Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't know they were pedestrianising Oxford

> Street - that's great (about time too). Seems fair

> enough that people shouldn't cycle in a pedestrian

> area tbh. As long as there is plenty of bike

> parking around the border of the zone, then fine.


Seems a missed opportunity to create a major east-west cycle artery at no expense though, doesn't it? There are plenty of areas where shared cycling and pedestrian space works perfectly well - the new plaza outside the Faraday memorial at Elephant for example, and the space on Exhibition Road - and I think it could work well there. This is not to say I actually agree with closing Oxford Street to buses - for once I agree with Dulwich Londoner, where are all the Oxford Street routes going to go? - but if they're going to do it excluding cycles would seem a retrograde step.

I don't know why you are apologising KK - the only times I've nearly been mown down is by cyclists, and my sister has a permanently damaged foot by being mown down by an idiot cyclist on the pavement who didn't bother to stop so since some cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible because they think they have an entitlement, or a monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be excluded from pedestrian zones

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

so since some

> cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible

> because they think they have an entitlement, or a

> monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be

> excluded from pedestrian zones


I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement.


Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know why you are apologising KK - the

> only times I've nearly been mown down is by

> cyclists, and my sister has a permanently damaged

> foot by being mown down by an idiot cyclist on the

> pavement who didn't bother to stop so since some

> cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible

> because they think they have an entitlement, or a

> monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be

> excluded from pedestrian zones


I so read that as "extermiated"(!!!) *cheers anyway ;-)

"I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement.


Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?"


totally agree, Rendel!

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> so since some

> > cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible

> > because they think they have an entitlement, or

> a

> > monopoly on saving the planet, then they should

> be

> > excluded from pedestrian zones

>

> I see some car drivers every day who think they

> have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run

> red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic

> islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be

> banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much

> sense as your statement.


To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense.


(Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but

> 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense.

>

> (Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)


Well, it has to happen sometimes I suppose...UG thinks that because some cyclists behave badly towards pedestrians, all cyclists should be banned from areas shared with pedestrians, so as some drivers behave badly on the roads which they share with other users, ban cars from them is a logical progression.


I guess the confusion is that there are two options, a pedestrian only area or a shared space between pedestrians and cyclists. The Evening Standard headline implies the decision has already been made to be pedestrians only and now they're deciding whether to let cyclists in - in fact no decision has yet been made beyond the fact that motor traffic will be banned.

Well presently Oxford Street is not only full of pedestrians but packed with buses and taxis - it isn't exactly a pedestrian paradise. There seems to be an assumption that it's already totally pedestrianised, it isn't and it won't be until 2020 at the earliest.

TFL has a consultation here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/oxford-street/?cid=oxford-street

As is unfortunately common in these 'consultations', details are few and vague. It is not clear at all to me that removing busses from Oxford street wouldn't cause more congestion - and therefore pollution.

By definition a 'pedestrianised' Oxford Street would mean no cyclists and something as someone who uses a bike to get to work I wouldn't have a problem with tbh. Most people on Oxford Street seem to walk around in a trance as it is. There was another clickbait article in the Standard yesterday about banning black cabs from a 'pedestrainised' Oxford Street. I'm not sure of the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble Arch?

Ampersand Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure of

> the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate

> at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble

> Arch?


And how would busses go from East to West? The whole point is that Oxford street is one of the main arteries between East and West London. TFL talks about using Wigmore street, which I believe is less wide than Oxford street. My concern is that this would create a cascading effect of more congestion and more pollution for everyone. Even if you ban ALL private cars, of which there aren't many already in zone 1, there will still be loads of goods that need to be carried back and forth on large vehicles.


Just to give you an idea, right now it's 10.15 am, ie no longer rush hour. I chose a bus stop at random, and noticed about 10 buses, in one direction only, over the coruse of the next 10 minutes or so: https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490019653E/bond-street

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...