Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 by first mate

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.

  • Haha 1

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.

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.

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. 

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 by Rockets
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.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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.

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!

  • Haha 1
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.

 

 

  • Like 1

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!

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....

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.

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?

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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?

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

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.

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

    • Tommy has been servicing our boiler for a number of years now and has also carried out repairs for us.  His service is brilliant; he’s reliable, really knowledgeable and a lovely guy.  Very highly recommended!
    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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