dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[srw]

Not really.

Motorcycling is a lot more like cycling than either side care to admit. The big differences are that the motorcycling lobby failed to stop helmets becoming compulsory (I guess that may not be a difference given enough time) and motorcyclists tend to admit that their choice includes a degree of danger while cyclists seem not to. .

I think it might be time* for this link again....
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

The equivalent link for motorbikes would be rather different - on whatever measure you care to use, motorcycling is considerably more dangerous than cycling.

*It's probably time for this thread to be nuked, but never mind.

 

[mjr]

'Travel design'. That sums up your ignorance.

I'll give you time to think about that one.

Ignorance how? Streets serve many purposes and the trade aspects should be decided more by the traders and the public space and cultural aspects by the people who live near it and so on. What's wrong with thinking travellers through should have a say mainly about the travel aspects more than the other bits?

 

[theclaud]

Ignorance how? Streets serve many purposes and the trade aspects should be decided more by the traders and the public space and cultural aspects by the people who live near it and so on. What's wrong with thinking travellers through should have a say mainly about the travel aspects more than the other bits?

All these places and people in your way, refusing to divvy up the "bits" of their lives for your transportation convenience! It's just not fair, is it?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I think it might be time* for this link again....
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

The equivalent link for motorbikes would be rather different - on whatever measure you care to use, motorcycling is considerably more dangerous than cycling.

*It's probably time for this thread to be nuked, but never mind.

Ah, yes, the 'if it doesn't kill you it isn't dangerous' argument. (yeah, yeah, kill you, or almost kill you).

I know it's anecdotal, and we all hate that, but here's a little experiment for you to try. The next time you're with a group of cyclists, start up a conversation about accidents and injuries. See if anyone has suffered either while on a bicycle. If you can tell me the numbers feel about right for striking up a similar conversation with, I don't know, a group of Eddie Stobart truck spotters then I'll concede that there is no danger in cycling. Feel free to nominate your own test group, but I may take umbridge if it's vert skateboarders, or technical SCUBA divers. As I've mentioned before, my RPG forum (the game, not the weapon, naturally) doesn't feel a need to allocate space specifically for people who have been injured or killed and just because it's never the fault of the cyclist, it doesn't mean the act is safe.

 

[jonesy]

Not quite clear what your point is, however what @srw said is correct: motorcycling is more dangerous than cycling. And there are some important differences in accident causes, not least because motorcycles tend to be ridden at speeds higher than those of other vehicles, whereas cycling speeds are generally lower.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Not quite clear what your point is, however what @srw said is correct: motorcycling is more dangerous than cycling. And there are some important differences in accident causes, not least because motorcycles tend to be ridden at speeds higher than those of other vehicles, whereas cycling speeds are generally lower.

I get it, motorcycling does not equal cycling.

Interestingly looking for other data like that in the post responding to me came up with this

And you're right, but notice how the rate drops rapidly and discrepancies start to fade as the riders get older and more sensible. Arguably because speed becomes less of an issue and the things that both bicycles and motorbikes hit becomes more of one.

Anyway, my point was that most motorcyclists are no more likely to thrill at the danger of their activity than most bicyclists, and that they both have their share of danger.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I've chased around to find out what the cars are on cycle paths and found them. The Canta is officially a disability vehicle but with no particular issues needed to drive them, needing no licence and being quick enough they appear to be rising quickly in popularity. Apparently there is a customising subculture for them. We crossed the ferry to Zaandam with one that had a couple in it and their baby in the 'back' so I guess it was the family car.

 

[srw]

I get it, motorcycling does not equal cycling.

Interestingly looking for other data like that in the post responding to me came up with this

And you're right, but notice how the rate drops rapidly and discrepancies start to fade as the riders get older and more sensible. Arguably because speed becomes less of an issue and the things that both bicycles and motorbikes hit becomes more of one.

Anyway, my point was that most motorcyclists are no more likely to thrill at the danger of their activity than most bicyclists, and that they both have their share of danger.

Unless you really want another 43 pages of discussion on how best to measure safety rates for cyclists (headlines: KSI isn't necessarily the best measure, and it doesn't actually measure what you think it is; rate per billion km is sometimes a sensible comparator, except where rate per trip or rate per hour or rate per person makes more sense; however you measure it, the risk involved in cycling is frequently over-stated and over-estimated) you might want to dig around in this particular corner of the forum. It's not exactly new ground. Important, but not new.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ignorance how? Streets serve many purposes and the trade aspects should be decided more by the traders and the public space and cultural aspects by the people who live near it and so on. What's wrong with thinking travellers through should have a say mainly about the travel aspects more than the other bits?

let me see..............

History. Place. Power. The public realm. Civility. Or..........if everywhere is on the way to somewhere else, where is there left to be?

What marks the east-west route out as a piece of shoddy opportunism is that nobody, but nobody is going to use it as an east-west route. It's simply a grandiose bit of felt-tippery, stitching disconnected pieces of so-called infrastructure together in to one big vanity project. The Embankment, which means more to this city than the LCC could ever imagine, just happens to be in the way. And, here's the irony - a bus lane would hasten the fit and the not-so-fit cyclist along one of the nicest three miles one could ever ride on - this half-assed scheme will slow cyclists down. And make cycling on the Embankment more dangerous.

So why don't you go and sort out Kings Lynn or wherever it is?

 

[mjr]

And, here's the irony - a bus lane would hasten the fit and the not-so-fit cyclist along one of the nicest three miles one could ever ride on - this half-assed scheme will slow cyclists down. And make cycling on the Embankment more dangerous.

Are there service buses there or just the tour buses? http://osm.org/go/euu4idZx?layers=T shows one service 490 using it but http://www.tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/490/ says that is Richmond to Heathrow so something's not correct there. If there's no buses, how about building bus lanes and labelling them as cycle lanes? ;-)

Cycling speed for most people is far more influenced by what happens at junctions than by other cyclists, which is also where the main sources of danger are. The plans https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/71a267bd looks like they're making the tough decisions on turn restrictions and so on needed to make them relatively safe, although some devils hide in the details of signal timings and so on which aren't spelt out. Other than a couple of junctions where give-ways would work better for most cycle movements than lights, can anyone give examples of specific parts that seem slow and/or unsafe by design?

So why don't you go and sort out Kings Lynn or wherever it is?

That's already underway and looks to be ahead of London, with higher proportions of regular cyclists and cycling-commuters in King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough than in London, even despite West Norfolk's mixed rural/urban make-up and London's recent doubling of cycle-commuting. West Norfolk has more policing challenges than London (we've not even got pavement/cycleway parking under anything like as good control as London), as well as a far more cycling-harmful approach to congestion and air quality where the councils seem to be trying to address them bizarrely by rewarding motorists with more roads and more, cheaper parking - trying to build the way out of congestion yet again. Even so, a relatively low-key mix of no-through-motors roads, green space routes (the Walks, the riverside, the Sandringham Railway Path and the Springwood-Reffley) and a few bits of protected space beside the A149 (especially where it's now a nine-lane monstrosity) seems to be producing good results despite their imperfections.

 

[mjr]

What absolute bollocks!

There's more regular cyclists and more cycling-commuters in London than there are people in Kings Lynn (which is a sh1te hole) and West Norfolk as a whole...

Yeah sorry I was still on my first coffee. It should have said higher proportion. I'll go back and fix it. Thanks for checking it in a way that no one seems to bother about some of the bogus claims about places like MK, although that was a bit of a harsh wording!

Can't agree on the hole bit. A lot of good stuff has been done to put right the sixties/seventies atrocities, although of course there's more could be done.

 

[subaqua]

Yeah sorry I was still on my first coffee. It should have said higher proportion. I'll go back and fix it. Thanks for checking it in a way that no one seems to bother about some of the bogus claims about places like MK, although that was a bit of a harsh wording!

Can't agree on the hole bit. A lot of good stuff has been done to put right the sixties/seventies atrocities, although of course there's more could be done.

betjeman wrote about Slough, but could very well have substituted Kings Lynn.

as an aside do the residents of Kings lynn not get to vote in County council or Borough elections ?

 

[mjr]

betjeman wrote about Slough, but could very well have substituted Kings Lynn.

When Betjeman wrote that in 1937, King's Lynn was basically a part-medieval port town, yet to enjoy the Slough-style trading estates or the slum clearances that made way for big roads, sixties blocks of flats and an ugly shopping centre which I think is a lot of what has given the town a bad image outside, as well as caused a few problems for cycling: most of those big roads are big barriers to most people cycling because there's not really the traffic to fill them most of the day and so vehicle speeds seem uncomfortably high. Some of the worst bits have been bypassed or tamed now, though, while the ugly shops and flats are being replaced.

as an aside do the residents of Kings lynn not get to vote in County council or Borough elections ?

Yes, but the town tends to vote Labour (11:3:1 Lab:Con:LD last borough vote) while both councils tend to be Conservative-run. The Borough runs the town from "special expenses" which seems a bit odd to me, although it has its positives for cycling sometimes. London could teach the area quite a bit about democracy...

 

[subaqua]

When Betjeman wrote that in 1937, King's Lynn was basically a part-medieval port town, yet to enjoy the Slough-style trading estates or the slum clearances that made way for big roads, sixties blocks of flats and an ugly shopping centre which I think is a lot of what has given the town a bad image outside, as well as caused a few problems for cycling: most of those big roads are big barriers to most people cycling because there's not really the traffic to fill them most of the day and so vehicle speeds seem uncomfortably high. Some of the worst bits have been bypassed or tamed now, though, while the ugly shops and flats are being replaced.

Yes, but the town tends to vote Labour (11:3:1 Lab:Con:LD last borough vote) while both councils tend to be Conservative-run. The Borough runs the town from "special expenses" which seems a bit odd to me, although it has its positives for cycling sometimes. London could teach the area quite a bit about democracy...

So based on your post that said Londoners have an assembly and boroughs I think you sort of boxed yourself in there

 

[mjr]

So based on your post that said Londoners have an assembly and boroughs I think you sort of boxed yourself in there

I think part of the reasoning is missing from the above post, once again.