A Personal Message to Critical Mass.

[theclaud]

For what? Where? In what circumstances?

Your earlier messages suggested that it was a universal limit, now we know it doesn't include planes or autobahns. Does it include dual-carriageways? Roads that currently have a 50mph limit? Roads that currently have a 40mph limit? Do you really mean that pedestrians should be able to step out into a road at will in front of trucks, cars and cyclists and that the latter must all be doing a speed that makes this feasible?

The highly elaborate equipment of some black and white paint, a couple of poles and some orange plastic spheres seems to work pretty well.

As a matter of mild curiosity, where is this industrial estate that isn't served by public transport? As far as I'm aware, it is a condition of planning consent for any industrial estate that public transport provision has been made.

Pretty much, is the short answer. Like I said, there's no reason that people can't agree on a rational sacrifice of some public space to faster-moving traffic, but (and I repeat myself) that is not the sitution we have at the moment.

I happen to think that a even a zebra crossing is a fairly elaborate device to need when all you want to do is walk twenty yards. And that's without even starting on pelicans. Not to mention the fact that the existence of such features to a certain degree obligates their use - they make it more difficult to cross elsewhere.

As to your rather picky last point - I made it up. But only yesterday I went to visit a designer on an industrial estate - there is no public transport that will take me there, so whatever conditions exist for the provision, they clearly are inadequate. As an aside, there is nowhere except a large out-of-town Tesco where the people on the industrial estate can get lunch or a coffee...

 

[CopperBrompton]

You've become significantly polarised in the debate, so much so that you can't admit a single good point made by theclaud.

Not guilty. We recently had an equally spirited debate about Peter Sutcliffe, and she and Patrick (now there's an unlikely team!) were able to persuade me that I was wrong.

Claudine appears to be according such extreme priority to the idea that pedestrians should be able to wander in any direction at will that she is willing to sacrifice most of the mobility those same pedestrians enjoy when they climb onto their bicycle, get into their car, get on board a train, etc. (Trains, due to their stopping distances even at low-ish speeds, would be utterly impossible in Claudine's Brave New World.)

 

[CopperBrompton]

Pretty much, is the short answer. [...] I happen to think that a even a zebra crossing is a fairly elaborate device to need when all you want to do is walk twenty yards.

Ok, then we really are coming from such different places in this discussion that I fear a meeting of minds is rather unlikely.

And that's without even starting on pelicans.

Oh, we'd agree there. I hate the bloody things, as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver.

But only yesterday I went to visit a designer on an industrial estate - there is no public transport that will take me there

Perhaps the rules are different in Darkest Wales.

As an aside, there is nowhere except a large out-of-town Tesco where the people on the industrial estate can get lunch or a coffee...

Which is not necessarily a bad thing: companies in that position can buy bicycles for the use of the workforce to cycle to get lunch, and provided the bicycles are used for that purpose, employees can make unlimited personal use of them in their own time. It's even better than the Cycle To Work scheme. :-)

 

[Dan B]

Nope. faster-moving vehicles only 'demand' greater space if maintaining a stopping distance is a priority of the operator. Riders on a group social ride don't increase the gap to the bike in front simply because the speed of the group increases. As demonstrated on every FNRttC I've been on.

However, the riders at the front of the group do dissuade people from stepping out in front of them (or have to slow down in crowded areas)

Likewise the car which refused to slow down or deviate from its path while I was walking over a zebra crossing near Brick Lane last night - it is conceivably possible that the driver was merely leaving his braking as late as possible and would have emergency stopped if I'd taken the extra step to put myself directly in his path, but I got a strong impression that he didn't want to and wasn't prepared to.

Driving/riding on roads is, when all works well, a series of amicable negotiations of potential conflicts for road space. But it's a fragile setup and when someone realises that they personally come off better at the expense of everyone else merely by driving faster, the system breaks down. It's the traffic equivalent of trying to have a sensible conversation when one of the participants INSISTS ON SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.

Back on the original topic, I find CM is a bit metaphorically-shouty itself towards people outside the mass. Yes, I know they're supposed to give way to pedestrians, but there's enough who don't ...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not on Bethnal Green Road it doesn't.

Perhaps an argument for a pedestrian crossing Critical Mass of non-violent civil disobedience or similar demonstration or a local campaign. Make a fuss, make a huge fuss, and then maybe something might be done. Did one on the Stockwell Road in the early noughties when some local drivers started to ignore the pelican crossing lights. It worked. Though I was threatened with arrest for obstruction a couple of times

If we do nothing at all we guarantee nothing improves.

 

[theclaud]

Not guilty. We recently had an equally spirited debate about Peter Sutcliffe, and she and Patrick (now there's an unlikely team!) were able to persuade me that I was wrong.

Claudine appears to be according such extreme priority to the idea that pedestrians should be able to wander in any direction at will that she is willing to sacrifice most of the mobility those same pedestrians enjoy when they climb onto their bicycle, get into their car, get on board a train, etc. (Trains, due to their stopping distances even at low-ish speeds, would be utterly impossible in Claudine's Brave New World.)

You ignored my point about the rational sacrifice of space. And you're eliding together three entirely different transport modes. I'm a fairly speedy cyclist, but I really don't have a problem with the idea of slowing right down (or not cycling) in areas that are densely packed with pedestrians, and allowing pedestrians to move freely and without fear pretty much anywhere except motorways and high-speed train tracks. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Anyway, as Coruskate says, back to CM...

 

[theclaud]

Which is not necessarily a bad thing

Christ - I didn't spot this before. Employees as captive Tesco consumers "not a bad thing"?????

 

[GrumpyGregry]

However, the riders at the front of the group do dissuade people from stepping out in front of them (or have to slow down in crowded areas)

Likewise the car which refused to slow down or deviate from its path while I was walking over a zebra crossing near Brick Lane last night - it is conceivably possible that the driver was merely leaving his braking as late as possible and would have emergency stopped if I'd taken the extra step to put myself directly in his path, but I got a strong impression that he didn't want to and wasn't prepared to.

Driving/riding on roads is, when all works well, a series of amicable negotiations of potential conflicts for road space. But it's a fragile setup and when someone realises that they personally come off better at the expense of everyone else merely by driving faster not slowing down and giving way when they should, the system breaks down. It's the traffic equivalent of trying to have a sensible conversation when one of the participants INSISTS ON SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.

Back on the original topic, I find CM is a bit metaphorically-shouty itself towards people outside the mass. Yes, I know they're supposed to give way to pedestrians, but there's enough who don't ...

Some very good points very well made. The tweak I've made sums up how I would put it. For me it ain't about driving faster, it's about not slowing down when one should.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Christ - I didn't spot this before. Employees as captive Tesco consumers "not a bad thing"?????

No need for blasphemy, this ain't P&L

 

[CopperBrompton]

You ignored my point about the rational sacrifice of space.

Well, hardly, as that's precisely what we were debating. My concept about the rational sacrifice of space includes roads, railway lines and airport runways. Yours includes ... well, you haven't said, but presumably a lot fewer roads.

I really don't have a problem with the idea of slowing right down (or not cycling) in areas that are densely packed with pedestrians

Nor me, and that doesn't change whether I'm on a bicycle or in a car.

and allowing pedestrians to move freely and without fear pretty much anywhere except motorways and high-speed train tracks. I'm not sure why this is controversial.

Aren't you?

 

[CopperBrompton]

Christ - I didn't spot this before. Employees as captive Tesco consumers "not a bad thing"?????

Tax-free bicycles at no cost to the employee ... what's not to like?!

 

[theclaud]

Well, hardly, as that's precisely what we were debating. My concept about the rational sacrifice of space includes roads, railway lines and airport runways. Yours includes ... well, you haven't said, but presumably a lot fewer roads.

Nor me, and that doesn't change whether I'm on a bicycle or in a car.

Aren't you?

Ha! I suppose you think the third runway is a rational sacrifice of space?

 

[CopperBrompton]

Ha! I suppose you think the third runway is a rational sacrifice of space?

A hell of a lot more rational than scores of aircraft burning extra avgas circling above London waiting for a runway slot to become free at Heathrow, yes.

 

[theclaud]

Some very good points very well made. The tweak I've made sums up how I would put it. For me it ain't about driving faster, it's about not slowing down when one should.

You're pandering to Ben's inability or reluctance to understand things in systemic terms. Once you have an urban dual carriageway with a few defined pedestrian crossings and the rest of it physically barred to pedestrians, manners don't really come into it - it is an entirely different space than an area where people walk freely where they choose, no matter how nice the drivers are.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm not sure why we're at odds - I'm not arguing that speed causes traffic jams - I'm arguing that speed, and the everyday requirement to travel at higher speeds, degrades the social environment. The very existence of the M25 does exactly that, whatever speed the vehicles on it happen to be moving at a given time. The 20mph speed limit you favour is just a slightly higher estimate of where the threshold lies - I would contend that it is probably lower, and that the 20mph figure is a nod to the needs of motorists (it's the lowest speed limit they are currently prepared to countenance). The peloton is voluntary and co-operative - motorists do not pack together densely by choice, and there is no advantage in doing so. There is no environment more hostile to pedestrians and cyclists than the one you describe - fast moving AND densely packed. And no, I never travel on the M25 if I can help it, although there was a time when I frequently did.

We probably agree on much, judging by your posts elsewhere in this thread. I find your promotion of Fr Illich's ideals at once admirable/inspiring and utopian to the point of utter unrealism. Motorists are fully functioning people* whose behaviour is often voluntary and co-operative. I reject his assertions that a chosen mode of transport alters the person, diminishes their sense of their place in the world, etc., etc..

and remember he didn't like lifts either.

and I got conviviality out of the loft last night.

*and therefore flawed just like all of us.