Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[malumbu]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

And what happens if you have a scuffle outside a pub, someone falls awkwardly and they then die?

The more you post the more blinkered it appears you are.

 

Earl, I have completely lost track of the point you are trying to make and, I suspect, you have to now. You're tying yourself in knots in the vain hope of continuing an argument - it's all getting a little surreal now.

This is what I said.  A freak death following a scuffle outside a pub.  They don't then ban pubs.  Or someone trips over a paving stone and cracks their head open.  They don't ban walking.  The original member of ELO who died when a hay bale fell off a trailer.  They don't ban farming.  Because occasionally s.... happens.  So sadly occasionally someone is hurt or seriously injured when they get hit by a bike, the vast majority because they stepped into the road without looking.  But only one example of when I bike was likely going over 20mph.  Very sad, but a rare event. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Easy there Mal, that sounds like a call to think rationally and act proportionally. 

Edited Monday at 23:10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

31 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Because occasionally s.... happens.  So sadly occasionally someone is hurt or seriously injured when they get hit by a bike, the vast majority because they stepped into ththe vast majority because they stepped into the road without looking. 

Here you go everyone...transport guru Malumbu has spoken and if you get hit by a bike put it in the "s### happens" category and it was probably your own fault anyway......serves you right for not being on a bike hey Malumbu! #culturewar!

 

 

[Spartacus]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

So sadly occasionally someone is hurt or seriously injured when they get hit by a bike, the vast majority because they stepped into the road without looking.  But only one example of when I bike was likely going over 20mph.  Very sad, but a rare event. 

This is a perfect example of why cyclists need to be regulated and adhere to the rules.

The highway code was changed to protect the most vulnerable road users with pedestrians bring in the most vulnerable category, yet Malumbu is clearly showing a disregard for that group because they "stepped into the path of a cyclist."

Nice home goal there pal 

[Earl Aelfheah]

49 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

The highway code was changed to protect the most vulnerable road users with pedestrians bring in the most vulnerable category, yet Malumbu is clearly showing a disregard for that group because they "stepped into the path of a cyclist."

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Highway Code changes across this section. Of course cyclists should give way to pedestrians. Cars should do so also, stopping to let pedestrians cross at junctions (something that they almost never do). That does not mean that if you step out into the path of either a car or a bike that you may not be at fault.

I took Mal’s post to be pointing out how you need to regulate appropriately and proportionately. Lots of people are hurt falling off ladders. It would probably save some lives it you made it a legal requirement to wear a hard hat whilst using one, but that fact alone doesn’t make such a regulation proportionate to the size of the issue necessarily. This is not a difficult concept.

The fact that some of the same people who have suggested that we are already spending enough trying to reduce the tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicles each year, are balking at the idea that speeding bicycles probably aren’t a big enough issue to merit legislation and licensing?

The issue of relative risk, proportionality, and opportunity cost are obviously hugely relevant here, as much as some would pretend not to grasp these concepts. This is not a ‘complex riddle’. If you don’t consider such things, you end up making poor, often counterproductive policy decisions.

Edited 22 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

I'm rather changing my mind on this. Cyclists being excluded (in their minds) from any of the safety requirements placed on other road users - no need for helmets, for lights (apparently, in my experience) or visible clothing, for training in road usage, in hazard awareness, even in simple ability, in signaling intentions, for abiding by any of the highway code rules as regards red lights, zebra crossings, limited speeds, driving on pavements - well I'm beginning to take a Darwinian approach to this - clearly the Government, in not wishing cyclists to take care of or even be aware of any of the hazards and requirements of safe road usage has an agenda! Let's hear it for the Government!

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Highway Code changes across this section.

Can you explain how exactly? The new hierarchy of users within the Highway Code is very clear with pedestrians (rightly) afforded the most protection from everyone else on the road. They are at the top of the hierarchy and every other road user comes after them - including cyclists.

[Penguin68]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

They are at the top of the hierarchy and every other road user comes after them - including cyclists.

No Rockets, there is a conflict here, as cyclists, as represented on these boards at least, do not accept anything from the Highway Code as being applicable to them, so pedestrians DO NOT have any rights as regards the rights of cyclists, which transcend all other rights. They must do, as the Highway Code and any other usage restrictions such as speed limits don't apply to them. They've made that very clear. And pointed out that any attempts to remedy this will fail as they preserve their god-given anonymity as road users.

[CPR Dave]

Seeing more and more cyclists in London rampaging down the footpath and stealing phones out of people's hands. It's shameful and something needs to be done.

Licensing cyclists would mean we would be able identify those of them menacing innocent people and robbing their phones.

[malumbu]

4 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

No Rockets, there is a conflict here, as cyclists, as represented on these boards at least, do not accept anything from the Highway Code as being applicable to them, so pedestrians DO NOT have any rights as regards the rights of cyclists, which transcend all other rights. They must do, as the Highway Code and any other usage restrictions such as speed limits don't apply to them. They've made that very clear. And pointed out that any attempts to remedy this will fail as they preserve their god-given anonymity as road users.

None of the cyclists posting here think this way (not following the Highway Code).  Not sure why you think like this.  This attitude is not helpful for a grown up conversation.

Edited 14 hours ago by malumbu

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Nine of the cyclists

I think you may have meant to type 'none' - but the hand of god... 

[snowy]

3 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Seeing more and more cyclists in London rampaging down the footpath and stealing phones out of people's hands. It's shameful and something needs to be done.

Licensing cyclists would mean we would be able identify those of them menacing innocent people and robbing their phones.

Precisely this. No car has ever been used in a crime. 

[exdulwicher]

3 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Seeing more and more cyclists in London rampaging down the footpath and stealing phones out of people's hands. It's shameful and something needs to be done.

Licensing cyclists would mean we would be able identify those of them menacing innocent people and robbing their phones.

They're criminals - the fact they're using bikes is largely irrelevant. I assume that if someone ran up to you, pushed you over and stole your phone then ran away, you wouldn't be seeking licencing and registration for shoes cos that was the criminal's getaway method...?

And licencing hasn't exactly been a deterrent for criminals using cars - plenty of ways to hide a car's identity. Hell, it got to the point of people driving through Dulwich Square with strategically placed "leaves" on their number plates. There's been a number of photos shared online of drivers half covering their number plate to avoid a fine from an ANPR camera at a bus gate.

Strangely, that didn't invoke 12 pages of ire about the lawlessness and criminality of drivers.... Weird.

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

Can you explain how exactly?

You’ve quoted the bit where I say there is misunderstanding and then cut the bit where I explain how. I could repost the whole thing, or you could scroll up a little and read it there. I hope that’s not too complex a riddle to decipher 😂

Edited 12 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

And licencing hasn't exactly been a deterrent for criminals using cars - plenty of ways to hide a car's identity

In the main professional criminals tend to just use stolen cars, stolen for just that purpose, although there are a group of criminals who used cloned number plates to elude speed cameras etc. Apart from ram raiding, cars are rarely otherwise used as a direct part of a criminal attack, but rather as transport to and from the scene of crime, unlike two wheeled based criminals, and by no mean just phone hijackers stealing phones on the go. 

[Rockets]

Earl, can you expand on your accusation on the Highway Code?

Regardless of criminal activity on any mode of transport is it not the case that laws and regulations are set for the very worst behaviour of people - we have speed limit enforcement because some people speed - we police everything not because of the behaviour of the many but because of the behaviour of the few? Except seemingly cycling and that ultimately endangers other roads users and pedestrians, especially at a time where active travel planners seem to think it is a good idea to mix cyclists and pedestrians. It's a recipe for disaster and some that many in the pro-cycle lobby steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - as this thread highlights oh so powerfully.

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl, can you expand on your accusation on the Highway Code?

This makes no sense. I can no longer decipher the riddles you set. 🤣

[ab29]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Earl, can you expand on your accusation on the Highway Code?

Regardless of criminal activity on any mode of transport is it not the case that laws and regulations are set for the very worst behaviour of people - we have speed limit enforcement because some people speed - we police everything not because of the behaviour of the many but because of the behaviour of the few? Except seemingly cycling and that ultimately endangers other roads users and pedestrians, especially at a time where active travel planners seem to think it is a good idea to mix cyclists and pedestrians. It's a recipe for disaster and some that many in the pro-cycle lobby steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - as this thread highlights oh so powerfully.

 

 

Agree

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This makes no sense. I can no longer decipher the riddles you set. 🤣

Clearly you no longer have any sensible contribution to make to this forum...we shall refer to this phase as Earl's Teenage Troll Phase...;-)

Edited 10 hours ago by Rockets

[CPR Dave]

 

Quote

 licencing hasn't exactly been a deterrent for criminals using cars

 

 

Except that on this very website we have people boasting about the millions of pounds of revenue that the council raise from criminals using cars. We should raise more from the cyclists who break the law too.

[malumbu]

12 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

No Rockets, there is a conflict here, as cyclists, as represented on these boards at least, do not accept anything from the Highway Code as being applicable to them, so pedestrians DO NOT have any rights as regards the rights of cyclists, which transcend all other rights. They must do, as the Highway Code and any other usage restrictions such as speed limits don't apply to them. They've made that very clear. And pointed out that any attempts to remedy this will fail as they preserve their god-given anonymity as road users.

There is so much wrong with the debate on this and most of the other transport threads.

Firstly sweeping and personal statements like the one above.  Those who have a different view apparently do not follow the Highway Code.  Never have I, or I expect others similarly minded, made similar accusations that those posting complaining about cyclists, LTNs etc drive irresponsibly and dangerously and agree with such behaviour.   And in the great scheme of things the above post was fairly mild.

Secondly other personal jibes as just seen on the Dulwich Square thread

Thirdly the childish nah nah nah "well you would say that" retorts

Which brings me onto the whole pantomime approach.  This is  similar to what is playing out on our media by politicians and public figures such as Johnson, Farage and Clarkson.   Avoid the question and turn on the other party.   Farage did it on Question-time - looks to the audience, raises his eyes in disgust/contempt when Campbell challenges him on Brexit; Clarkson in the Victoria Derbyshire news interview when asked probing questions retorts about woke BBC and useless civil servants looking to other protestors who no doubt share these views bypassing the question.  That's the approach a number of you adopt on these threads when we post an alternative view, often backed up with substance.

I'll leave it there.  I doubt if I will change things.  I'll get on with some proper campaigning. Farewell.

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Clearly you no longer have any sensible contribution to make to this forum...we shall refer to this phase as Earl's Teenage Troll Phase...;-)

I am following your lead and quoting your own response to a simple question. It is very clear that you’re not arguing in good faith. 

Here is a little reflection on ‘being grown up’. When I stated that:

”Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motorvehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude).”

You mocked me, pretending it was a claim that:

On 20/01/2025 at 16:19, Rockets said:

the moment someone gets on a bike they suddenly becoming impervious to causing accidents....and if every car journey was replaced by a journey on a bike then there would be zero accidents or injuries

Quite obviously you can see the difference between the actual statement and the straw man one you attacked entirely in bad faith.

I then asked a very straight forward question seeking to you to clarify your genuine view on this:

“Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others? “

You responded:

On 20/01/2025 at 20:41, Rockets said:

You're not making any sense any more and rambling. Even I have lost the will to argue with you right now.

And then:

On 20/01/2025 at 22:41, Rockets said:

I won't answer because I can no longer decipher the riddles you set. I actually think you might need some time off from the forum. Honestly - your posts have become particularly strange the last few weeks and today with your repeated starting of new threads things are starting to get very odd.

This is some of the most blatant gaslighting I think I’ve seen on the forum.

when you’re willing to have a grown up debate, let us know. If you don’t like people using your own ‘tactics’ to illustrate how unhelpful they are, maybe reflect on that, instead of getting all indignant and resorting to insults.

Edited 3 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah