Dangerous drivers everywhere!!

[malumbu]

Curious.  You will happily join in threads slagging off cyclists, but one that does similar for drivers is seen as whataboutery.  Whatever that means 

I think that the person on the Clapham Omnibus may see this as bias.  

 

[first mate]

But I don't think Rocks does do that, however much you want to create that impression. And he is himself a cyclist, so it doesn't quite make sense.

You seem ever so sensitive about any hint of criticism around cycling behaviour; almost in denial. I think most of us who are not convinced by the LTN, CPZ, 'cycling rules' agenda, at least in so far as local implementation is concerned, have also expressed issues with car driving behaviour. I know I have.

The title of this thread suggests that your focus is not local or is it?

Edited July 27, 2023 by first mate

[malumbu]

I'd love to know where I have been sensitive about cyclists' behaviour? I've started a discussion about improved training for all road users.  But I do think it strange that someone who is a cyclist has invented this all powerful cyclist lobby.  I'm pleased that the powers that be listen to cycling groups.  I've no issue with cyclists being smug.  But some secret freemason type cyclist group pulling the strings as well as being responsible for JFKs assassination, well that's just strange.  Obviously the JFK comment is just for emphasis.

[first mate]

Don't worry, I don't think anyone thinks you have headed up and all powerful cyclists lobby.  But the cycling lobby groups have had the ear of Southwark Council for some time and at one point you could even see the incredibly chummy, mutually backslapping communications between them. Lobby groups can be very powerful, not even worth debating that. It just so happens, in this case, that the needs and agendas of each help further the other.

I don't know what you mean by JFK. Was he a cyclist? Bit left-field Mal, even for you.

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

 But I do think it strange that someone who is a cyclist has invented this all powerful cyclist lobby.

They're not all powerful: they don't have access to the space lasers yet. I won't arrange anything for them until I'm inducted, but it seems that I don't wear enough Lycra so they haven't reached out to me.

[Nigello]

More and more drivers ignore the zebras - ie. when a passenger has set foot on one they still drive on. I wave like a loon at them for ages rather than shout or gesture. It works because they think “do I know that person?” before the penny drops and they realise they’re poor and dangerous drivers. Plus, it’s fun to have others stare at them. 

[Rockets]

On 27/07/2023 at 21:51, mr.chicken said:

They're not all powerful: they don't have access to the space lasers yet. I won't arrange anything for them until I'm inducted, but it seems that I don't wear enough Lycra so they haven't reached out to me.

But the council did prioritise the input of the cycle lobby over that of the emergency services around many LTN plans.....Peckham and Dulwich Village being key examples.

And my point on this thread is that lots of people are critical of both bad drivers and cyclists whilst some (you know who you are)  can never bring themselves to be critical of cyclists.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

But the council did prioritise the input of the cycle lobby over that of the emergency services around many LTN plans.....Peckham and Dulwich Village being key examples.

The Dulwich Village LTN is open to emergency services but this is bad because Lycra is evil.

But the real problem as always is not bikes but cars. If it wasn't for entitled drivers, the council could simply stick up signs saying "closed to motor vehicles excluding emergency vehicles", but we all know that drivers would ignore them. As a result, the council has to choose between blocking to all wide vehicles entirely (cheap) or installing expensive modal filter enforcement (cameras, raising bollards, that sort of thing).

The council isn't at fault for having a limited budget. Motorists are at fault for commonly ignoring legal directives which are not strongly enforced.

 

 

 

[malumbu]

Entitlement is the biggest battle.  Needs to be education that drivers can no longer automatically drive when they want, how they want, what they want, and where they want.  If it was seen as a privaledge rather than a right we'd get somewhere.

There was an Any Questions a few weeks ago when they asked about 20 mph.  All agreed that this was good, but the Tory argued about the personal choice/responsibility rather than compulsory in urban areas.  We have speed limits as drivers cannot be trusted to do the right thing.  And alcohol limits (the libertarian right argued against this too.

One reason why I am not impressed by the outer boroughs.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

The Dulwich Village LTN is open to emergency services but this is bad because Lycra is evil.

You forgot to mention that it is NOW open to emergency services. It took many, many months of lobbying by emergency services to get the council to remove the permanent roadblock that was hampering response times and was putting lives at risk - it's all in writing from the numerous FOIs that people have used to obtain from the correspondence from LAS etc to the council on the matter.

 

It appears you have been drinking heavily from the council Kool-Aid hose and the reality is very different and reflects very badly on the council.

 

And in Peckham Rye the council ignored the emergency service counsel that they did not want immovable road closures and were going to proceed with permanent closures (before the council u-turned on the whole plan) - they put the input from Southwark Cyclists and LCC (it was all clearly outlined in the documents) above everyone else.

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Entitlement is the biggest battle.

Agree and the same entitlement issues that causes bad driving are now being seen in many cyclists and causing bad cycling. Humans will be humans and cyclists are no different from having their fair share of wallies too!

[mr.chicken]

44 minutes ago, Rockets said:

You forgot to mention that it is NOW open to emergency services.

Yes, and? Traffic engineering is hard, and it would be foolish to expect the council to get a perfect solution off the bat. What they did---make a change, evaluate the change and seek feedback and then improve it---is precisely how the system should work. It's also about the only reasonable way of figuring out unsolved problems. The are three alternatives:

1. Deny the reality that are any problems with traffic and pollution in London

2. Have the council refuse to fix any flaws

3. Do absolutely nothing ever even knowing there are problems (something the pro pollution lobby would very much prefer).

Neither 1,2, or 3 are better than what has actually happened.

Of course now the ambulances etc have a network of quiet, traffic free back roads they can use to get around without getting stuck in traffic. I notice that the "emergency vehicles must pass! Scrap the LTNs!" have been conspicuously quiet in this regard now LTNs are better than the old status quo for emergency vehicles. Almost like that was a red herring and they never actually cared about anything but cars.

 

 

[malumbu]

Disappointed Rocks, we start to have a proper discussion and then you just go back to type.  You agree on motorists then have to do a nah nah nah nah, what about cyclists.

So (a)cars are around 20 times heavier than bikes therefore have much more momentum and do far more damage on impact 

(b) they emit pollution

(c) they emit carbon dioxide

Therefore that is why they are the focus of controls and interventions

Those are facts which you well know

It doesn't excuse cyclists breaking the rules but we are on a thread discussing poor driving

Petty insults don't help.  I go for full on ones!

[Rockets]

Ha ha...reverting to type...also known as pointing out what really happened rather than the council's version of events....

Can someone remind me how long it took the council to removal the barrier for emergency services? Look how quick they managed to put in a right filter at the DV/Red Post Hill junction to alleviate the queuing traffic caused by the cycle lane they put in at the lights for comparative purposes....

[Jim1234]

Someone went through a red light at the East Dulwich Road / Crystal Palace Road junction this morning. If I'd crossed without looking I'd have been hit. I reported it to the police. 

Cars are an absolute disgrace and should be banned. 

[march46]

Well done for reporting Jim, I find East Dulwich Road is terrible for speeding drivers.
 

Worth giving @DulwichRoads a follow if you’re on Twitter. They seem to be getting traction with local police, flagging hotspots etc 

[first mate]

10 hours ago, Jim1234 said:

Someone went through a red light at the East Dulwich Road / Crystal Palace Road junction this morning. If I'd crossed without looking I'd have been hit. I reported it to the police. 

Cars are an absolute disgrace and should be banned. 

Absolutely anyone that goes through a red light with any type of vehicle should be reported.

[mr.chicken]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Absolutely anyone that goes through a red light with any type of vehicle should be reported.

"but what about the bikes??!?!111!11!11oneeleven!!oneONE!!11!"

This thread is about drivers. If you want to complain about bikes, why not use one of the existing bike-whinging threads or make a new one?

 

[first mate]

Pots and kettles Mr C. Do you disagree with me? Should cars and scooters, e-bikes and cyclists all be allowed to go through red lights whenever they choose?

Edited July 30, 2023 by first mate

[malumbu]

They are not allowed to go through red lights.  It's up to the authorities to enforce.

Similarly cyclists and scooters are not allowed to use hand held devices.

But society has decided to focus on motorised traffic as this does more harm, and is easier to enforce as vehicles are registered. 

Please don't go down the licensing iof bikes nonsense

All road users should be trained and there needs to be regular refresher training.

I'll lobby my MP on the latter, you are welcome to lobby your MP on other issues.

 

 

 

 

 

[first mate]

Well yes, so let's have some enforcement please, instead of objecting to any sort of policing of cycling behaviour. As I have said before, the inevitable upturn in CEO's necessary to 'police' CPZ infractions are well placed to 'police' cycling too.

You are welcome to suggest that, when you lobby your MP.

[snowy]

But what actual legal powers under the Traffic  Management Act do they have in relation to bicycles/pedestrians/horse riders? 

[first mate]

The punishment for riding a bike on the pavement is an immediate £30 fixed penalty notice fine.

This is charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Typically speaking, only a very small percentage of cyclists in the UK receive a fine for cycling on the pavement. When they observe a cyclist violating the law, the majority of police officers will inform them verbally that they are infringing the law and should stop using the pavement.

 

Repeat offenders or those who endanger pedestrians or others may, however, be prosecuted.

 

Yet, cyclists appear to frequently jump red lights with over 4,000 cyclists being issued Fixed Penalty Notices after being caught jumping red lights or ignoring other road signs in 2013.[3]The Institute of Advanced Motorists have also revealed in their research that 57% of cyclists admit to running red lights[4] whilst a YouGov poll revealed that 35% of cyclists at least “occassionally” ignore red lights[5]. But if it is illegal for a cyclist to jump a red light, as it is for any other road user, why do so many cyclists think that it is acceptable and frequently do it?

[snowy]

So police officers have powers but CEOs don't. 

This was the guidance issued for FPNs for pavement cycling by the home office:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".

And is that the right act you have quoted:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/3

[first mate]

Where there is a will there is a way. I did not say this is already happening but CEO's might be given the power to issue fines via another instrument. We have fewer police but you can bet your bottom dollar we will soon have more CEO's.

[malumbu]

I've had five speeding fines (two on a motorbike), points for a defective vehicle, one running the lights driving, 3 FPNs for cycling (although I may have got away with one of them), two FPNs for driving in a bus lane, and maybe a dozen parking fines the worst being clamped.  Mostly in my 20s.  I've not done any speed awareness courses, as many friends have 

I appear to be like a convicted criminal who is now lecturing others about behaving themselves.

That's put the cat amongst the pigeons but I expect most posting have had their fair share of prosecutions/FPNs.