binary_star

Went today. Awesome. Although anyone else feel like it was more an emulation of street art than actual street art? Does that make sense? I've seen most of the featured artists (Nagel, ROA, Pablo Delgado etc) work all over East London but it doesn't feel as forced/staged. So many peope with their camera phones it felt a bit like going to see an animal in a zoo vs the wild. Over analytical? Perhaps, but I suppose it was street art East Dulwich style ;)

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WOW. Imagine vehicles jumping red lights by the > dozen, driving at night with no lights, weaving in > and out of stationary cyclists without > looking................ > Wow. Stereotype, much?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This incessant, drivers bad, cyclists good debate. In many cases these are one in the same. People don't become raging murderous lunatics once they get behind the wheel of a car. Just far far more likely to kill someone. It's not the person it's the vehicle.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fantastic - another convert to visible > registration for cyclists, perhaps? Yeh sure I'm already insured, registration, why not? Although the cost of running such a scheme likely makes it a prohibitive factor in introducing it. Which is why the Swiss got rid of it. It wouldn't really work in the UK though: http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/

I personally don't know anyone who thinks the law shouldn't apply to them and I don't infer that from any comments on the EDF either. But the law already DOES apply to everyone we don't have to campaign for it to. So what is the issue?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm saying that cyclists should stop asking for the law to not apply to them Who are these people?

Sorry Penguin I meant more resource per criminal not overall. So you wouldn't expect forensics teams, sniffer dogs and psychological profilers to be resourced because Dave nicked a DVD from the market. Anyway it was a poor example and didnt really illustrate my point very well ...which was that until cyclists start causing a lot more pedestrian deaths (or drivers stop causing as many) you won't see the same level of resource because although the impact is the same in the case of a fatality, there are just far far far fewer fatalities caused by cyclists. In the same vein, the spot where this little girl got hit probably won't get any attention until accidents there start causing injury/death or many more incidents are reported to the Police. James Barber said as much re the junctions at Underhill/Barry and Upland/Barry. Statistically there just aren't seen as dangerous enough to warrant resource over other junctions in the area.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the families of those ten people would > take issue with that. With what? Are you arguing that > cyclists who break the rules of the road are > somehow less reprehensible because they are not as > likely to kill someone doing so? No. Anyone that > thinks they are not subject to the highway code > shouldn't be on the road...be they vehicle driver > or cyclist. Agree. Think you have misunderstood. I was saying that although ten pedestrian fatalities have been caused by cyclists, in the same time frame many many more have been caused by motorists. Lets think of their families?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't want to see anyone breaking the law. I hate to see > drivers OR cyclists saying 'boo hoo, you should be > hassling someone else'. > Everyone obeys the law = everyone is safer. I agree but you have to have realistic expectations. You wouldn't expect the same amount of Police resource to go on bringing teenage shoplifters to justice as it does on serial killers. It's all very well getting grumpy over a cyclist jumping reds but statistically they just don't pose much of a threat to anyone but ocasionally themselves. I mean really... I think stats above indicated a whopping TEN fatalities over FOUR YEARS. As tragic as those ten fatalities were, as a pedestrian you're 263 times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a bicycle: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041 However riled it gets you Loz it just isn't as big of an issue.

DJKillaQueen Wrote (my emphasis): ------------------------------------------------------- Irresposible cyclists are on a par with irresponsible drivers, and equally capable of both having and causing an accident, which leads to death or serious injury. Absolutely NOT. By any stretch of the imagination. Am glad the little girl is ok, could have been a much worse outcome for her family.

Yes, seen plenty...soooo 2012!

I already posted this on the Wiggins thread but should go here, worth a watch: "War on Britain's Roads" http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/iplayer/episode/b01p7q2l/War_on_Britains_Roads

Haven't watched it yet but looks good: "War on Britain's Roads" http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/iplayer/episode/b01p7q2l/War_on_Britains_Roads

Yeh cat or dog food fine. Not for my own cats though, that would be weird again.

No not really. Only weird people would be eating me. Don't like the idea of that.

It's roughly 9-9.5 miles for me - the route I've attached pics of takes between 40-45 minutes so if you're quicker/slower, do or don't stop at reds obviously it will take you less/more time... Sometimes I have to vary the route a bit if there are roadworks etc, and annoyingly now that it's winter, Hyde Park is shut by the time I leave work so I can't do the same route on the way home exactly. I'll post more detailed instructions tomorrow but you should be able to get the gist of it from the pics. If I can I'll plot a Google map. There are more direct routes I'm sure but I like my cycle through Belgravia and then the parks :)

I cycle from Barry Rd to White City every day through Bellenden but I *do* go via Vauxhall Bridge. Is thee any particular reason you want to avoid that? There is a cycle pass under the arches at Vauxhall bridge to abpid the roundabout if that helps? It really isn't that bad once you get on the bridge as you can use the bus lane from there which goes into a cycle lane.

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > > Have you ever considered that the problem just > > might be you? Really, as a pedestrian (never > mind > > a car driver) if I had this many issues over > the > > years I'd be looking a bit closer to home for > the > > solution. > > Very good point. Or... car drivers react differently to the presence of other cars than they do cyclists. As a pedestrian you're not going to be going very fast and like me have seemed to have experienced little/no issues over the year. As a cyclist however, I've had about as many near misses on my bike as malambu.

How awful! I didn't withess anything unfortunately. By the sounds of it something very similar happened to me with a bus driver and when I reported it to the relevant bus company they were prepared to pay out compensation...presumably you have contacted Royal Mail?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It also states: > > - In slow-moving traffic, you should not change > lanes to the left to overtake You don't need to change lanes to pass traffic on either inside if you're filtering (rather than over/undertaking)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A bit of creative editing there binary_star. > Number 151 is part of "General rules, techniques > and advice for all drivers and riders", not just > 'motorists'. That section also applies to > cyclists. It also states: > > - In slow-moving traffic, you should not change > lanes to the left to overtake > > And, don't forget, the cycling part of the highway > code (59 to 82) explicitly states: These rules are > in addition to those in the following sections, > which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway > section). > > The highway code is not just for motorists - > cyclists must abide by it as well. Loz there was no editing, creative or otherwise, it was a direct copy and paste! Yes the Highway Code applies to *all* riders/drivers...that includes motorists!!! I wasn't trying to say cyclists were exempt, I was highlighting that cyclists are allowed (and other drivers/riders should expect them) to be passing on either side of slow moving traffic. ETA: it was in reply to someone else's comment that cyclists should be waiting in line like everyone else. My point was that they don't have to and shouldn't be expected to.

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wait in line like everyone else In slow-moving traffic motorists should: "be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side" Number 151 from the highway code: https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/general-advice-144-to-158 And: "It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully." Number 211: https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > binary_star Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What cyclist haters are failing miserably to > > understand > > Friend, you're sounding a little deranged. Most > folk don't hate cyclists. I know. Where did I say they did?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting also that the proficiency test has > been replaced. Probably a good thig, the cycling proficiency was only ever aimed at kids. In case it's your next question...I haven't taken whatever the replacement is.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "...2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to > be injured yet less likely to be at fault in road > traffic accidents..." > > Where is the factual evidence for this? There are plenty of studies, and stats available from the usual suspects, I'm bored of posting them tbh, they're easy enough to find if you really want to. > Also binary_star, have you ever undertaken and > passed a cycling proficiency test? (honest answer > please). Yes.