upsetting, however I wouldn't let this incident influence your decision about whether or not to challenge behaviour you feel is dangerous or antisocial (from cyclists or anyone else). From the description of the cyclist and the attacker (the cyclist's friend) it seems they were both intimidatingly large and unpleasant guys. It's possible that due to the victim's aspergers he wasn't able to correctly gauge the social situation or read behavioural cues from the pair before challenging them. Not that I am suggesting he is in ANY way culpable but just acknowledging that having a cognitive disorder may have impaired his judgment whereas most of us may have been better able to read the situation and would have said nothing in that instance (but might/should have otherwise). I won't be watching the video that was posted earlier as it sounds horrific but it seems like a very unfortunate set of circumstances contributing to what surely must be an isolated incident - I doubt even the cyclist's friend who threw the punch had any idea that one punch would be fatal - the whole thing is very sad indeed.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a parallel between the law breaking cyclist and the law breaking driver and it's this. The desire and absolute right to get from A-B as quickly as possible. Not true, cyclists sometimes have to 'hop' onto pavements, run or turn left on red lights for safety reasons. Whether or not you think they are justified in doing so is another matter, but research may help raise awareness here. For instance did you know that a report conducted by the London Road Safety Unit into cyclist fatalities found: "a higher proportion of female cyclists (18 out of 21) were involved in fatal collisions with goods vehicles than fatal collisions with other types of vehicle. Women may be over-represented in this type of collision because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights." "As many collisions occur at signalised junctions when goods vehicles are turning left, nearside [cycle] lanes to advanced stop line reservoirs may exacerbate the problem by encouraging cyclists to approach along the nearside kerb." "In 3 of these eight cases, it was felt that there might have been the opportunity for Pedestrian Guard Rails to have contributed in some way to the injuries sustained by the cyclist." PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If all road users followed the highway code, there would be no need for this discussion in the first place. 'Always avoid an accident if you can'. Highway code completely useless in teh above instances - in fact following it (or in the case of pavement railings, not being able to disobey it) has the potential to actually reduce safety. And, anecdotally, purely reading, understanding and following the highway code wouldn't have helped the cyclists I've seen being left-hooked, swerved into, almost squashed into railings by overtaking lorries, run into by cars running junctions, knocked off their bikes by pedestrians walking out into the road unexpectedly, etc, etc. Yes, human error was a factor in those incidents, but so was poor design - the route I take to work has cycle lanes chucking cyclists out into left-turning traffic, lanes that merge around blind bends, junctions with blind spots, shared cycle lanes that look like footpaths, ASLs that cross four lanes of traffic with a left-hand entry point, etc, etc, etc. If we take the footpath example (on Rye Lane), which would have be easier: - Giving every pedestrian on Rye Lane a copy of the Highway Code and telling them to avoid walking on a cycle lane that looks like a footpath. - Designing the cycle lane so that it didn't look like a footpath. Some of our transport infrastructure is so poorly designed it's creating dangers where none should exist.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mos of the problems stem from human behaviour, not road management or design. Humans make mistakes. It's normal behaviour to try to avoid accidents, but since none of us can actually stop being human or reduce the limitations that come with it, the next best thing is to look at the safety of our transport infrastructure and vehicles. Changes here can make HUGE differences to fatality and casualty rates. Massive improvements have been made across the country by introducing speed-control engineering measures and gaining a greater understanding of how traffic flow, road layout and vehicle engineering impacts road user safety. PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Using this stat or that stat on road deaths is neither here nor there. Stats and studies are used by relevant authorities to identify which parts of our transport infrastructure need to be prioritised in terms of increasing safety/reducing congestion and as a way to gauge the relative effectiveness of various methods designed to improve safety/congestion. This definitely merits discussion. Stats also happen to be used inappropriately by internet trolls as a poor attempt to hide prejudiced opinions under the guise that they are evidence-based. Some of us get sucked into those rather pointless discussions. Hey-ho, only human.

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was hit by a courier cyclist who was going the > wrong way down a one-way street - I was thrown > into the middle of a three lane street; by the > time I had been picked up by some helpful > pedestrians the traffic was starting to flow > towards me, luckily I wasn't hit by a car as > well..... The cyclist yelled abuse at me (called > me a c*unt etc) and rode off at speed, still going > the wrong way; I had a cut on my head, my clothes > were torn and bloodied and I had grazes, cuts and > a fracture in my shin - but the cyclist was OK so > that's alright then... That sounds awful LN. This kind of conflict is never 'alright then'? Many of us have similar horror stories. I have had countless terrifying incidents with motorists and on more than one occasion have been left bleeding in the street to drag my bike off the road by myself, also been sworn at, spat at, ridden off the road, been subjected to incredibly vulgar sexual abuse and gesturing. Sometimes people are just assholes. However, I do think that in the main, conflicts between different road users can be greatly reduced by good design. Thankfully the Transport Research Laboratory are making great progress in this area. Where cycling is permitted both ways on a one way street there should be a clear indication of this with a cycle lane. Poor design of these spaces leads to conflict - Rye Lane for instance - the thing that looks like a slightly darker footpath is actually a cycle lane to allow cycling in the 'wrong' direction. I avoid it as I have had to many close shaves with pedestrians there.

binary_star Wrote: --------------------------------------- It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a road safety issue is a bit silly. northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------ > Well it is a safety issue, no ? Squeezing thru every available space, jetting the wrong way down one way steets etc is dangerous for the rider. Ah yes I see your point NL, some cyclists look like they are a danger to themselves and I'm sure some are - London's streets are full of reckless individuals. However whilst it seems like what you're saying should make sense, there are clear recommendations from TfL to open up one-way streets to 'through' cyclists: "Wherever possible, provision should be made to permit cyclists to cycle both ways in one-way streets." I have cycled up a few of those streets and it didn't feel particularly dangerous tbh. TfL have also considered reviewing other rules such as allowing cyclists to make left turns at red lights and rather than trying to prevent cyclists from squeezing trough small spaces, they'd like to make those spaces wider so it's not necessary for them to do so. From Chapter 3 of the London Cycling Design Standards

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I want to know why only pedestrian deaths are important. Essentially, because Loz thought he was onto to something with that. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a total nonsense. Indeed.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BS... > 'Similar' is not 'more'. Semantics fail. This is painful... It was at the start of this thread you said they were "similarly lethal to pedestrians" but I quoted you verbatim where you said cyclists were 'more dangerous' above. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And the original calc done ages ago was in response to a very specific challenge, which I rather elegantly met. So, context fail. It was never meant as 'a challenge', it was a genuine request for evidence, which you didn't meet. Here is the context of my original post that asked anyone to: "Pick any parameter for danger they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range. And demonstrate that cyclists are more dangerous than drivers." Firstly, you didn't pick a study. Picking a credible study or meta-analysis would have at least ensured that someone with some kind of authority on the matter had decided a way to sensibly measure danger. Accurately measuring risk/safety/danger is quite different from you gathering random statistics to troll your local internet forum with. You picked two unrelated data sets that YOU ALONE decided would create a measurable parameter for danger. They don't do that, so any calculation is meaningless. However, you felt you could justify using these two data sets to 'prove' how dangerous cycling was based on one very anomalous year for pedestrian deaths involving collisions with cyclists. Closer inspection reveals that using that metric over 12yrs (rather than just the one abnormal year), the stats don't actually stack in your favour anyway. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really, you are just trying to pick fights where there are none. You pop up in threads about dangerous drivers to have a go at cyclists, you berate the opinions of pro-cycling posters, quote erroneous 'proofs' about how dangerous cyclists are. Not to mention the personal insults and attempts to undermine others' intelligence/competency. There most certainly is a fight being picked here Loz, and if you invite the world into the ring for it, you should expect to take a few blows. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you like this out on the road as well?? I suggest pedestrians keep well out of your way if you are. I used to get quite angry with dangerous drivers but I take a more Zen approach these days. I rarely come into contact with pedestrians as I respect that they have right of way when crossing the road, I avoid shared footpaths, stop at red lights and crossings, and don't cycle on pavements. They don't need to stay out of my way, I stay out of theirs.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It also doesn't make sense when measuring general dangerousness, to only include a group of people > (pedestrians) who overwhelmingly share a space that is predominantly used by one form of > transport (cyclists) over another. Quite. None of the shared footpath miles would have been counted and actually, pedestrians and cyclists are able to share those spaces very well when designed correctly: "Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists were very rarely generated in pedestrianised areas (only one pedestrian/cyclist accident in 15 site years) in the sites studied. Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians; Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed, dismounting and taking other avoiding action where necessary." From a Traffic Advisory Leaflet produced in response to the 1993 study "Cycling in Pedestrian Areas", available from the Transport Research Laboratory.

Err. On the first page of this thread, you wrote (my emphasis)? "Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are - per mile travelled - similarly lethal to pedestrians' figures again, henryb?" Then you posted a link to a blog post by a random cycling activist in Sheffield who came to a very underwhelming conclusion that turned out not to be true. You've been saying similar stuff at almost every opportunity you can on this forum for ages... Remember this gem from the last round of 'deaths per mile' stats nonsense (my emphasis)? "That is my analysis. It proved that cycling causes relatively, by total mileage, more casualties that [sic] cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous. LadyD is right - you might think that 'more deaths per mile travelled' means 'more dangerous', but in the context you are trying to use it, it really REALLY doesn't and thankfully not a single study or credible organisation in Britain defines danger to other road users that way. This is what you're not understanding. You have to result to personal insults and condescending language about pigs singing because although you really really really want what you're saying to be true it's just not.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But most people are not saying that cyclists are > MORE dangerous than anyone else on the roads. > > Give that man a gold star. Ok 'as dangerous' then. Cyclists are nowhere near 'as dangerous'. If you had the choice of walking out into the road in front of either: 1. A car 2. A bike Which one would you choose and why? Loz is gonna go for the car because cyclists are 'the worst drivers in London' and the car may have come all the way down from Milton Keynes without hitting anyone else.