Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:41 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:34 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
highlandsflyer wrote:
Neil wrote:
I realise you are very much in favour of cycle paths, and don't really want to hear anything against them..

..the problems betwixt some drivers and cyclists truly does need addressing


You don't need to start with suggestions I have a blinkered view on this. No one reasonably would conclude I cannot appreciate the whole argument. I would be quite happy to see cars banned from most city centre areas and restricted to 10mph in areas where there is a mix of pedestrians, cyclists and such. I happen to favour complete separation where possible. I don't agree increasing separation will automatically result in drivers polarising to the view cyclists should not be on the road. Even if it does that is a problem to be dealt with rather than a reason not to go ahead with creating more safe discrete cycle ways. For the foreseeable future of course cars and bicycles will share most of the network.

Addressing the attitudes of drivers is not an alternative to providing more safe cycle routes. It is something that should be done in parallel. However, no amount of attitude changing will make travelling along a busy carriageway where the average speed of traffic is 50+ safe for cyclists.

For those scenarios most intelligent and reasonable people would see the need for separation.


1. Complete separation is never going to happen in our lifetimes.
2. The more instances where cyclists are marginalised - because there are facilities in other areas, will have them seen as the exception and not the rule.
3. Cyclists have had to co-exist with motorised traffic on 50+ roads for decades. But all the same - separation due to higher speed traffic, doesn't mean it should be done everywhere - nor that the argument applies everywhere. And realistically, will never be everywhere, in the foreseeable.
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:39 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 am
Posts: 4756
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:23 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
We_are_Stevo wrote:
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


:D

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:53 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2786
Neil wrote:
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?



Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.... that was just a happy PR advantage :roll:
Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra

We_are_Stevo wrote:
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


this thread is like watching Federer vs Roddick rally :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:02 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?


Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.
Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra


Now who's being naive - why would it appeal to and draw pedestrians if it didn't make it more safe and appealing.

And besides, I'm not talking about the eponymous, Partidge-esque pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre, where effectively roads were closed in favour of them being purely for pedestrians, I'm talking about the more modern schemes, where traffic is still permitted but it's all open-plan, no distinctive road or markings, and no clear priority for traffic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:06 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 am
Posts: 4756
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
daugs wrote:
We_are_Stevo wrote:
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


:D

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.


Not disputing that, just that I have my 'chores' to get through before SWMBO gets home... :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:42 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2786
We_are_Stevo wrote:
daugs wrote:
We_are_Stevo wrote:
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


:D

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions......


Not disputing that, just that I have my 'chores' to get through before SWMBO gets home... :oops:


Thats my Fridays, right there :oops:

Neil wrote:
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?


Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.
Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra


Now who's being naive - why would it appeal to and draw pedestrians if it didn't make it more safe and appealing.

And besides, I'm not talking about the eponymous, Partidge-esque pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre, where effectively roads were closed in favour of them being purely for pedestrians, I'm talking about the more modern schemes, where traffic is still permitted but it's all open-plan, no distinctive road or markings, and no clear priority for traffic.


Neil, I'm not going to get into one with you again.... after all, we are singing from the same songbook.... and you will always have the last word anyway... :wink:
Maybe you should spend less time trawling youtube for videos that support your hypothesis :wink:
Its a one sided system of evidence any, as people will only post up examples of bad attitude and driving, not the run of the mill "ooh, look at that Audi A4 passing me with 4ft of room"... and the increase in use of cameras by cyclists will innevitably sway the "statistics"

Basically, apart from an increase in respect for each other (as if).....we need (and in no particluar order) better roads (although not at the expense of communities and the environment), better cycle paths (but not everywhere), better driver training (end of), better policing ((again, nuff said) , better prosection (and defence) and better training for cyclists

Never going to happen tho
I'm out

G


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:57 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
unkleGsif wrote:
Dont be so niaive Neil, I think you will find it was more for comercial and retail purposes, rather than pedestrian safety.
Increase in footfall = increase in sales = increase in business rates = increase in property values = increase in tax revenues.... also increase in car-park revenues too, as shoppers still drove into town, but needed somewhere to ditch the Sierra


Now who's being naive - why would it appeal to and draw pedestrians if it didn't make it more safe and appealing.

And besides, I'm not talking about the eponymous, Partidge-esque pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre, where effectively roads were closed in favour of them being purely for pedestrians, I'm talking about the more modern schemes, where traffic is still permitted but it's all open-plan, no distinctive road or markings, and no clear priority for traffic.


Neil, I'm not going to get into one with you again.... after all, we are singing from the same songbook.... and you will always have the last word anyway... :wink:
Maybe you should spend less time trawling youtube for videos that support your hypothesis :wink:
Its a one sided system of evidence any, as people will only post up examples of bad attitude and driving, not the run of the mill "ooh, look at that Audi A4 passing me with 4ft of room"... and the increase in use of cameras by cyclists will innevitably sway the "statistics"

Basically, apart from an increase in respect for each other (as if).....we need (and in no particluar order) better roads (although not at the expense of communities and the environment), better cycle paths (but not everywhere), better driver training (end of), better policing ((again, nuff said) , better prosection (and defence) and better training for cyclists

Never going to happen tho
I'm out

G


You seem to be struggling with coherency, as much as anything else - I referenced YouTube in one post, in a reply on a point that's not related to the point you have taken issue with me. Despite all your amateur dramatics you just seem to want to argue against me, rather than what was in the post(s) you were replying to.

As to the remains of your rant, it's you who's taken this ad hominem, both now, and in the past, with the stroppy, self-righteous pm you sent me the last time you spat your dummy with me.

No doubt to be concluded with a whole "and this is why I hate posting on here" tantrum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:14 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2786
Neil wrote:
Direct reference to Youtube once...
maybe, but have better things to do than trawl through 6pages right now ... but seems you have inferred it several times

Neil wrote:
Struggling with coherence....
thats a good one :lol:

Neil wrote:
ad hominem....
Neil, I have absolutely nothing against you, inspite of BOTH OUR pettyness in the past.. maybe you have an inferiority complex that makes you feel like everyone is getting at you?

Neil wrote:
Despite all your amateur dramatics you just seem to want to argue against me, rather than what was in the post(s) you were replying to.....
mmmmm... pretty sure I wasnt arguing against you, in fact stated that we are coming at this from the same perspective more or less...

Neil wrote:
Rant....
hardly

Neil wrote:
Tantrum...
come on now Neil :lol:


G


Last edited by unkleGsif on Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:40 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
daugs wrote:
We_are_Stevo wrote:
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


:D

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.


guess I was being a little optimistic, suspect some good points being missed here, sadly,

and the narcissistic motorists (those significant few that are self obsessed rather than all motorists) are are safe for another day............


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: integerspin and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group