Changing cycling rules of the road

[jonny jeez]

Not taking it as you being arsey else I'd not bother replying.

I wasn't replying to the OP's post. I was replying to post #2. Hence I quoted post #2 in my reply. The same post #2 that you've given a 'like' to. The same post #2 that I think is tosh. The same post #2 that favours some sort of enforcement clampdown on people who ride bikes. And would appear to prioritise this over some sort of enforcement clampdown on those who represent an greater risk. And suggests that because some people on bikes behave badly nothing should be done for the other people on bikes who behave well because, as is well known in motoring circles "all you cyclists are the ruddy same".

Which is an interesting position to take, for someone in a cycling forum!

I understand all that and where we disagree is in the point that you make about "appearing to prioritise". I don't think post 2 does anything of the sort. There is no mention of any other body or their priority...that doesn't come into the discussion...untill you bring it up...which is what I disagree with.

Drago says, in Summary, lets get our own house in order before we start trying to improve it...you counter with...but other peoples houses are far worse than ours...so we shouldn't try to improve.
I think that perhaps, you are familiar with dragos posts and are colouring his words with past experience, rather than reflecting on what was actually posted, which is fine...I do that sometimes too but that's likely the basis of our disagreement

 

[jonny jeez]

So, in the planners office....

Cyclists sometimes break laws so they should not get anything new to help them along.

Cars break lots of laws and kill lots of people but lets build them all sorts of things to make their journeys quicker and easier.

Take a drive along the embankment in London, or the elephant and castle...or Tottenham court road...or Vauxhall...or probably a fair few more places.

I think that cycle safety is getting a fair amount of investment of late...not that I agree with their solutions which all seem to focus on segregation

Edit...in London at least

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I understand all that and where we disagree is in the point that you make about "appearing to prioritise". I don't think post 2 does anything of the sort. There is no mention of any other body or their priority...that doesn't come into the discussion...untill you bring it up...which is what I disagree with.

Drago says, in Summary, lets get our own house in order before we start trying to improve it...you counter with...but other peoples houses are far worse than ours...so we shouldn't try to improve.
I think that perhaps, you are familiar with dragos posts and are colouring his words with past experience, rather than reflecting on what was actually posted, which is fine...I do that sometimes too but that's likely the basis of our disagreement

We live in a shared house. Someone leaving a coffee cup unwashed in the sink is not really up there with a fellow resident taking a dump on the bathroom floor and smearing it over the walls...

 

[Markymark]

Take a drive along the embankment in London, or the elephant and castle...or Tottenham court road...or Vauxhall...or probably a fair few more places.

I think that cycle safety is getting a fair amount of investment of late...not that I agree with their solutions which all seem to focus on segregation

Edit...in London at least

In anyway proportional to what we pay in taxes? I cycle in London and cycles make up some 10% of road traffic. As much as 25% on some routes.

 

[jonny jeez]

In anyway proportional to what we pay in taxes? I cycle in London and cycles make up some 10% of road traffic. As much as 25% on some routes.

No sure...but it is an illustration of how times...and opinions...are changing.

Don't get me wrong I am sure there will be a catch, like a toll or something at some point but I do think that us London cyclists are experiencing something of a sea change in planning attitude's.

Just a shame they don't seem to ask actual cyclists to design the "improvements"...judging by the solutions

 

[mjr]

Drago says, in Summary, lets get our own house in order before we start trying to improve it...you counter with...but other peoples houses are far worse than ours...so we shouldn't try to improve.

Actually, I'd counter with cycling improvements should not be withheld due to bad cycling any more than motoring improvements have been withheld due to bad motoring. I'm no more to blame for another cyclist's behaviour than I am for another motorist's.

 

[jonny jeez]

Actually, I'd counter with cycling improvements should not be withheld due to bad cycling any more than motoring improvements have been withheld due to bad motoring. I'm no more to blame for another cyclist's behaviour than I am for another motorist's.

I prefer not to look at this as withholding, rather focussing on enforcing existing rules before we think about setting additional rules that will become just as unenforced...worse still allowing rules that are open to a persons interpretation.

This constant fascination with other people and their apparent lawlessness' is a red herring. What other people do, or how much damage they can cause is not relevant to this point.

 

[liambauckham]

We live in a shared house. Someone leaving a coffee cup unwashed in the sink is not really up there with a fellow resident taking a dump on the bathroom floor and smearing it over the walls...

you know this guy then?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGPUtM1G2mM

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I prefer not to look at this as withholding, rather focussing on enforcing existing rules before we think about setting additional rules that will become just as unenforced...worse still allowing rules that are open to a persons interpretation.

This constant fascination with other people and their apparent lawlessness' is a red herring. What other people do, or how much damage they can cause is not relevant to this point.

What motorists do, and how they behave, on the roads we share with them, is not relevant?

 

[colmcrowley]

I agree with Drago -.no change until the current rules show they are being followed. In the hierarchy of safety we are less protected than cars or motorcyclists, but pedestrians would be at risk if cycles could cut through lights when pedestrians were crossing. Add to that the fact that most cyclists have no insurance and any injuries o pedestrians would be hard to tolerate. we cannot justify change because others ( cars ) break the rules. Two wrongs have never made a right.

 

[Markymark]

I agree with Drago -.no change until the current rules show they are being followed. In the hierarchy of safety we are less protected than cars or motorcyclists, but pedestrians would be at risk if cycles could cut through lights when pedestrians were crossing. Add to that the fact that most cyclists have no insurance and any injuries o pedestrians would be hard to tolerate. we cannot justify change because others ( cars ) break the rules. Two wrongs have never made a right.

A perfectly valid reason to halt all road building as cars brake lots of rules and kill lots of people.

 

[boydj]

I agree with Drago -.no change until the current rules show they are being followed. In the hierarchy of safety we are less protected than cars or motorcyclists, but pedestrians would be at risk if cycles could cut through lights when pedestrians were crossing. Add to that the fact that most cyclists have no insurance and any injuries o pedestrians would be hard to tolerate. we cannot justify change because others ( cars ) break the rules. Two wrongs have never made a right.

I would disagree on the no insurance bit - lots of cyclists have liability insurance through clubs, CTC, BC or household insurance.