Cyclists don't count as road users, argues Chris Grayling transport secretary

[jonny jeez]

Props to @User.

Segregation is not the answer. This is just one of the reasons why.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[broadway]

An idiot of the first order:

• Daniel Zeichner
  I thank the Secretary of State; let us hope that we are well prepared. Taking him back to the time just before Christmas, given that soon after his visit to Cambridge he told the Evening Standard that cycle lanes cause problems for road users, will he clarify exactly who he thinks road users are? While he is thinking about cyclists—a helpful clue—could he explain why it is taking such an extraordinarily long time to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy?
  
  
  
  
• Chris Grayling
  
  Cyclists use cycle lanes, and motorists and other road users use the roads alongside them. That is fairly straightforward, to be honest. If the hon. Gentleman is eagerly anticipating our cycling and walking strategy, he does not have long to wait.
  

Strategy, what strategy?

 

[Drago]

He's a fat bald nincompoop with a long history of mediocre performance at best, and a recent history of dooring cyclists. It's no coincidence that his head is shaped like a sex toy.

 

[mjr]

Some of them are major routes.

But most of the ones without footways or cycle tracks alongside aren't.

Why???

Stop the farking ratrunners ruining where we live.

Some are major, as Adrian pointed out. But the ones that are not are still routes between villages and provide access to the countryside.

I did put "except access".

Gating them would prevent cyclists/walkers/horse riders using them as well as motor traffic.

Not necessarily. Plenty of gates have gaps to the side for those modes, plus the ones which are full width (for cattle control, in most cases I've seen) can be opened - motorists hate stopping and getting out of the car to do so, so tend to avoid them.

And would resident access only apply to all traffic (including bikes) as well as motors?

I'd apply the restrictions to motors only, as normal.

Segregation is not the answer. This is just one of the reasons why.

Segregation had little to do with the plonker's comment, but well done to all the bike snobs for shoehorning it in. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

 

[Profpointy]

snipped....

Segregation had little to do with the plonker's comment, but well done to all the bike snobs for shoehorning it in. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

This kind of attitude : "cyclists shouldn't be on the road" is the main reason I am anti-segregation. The mere existance of the cycle lane makes roads more dangerous to cyclists, and not just the segregated road either. This is the key point for me, not a "shoehorned in" argument.

We may not agree on segregation, but it's unhelpfull to imply those you disagree with of making a dishonest argument.

 

[MontyVeda]

Transport secretary demonstrates that he doesn't fully understand what a road user is... surely that means he's not qualified for the position.

Either send on a training course or tell him to stand down.

 

[Markymark]

Two points
1) Yes it did because he was replying to a question that specified segregated lanes.
2) It is not a matter of bike snobbery here. Whilst I am undoubtedly vulnerable to that state, I think your vision that weak and vulnerable cyclists are served by segregation is a mistake. Yes they are, up to a point, whilst using the facility. Countering that though, no they are not if it means they are less safe on the actual bits of road that go where they actually want to go.

I once had a car overtake me, slow to my speed alongside me then move across to push me into the cycle lane which was a doorzone.

 

[jonny jeez]

But most of the ones without footways or cycle tracks alongside aren't.


Stop the farking ratrunners ruining where we live.


I did put "except access".


Not necessarily. Plenty of gates have gaps to the side for those modes, plus the ones which are full width (for cattle control, in most cases I've seen) can be opened - motorists hate stopping and getting out of the car to do so, so tend to avoid them.


I'd apply the restrictions to motors only, as normal.


Segregation had little to do with the plonker's comment, but well done to all the bike snobs for shoehorning it in. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

It has everything to do with segregation.


And nothing to do with snobbery.

Segregation is not a scalable, efficient, long term or even practical solution.

Education and change addresses all of those challenges.

But education and change takes more than 4 years and politician's don't like solutions that cant grab headlines and require time...even if they actually solve the problem.

Inverted bike snobs are as bad as snobs.

Not sure I know which either is.

 

[Markymark]

Although it would never be likely to be prosecuted as such, what you are describing is an assault.

I know. Wish I had the presence of mind to take down details.

 

[srw]

Hang about, can you imagine the consequences for every other ministerial appointment?

And your problem with is exactly what?

 

[MontyVeda]

Hang about, can you imagine the consequences for every other ministerial appointment?

yup, its a Utopian dream... where the streets are paved with hamburgers, and the rivers run with Watney's Red Barrel.

 

[MontyVeda]

I wonder if cyclists in Holland or Copenhagen are classed as road users by their transport secs?

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 4636521, member: 45"]Cyclists are allowed on the roads. Drivers need to get over themselves.

Some segregated/shared use is beneficial. Cyclists need to get over themselves.[/QUOTE]
But do the benefits of such infrastructure outweigh the danger when a cyclist isn't in it because some of it is crap, dangerous etc?

 

[mjr]

1) Yes it did because he was replying to a question that specified segregated lanes.

I've read the question and gone back and read his pre-Christmas Evening Standard speak-your-branes, and it seemed to be all cycle lanes, not specifically segregated.

2) It is not a matter of bike snobbery here. Whilst I am undoubtedly vulnerable to that state, I think your vision that weak and vulnerable cyclists are served by segregation is a mistake. Yes they are, up to a point, whilst using the facility. Countering that though, no they are not if it means they are less safe on the actual bits of road that go where they actually want to go.

I agree with the safety bit, but the assumptions like protection being segregation or it being primarily for the "weak" are what I call snobbery.

We may not agree on segregation, but it's unhelpfull to imply those you disagree with of making a dishonest argument.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they're dishonest: I wanted to suggest it's irrelevant to the latest Grayling brain fart.

But do the benefits of such infrastructure outweigh the danger when a cyclist isn't in it because some of it is crap, dangerous etc?

"Reply hazy - ask again later"?

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 4636560, member: 45"]I think so. The quality of the provision is a different consideration.[/QUOTE]
In London I don't think so. What we have is often dangerous. When I don't use it I get different dangers from drivers who think I should.