Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Pedestrians can walk without fear of being run down by cyclists.

Far better than no cyclists, is no cars!

But it's small enough to go on foot almost everywhere.

Well, that's the point ! There are no cars AND no cyclists !

It's a pedestrian paradise! 

And, the point I am making is that the congestion charge area of London is about the same size QED if it works in Venice in can work in London and elsewhere.

Cyclists can park up on the edge of town just like cars and WALK.

That would be fabulous. Exclude cyclists from the inner zone, then extend it out by another 20km-30km by way of an intermediate zone that allows no motorised traffic, but does allow cycling, and you have what's pretty close to paradise. Then, in the countryside, exclude motorists from all B (and smaller) roads to allow cyclists to use them without fear of being run down. Now we're talking!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Pedestrians can walk without fear of being run down by cyclists.

Far better than no cyclists, is no cars!

But it's small enough to go on foot almost everywhere.

Well, that's the point ! There are no cars AND no cyclists !

It's a pedestrian paradise! 

And, the point I am making is that the congestion charge area of London is about the same size QED if it works in Venice in can work in London and elsewhere.

Cyclists can park up on the edge of town just like cars and WALK.

That would be fabulous. Exclude cyclists from the inner zone, then extend it out by another 20km-30km by way of an intermediate zone that allows no motorised traffic, but does allow cycling, and you have what's pretty close to paradise. Then, in the countryside, exclude motorists from all B (and smaller) roads to allow cyclists to use them without fear of being run down. Now we're talking!

You got a bit carried away winky...................

No, Winky was right, but add in secure peripheral car parks around towns with good and  train and bus services, aAs for B roads, impose a 20 mph speed limit and allow small cars (e.g. max width 4'6 and max length 10'6)

Innocent Bystander posted:

No, Winky was right, but add in secure peripheral car parks around towns with good and  train and bus services, aAs for B roads, impose a 20 mph speed limit and allow small cars (e.g. max width 4'6 and max length 10'6)

No, winky, as usual, is only interested in promoting his perceived"rights" of cyclists to do whatever they want. End of.

My proposals in this thread are based on providing fair, and practical  solutions for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Motorists and cyclists to "pay"  to use the infrastructure they claim they need. Pedestrians to be able to walk around our countryside and  cities without fear from motorists or cyclists.

What a strange little world some people seem to inhabit.....

Don Atkinson posted:

So, it wouldn’t be any hardship for people in London to walk. And with the streets of London being so much wider than those of Venice, there would plenty of room to accommodate the daily population as they stroll down The Avenue. Good for exercise and healthy clean air.

The area between Euston and the Thames (N/S) and Mayfair and Bishop’s Gate (E/W) is adequately served by the Underground if you don’t want to walk too far. Cars and bikes to be parked just outside the Congestion Zone (including Boris Bikes).

...

I'm astonished this sort of proposal hasn't appeared in any election manifesto

It's always fun to see people with Not The Faintest idea continue to spout their ideas as if it's they really are the most flawless obvious solution. Don wins the award yet again for being the Trumpiest poster on here. No clue, no insight, just his own flawed thinking dominating his thought-processes and all based on his baseless idiotic perception of cyclists.

Venice has no roads & cycle routes because that's what Venice is. It's not a planning choice, it's an island with some walkways and canals. Using that as a startpoint for banning wheeled transport in C London is borderline stupidity.

The walk from Euston into town is a good walk, but why would anyone exclude all wheeled vehicles from using the roads that already exist, just to make people walk. People generally don't want their commute to be a leisurely stroll, they want to do it quickly and efficiently. It's why houses sell for more near to train stations. Having wide-open free flowing arteries suddenly blocked to vehicular access is the most ridiculous short-sighted ignorant of the facts suggestion.

They all get on the tube do they Don? You thought that one through too? The congested unpleasant running at capacity tube, you think that adding thousands of former cyclists (as well as former drivers who now have to stop some miles away and use the tube) on there at peak times is a good solution? Really? Have you ever been on the tube in the morning & evening peak hours? And you think your solution is even a bit workable? Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump. Seriously, I'll have a pint of what you were on, and a light too if you've got one.

You really are either an idiot of the tallest order, or a complete troll. Either way your unworkable idiotic ideas have no basis in reality, and that'll be why these sort of pie in the sky unjoined up me-me-me solutions of yours don't work, and would never be implemented in a thousand years. Because it's just plain old fashioned lunatic saying things out loud. And you're 'astonished' not to see your ideas as a manifesto promise? 

Here's the answer. BBC - cities banishing cars

Take cars out of the equation by all means to remove the danger (real danger Don, not your childish perceived danger) , and make rapid pollution-free healthy transport the solution. That would be a step forward, if applied to carefully selected connecting routes.

What a berk.

Don - walkers and cyclists have a right to the road, motorists have to pay for it.  There is great precedent for free moving environmentally friendly cities with Copenhagen being the most liveable city last year.

Looking at that picture of Venice, the solution to providing access to the city for cyclists is so blatantly, blindingly obvious.

Fill the canals up the present water level with rubble, topped off with pave, (no tarmac, we don’t want to ruin the ambience/beauty of the city), creating a network of super safe cycling highways.

Cyclist will never come into contact with pedestrians and vice versa.

No reason why we couldn’t do the same, at over congested canals in London.

I've just arrived at work 2+ hours late because as I was driving through Aylesbury I saw a cyclist fall off her bike and take a a glancing blow on her leg from a passing car.  Immediately pulled over called the emergency services and did all I could to help.  Whilst we were waiting for the ambulance and police a passing driver stopped alongside wound down his window and shouted "f------- BMW drivers" at me and then drove off!!!  

Fortunately, the lady seemed okay but witness statements etc.  

HH- Yes but there are many many more motorists than cyclists but glad you had an enjoyable ride.

It's not clear if you mean anything more than telling us you're a star. - well done

when I hear reports a cyclist collided with a car I can't help thinking that like rape, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the receiving party.

I'm saying that the idiot that shouted "f------- BMW drivers" assumed that because I had a BMW I must have knocked the poor lady of her bike.  For the record, and I witnessed  the whole thing,  the lady just fell of her bike probably because of a slight hole in the road, and the car in front of me despite trying to avoid her unfortunately came into contact.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

No, Winky was right, but add in secure peripheral car parks around towns with good and  train and bus services, aAs for B roads, impose a 20 mph speed limit and allow small cars (e.g. max width 4'6 and max length 10'6)

No, winky, as usual, is only interested in promoting his perceived"rights" of cyclists to do whatever they want. End of.

My proposals in this thread are based on providing fair, and practical  solutions for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Motorists and cyclists to "pay"  to use the infrastructure they claim they need. Pedestrians to be able to walk around our countryside and  cities without fear from motorists or cyclists.

I love the "End of". Once this is said, all rational discourse must finish. To say anything at all once this universal justifier of logic is played is simply unacceptable. End of.

Cyclists' rights that winky wants:

1) The right to not be by a motor vehicle killed while cycling. End of.

2) The right to not be endangered by the perpetually speeding and otherwise law-breaking motorists (which is nearly all of them) while cycling. End of.

3) The right to not breathe toxic fumes emitted by motorists. End of.

4) The right to continue to access public rights of way. End of.

I'll stop baging on about cyclists' rights when motorists stop killing us. End of.

There's nothing that fair nor practical about any of your insane "solutions", Don. End of.

I, and most cyclists, pay more than our fair share for the public services, including roads. Just give up in this nonsense. End of.

However, I'd 100% agree that pedestrians should be free from fear form wheeled vehicles. But the danger they face is wholly as a result of their own risk taking. It's simple physics. The danger is theirs and theirs alone to mitigate and they should start by walking single file on the edge of the sidewalks and paths at all times, of course. As they pay no "footpath tax", they have no "rights" to insist on better facilities. End of.

(As I finished with "End of.", you can't come back, Don. End of.)

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

So, it wouldn’t be any hardship for people in London to walk. And with the streets of London being so much wider than those of Venice, there would plenty of room to accommodate the daily population as they stroll down The Avenue. Good for exercise and healthy clean air.

The area between Euston and the Thames (N/S) and Mayfair and Bishop’s Gate (E/W) is adequately served by the Underground if you don’t want to walk too far. Cars and bikes to be parked just outside the Congestion Zone (including Boris Bikes).

...

I'm astonished this sort of proposal hasn't appeared in any election manifesto

It's always fun to see people with Not The Faintest idea continue to spout their ideas as if it's they really are the most flawless obvious solution. Don wins the award yet again for being the Trumpiest poster on here. No clue, no insight, just his own flawed thinking dominating his thought-processes and all based on his baseless idiotic perception of cyclists.

Venice has no roads & cycle routes because that's what Venice is. It's not a planning choice, it's an island with some walkways and canals. Using that as a startpoint for banning wheeled transport in C London is borderline stupidity.

The walk from Euston into town is a good walk, but why would anyone exclude all wheeled vehicles from using the roads that already exist, just to make people walk. People generally don't want their commute to be a leisurely stroll, they want to do it quickly and efficiently. It's why houses sell for more near to train stations. Having wide-open free flowing arteries suddenly blocked to vehicular access is the most ridiculous short-sighted ignorant of the facts suggestion.

They all get on the tube do they Don? You thought that one through too? The congested unpleasant running at capacity tube, you think that adding thousands of former cyclists (as well as former drivers who now have to stop some miles away and use the tube) on there at peak times is a good solution? Really? Have you ever been on the tube in the morning & evening peak hours? And you think your solution is even a bit workable? Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump. Seriously, I'll have a pint of what you were on, and a light too if you've got one.

You really are either an idiot of the tallest order, or a complete troll. Either way your unworkable idiotic ideas have no basis in reality, and that'll be why these sort of pie in the sky unjoined up me-me-me solutions of yours don't work, and would never be implemented in a thousand years. Because it's just plain old fashioned lunatic saying things out loud. And you're 'astonished' not to see your ideas as a manifesto promise? 

Here's the answer. BBC - cities banishing cars

Take cars out of the equation by all means to remove the danger (real danger Don, not your childish perceived danger) , and make rapid pollution-free healthy transport the solution. That would be a step forward, if applied to carefully selected connecting routes.

 

What a berk.

What a thoroughly obnoxious post.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

No, Winky was right, but add in secure peripheral car parks around towns with good and  train and bus services, aAs for B roads, impose a 20 mph speed limit and allow small cars (e.g. max width 4'6 and max length 10'6)

No, winky, as usual, is only interested in promoting his perceived"rights" of cyclists to do whatever they want. End of.

My proposals in this thread are based on providing fair, and practical  solutions for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Motorists and cyclists to "pay"  to use the infrastructure they claim they need. Pedestrians to be able to walk around our countryside and  cities without fear from motorists or cyclists.

I love the "End of". Once this is said, all rational discourse must finish. To say anything at all once this universal justifier of logic is played is simply unacceptable. End of.

Cyclists' rights that winky wants:

1) The right to not be by a motor vehicle killed while cycling. End of.

2) The right to not be endangered by the perpetually speeding and otherwise law-breaking motorists (which is nearly all of them) while cycling. End of.

3) The right to not breathe toxic fumes emitted by motorists. End of.

4) The right to continue to access public rights of way. End of.

I'll stop baging on about cyclists' rights when motorists stop killing us. End of.

There's nothing that fair nor practical about any of your insane "solutions", Don. End of.

I, and most cyclists, pay more than our fair share for the public services, including roads. Just give up in this nonsense. End of.

However, I'd 100% agree that pedestrians should be free from fear form wheeled vehicles. But the danger they face is wholly as a result of their own risk taking. It's simple physics. The danger is theirs and theirs alone to mitigate and they should start by walking single file on the edge of the sidewalks and paths at all times, of course. As they pay no "footpath tax", they have no "rights" to insist on better facilities. End of.

(As I finished with "End of.", you can't come back, Don. End of.)

I apologise for responding after your End Of, but.........

I appreciate yourself and others don't like change when it comes to dealing with cyclists endangering pedestrians (of all persuasions ie hill walkers, tow-path strollers, towns folk etc)

I appreciate that even having to think about the issues I raised in myoriginal post  must be un-nerving for many cyclists.

I appreciate that you introduced the additional subject of motorists endangering cyclists.

I also appreciate that others have raised the issue of commuting cars, cyclists and pedestrians endangering each other in our towns and cities.

In other words, my original concerns have been extended, by yourself and others.

In response to all these extended scenarios I have attempted to provide changes that might be given consideration so as to reduce the various threats and errors that occur and might help manage these hazards.

I apologise again for responding after your End Of.

Holmes posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted: 

Don wins the award yet again for being the Trumpiest poster on here. 

The walk from Euston into town is a good walk,  but why would anyone exclude all wheeled vehicles from using the roads

Take cars out of the equation by all means to remove the danger (real danger) , and make rapid pollution-free healthy transport the solution. That would be a step forward... 

Don - walkers and cyclists have a right to the road, motorists have to pay for it.  There is great precedent for free moving environmentally friendly cities with Copenhagen being the most liveable city last year.

Copenhagen will be Carbon Neutral y 2025 the result of years of long term planning and investment something we can learn from.

I doubt Don would enjoy Copenhagen. It’s geared to people who want to cycle about the place not people who want to walk about the place.

Trying to cross the road is like playing frogger, you’ve got to get past a relatively slow lane of bikes, then a lane of faster cars, another lane of cars travelling the opposite direction, then another lane of bikes.

There are zones where cars are not allowed, these are very busy, full of pedestrians, cyclists and

it's a nightmare.

Although to be fair Copenhagen has it’s good points, the air quality is very good, drivers turn off cars engines at traffic light and there’s always seems to be a nice stiff breeze to blow any air pollution away.

 and

THE CARLSBERG AND TUBORG LAGER IS DIFFERENT CLASS. not like the knats piiss you can buy in the UK.

and

That last picture has converted me to cycling.................

My wife took that photo, that's me stranded on the other side of the road with a bag of pastries.

Don Atkinson posted:

I apologise for responding after your End Of, but.........

I appreciate yourself and others don't like change when it comes to dealing with cyclists endangering pedestrians (of all persuasions ie hill walkers, tow-path strollers, towns folk etc)

I love change, and if that change results in increased safety for pedestrians, then that's great. The most dramatic increase in safety that could possibly be achieved for pedestrians would be if motorists stopped running them down.

I appreciate that even having to think about the issues I raised in my original post  must be un-nerving for many cyclists.

I don't mind thinking about things. The issues weren't unnerving in the slightest. Asinine, yes, unnerving, no.

I appreciate that you introduced the additional subject of motorists endangering cyclists.

Yes. thankyou. It is a far, far greater issue than the issue of cyclists endangering pedestrians.

I also appreciate that others have raised the issue of commuting cars, cyclists and pedestrians endangering each other in our towns and cities.

Pedestrians and cyclists can endanger each other, but it's pretty small in the scheme of things. Motorists significantly endanger everyone, including themselves, their families and their friends. Doesn't seem to affect their behaviour much, though. Cyclists and pedestrian don't endanger motorists.

In other words, my original concerns have been extended, by yourself and others.

No, I have dismissed (rather than extended) your original concerns as being almost trivial in comparison to the real issues.

In response to all these extended scenarios I have attempted to provide changes that might be given consideration so as to reduce the various threats and errors that occur and might help manage these hazards.

Your changes are rambling and idiotic, and you know them to be so. Not a shred of logical thought is to be found anywhere within your diatribe. Everyone on this forum is more stupid for having read them. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

I apologise again for responding after your End Of.

Simply disgusting.

Jeff Anderson posted:

Simply disgusting.

Indeed.

Jeff Anderson posted:

Simply disgusting.

Thank you Jeff, for this and your earlier support.

very grateful. Don

Don Atkinson posted:

What a thoroughly obnoxious post.

 

Ah, yet again no actual response then. As before, when presented with a dismissal of your silly posturing you resort to childish insults. First time it was a 'rant' as I seem to recall. Now it's 'obnoxious'. You seem to have trouble with being presented with facts Don, just like that moron Trump in fact.

It's not worth rehashing the arguments about why your petulant scheme is so absolutely unworkable as it's a waste of time; I'm not going to type it all out again, and you'd fail to understand it again. You have no grasp of the bigger picture and of how the world works. Enjoy living in your own little world where everything has to work how you imagine it can.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Ah, yet again no actual response then. As before, when presented with a dismissal of your silly posturing you resort to childish insults. First time it was a 'rant' as I seem to recall. Now it's 'obnoxious'. You seem to have trouble with being presented with facts Don, just like that moron Trump in fact.

To be frank Chris ... I'm not sure Don was being entirely serious in his post (okay I may be wrong but thats the impression I got).  He was deliberately over the top for satirical effect.  That means that Don isn't a moron ... its those who read his post as him presenting "fact" who are morons* (IMO).  As someone who isn't in power (and isn't seeking power) Don's rants are entirely different from someone like Trump who is now turning rants into policy - but thats a completely different topic!

It's not worth rehashing the arguments about why your petulant scheme is so absolutely unworkable as it's a waste of time; I'm not going to type it all out again, and you'd fail to understand it again. You have no grasp of the bigger picture and of how the world works. Enjoy living in your own little world where everything has to work how you imagine it can.

You're right ... Don's suggestion wouldn't work in reality in London.  

But not just due to practical considerations but because of the backlash from drivers (and cyclists).  It could be seen though as a utopian pipe dream - certainly the idea of removing ALL hydrocarbon pollution from the inner congestion zone (and similar zones of other cities) could / should be seen as a dream which is achievable in most of our lifetimes if there was political will power.  The technologies exist if only there were developed to be cheaper to produce and in the meantime if there was sufficient will from politicians to invest properly and (when necessary) cross party support to work towards this goal which would be unpopular from many quarters hence needing cross party support to implement.  

If you removed private vehicles for starters and made a push to converting public transport to none polluting (electric), that would actually allow greater cycling because the excuses of overcrowding roads and poor environmental factors would be reduced / eliminated.  There would also be less completion between pedestrians and cyclists for the space left after motorised vehicles.

*actually I wouldn't call anyone a moron in this thread ... just throwing your insult back at you!

Don Atkinson posted:

Crikey, even I didn't realise just how devastating an effect one or two cyclists can have on our road system. Makes £2k pa look like peanuts...........but I agree that the old A4 cycle lane should be re-dedicated to cyclists and the parked cars moved. A bit like the A1 in Co Durham which is now downgraded but still a heavily used local road, which still has its dedicated cycle lanes. Struck me as a really good idea in my youth. But never fully utilised, I wonder why ?

While we're in the realms of completely non-sensical suggestions ... many years ago while I was at university I lived with a militant anti-car guy:  His solution to the problem of people parking in red-routes ... drive a monster truck / roller along the red-routes several times a day!