What's happened to the cycle parking in the High St?

[hairybuddha]

Oh - I was hoping you would have something more than anecdotal evidence.

In the above anecdote, how would the cyclist having insurance have helped?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[wrightie]

I'll bite as well!

Why does any topic concerning anything to do with cycling have to descend into a debate regarding taxation and insurance? The usual ill informed arguments bandied about as fact. As stated earlier, most cyclists are taxed (as are the vast majority of the population!), and a good percentage are covered by insurance, voluntarily I might add!

Licence plates on bicycles, yep another way of stifling take-up, by introducing more barriers. Why stop there, lets just have ID cards and be done with it!

[marymck]

[quote="hairybuddha"]Oh - I was hoping you would have something more than anecdotal evidence.

In the above anecdote, how would the cyclist having insurance have helped?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

There is definitely a case to made for cyclists to carry third party insurance. Especially in the event of collisions with pedestrians, though thankfully these are rare (far more rare than motor vehicle collisions with pedestrians).

All cyclists who are members of a club will have third party insurance and many will also be covered through their home insurance. I think to make this compulsory would be expensive and difficult to administer but worth encouraging.

Changed your mind already?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Why does any topic concerning anything to do with cycling have to descend into a debate regarding taxation and insurance?

Because it's tribal - it's about decent, normal, upstanding, law abiding members of the community (DNULAMC) and the other. DNULAMC see the tax and insurance they pay as giving them this status, along with the rules they adhere to when driving. Cyclists challenge this status; their very existence says that some of the more front-of-mind burdens of being a DNULAMC (paying car tax and insurance) are perhaps aspects of a mistaken lifestyle choice, and the anxiety is compounded by the thought that cyclists are also likely to be healthier, perhaps saving on gym membership as well. It's all fairly insufferable. Then there are the bizarre clothes they wear, which seem to flaunt their being some kind of "other"; maybe a refusal to grow up, according to a view which sees cycling as something for children to learn, but in due course leave behind as they become obedient servants of Mrs Thatcher's great car economy ...

This is not about reason and empirical evidence - it's about the "cultural, psychological, and political aspects" of people's world-views. And perhaps even more offensive than being different is the overbearing, irrefutable weight of argument they deploy, which only appear to those more used to tribal thinking as how the other tribe fights, rather than a legitimate way of addressing public policy issues.

[Rachael]

What Tim means is it's a Them and Us situation.

You're welcome.

[hairybuddha]

I'm sure the injured van driver will feel his pain eased by knowing he's just an anecdote.

I had thought you'd seen common sense on this one, when you said ...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

So how often does this kind of thing happen? I mean, how big a problem are we dealing with? As I've said above, it would be difficult and expensive to implement so you must have some idea of the scale of the issue?

And you haven't answered my question. How would the cyclist being insured have helped the van driver?

[marymck]

What Tim means is it's a Them and Us situation.

You're welcome.

Nice one Rachael, LOL.

Actually, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Tim on this, at least as far as I'm concerned. For me, the arguments in favour of compulsory third party insurance for cyclists are exactly the same as for any other road vehicle: to provide a means of compensation to injured parties, without them having to go the expensive and time consuming court route. This would especially help the elderly and disabled, who perhaps haven't the money and resilience needed to go down the court route.

ID numbers on bikes (which doesn't seem to be an issue for motor bikers, some of whom have a pretty "non us" image, as per Tim's definition, yet still pay insurance) could be non profit making for the authorities and would make it easier to identify those who leave the scene of the accident

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[stuart]

Do go on ... I'm reading this on a cycling holiday in Normandy ... smiling. Every time abroad its a shock to be treated with courtesy and consideration by ALL motorists (much more than they treat each other). Its a different world where potholes are even rarer than white vans.

Oh why do so much of Britain hate cyclists? Its not about facts, they aren't that much different. The prejudices certainly are. Which will in a week's time lead me back to that horrible daily ride down Sydenham Road and the disappoval of wanting convenient access to the Co-op. If you are on the road you get yelled at to be on the pavement - whilst pavement cyclists upset pedestrians irrespective if they are being inconvenient or not.

The peer pressure is to conform and drive to Savacentre to get my week's supply of (inferior) baguettes and add a little more to the death of the high street and the congestion we all detest.

Madness.

Au revoir

Stuart

[marymck]

I guess to me convenient access would be walking from a bike rack built in a converted parking bay immediately adjacent to the coop. Such a parking bay could apparently host 18 bikes. But to others it's more convenient for just a few bikes to be able to park on the pavement a few paces closer, which if course is what we're getting.

Anyway Stuart I hope you have a sunny and relaxing holiday, where the only "pot" holes you encounter will be those satisfied by yummy pastries and baguettes.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[michael]

whilst pavement cyclists upset pedestrians irrespective if they are being inconvenient or not.

I'm sure you wouldn't use this excuse for car drivers texting or driving above 20 mph in a 20 mph zone. Amount of perceived inconvenience when it comes to car drivers has nothing to do with it, such actions are generally (even if not specifically) dangerous, and the same is true with pavement cycling and jumping lights.

All high streets should have plenty of places to park bikes (on the pavement). Some of the hurdles can be poorly placed, but it doesn't take me long to walk round (or leap over) stationary obstructions.

I don't understand why anybody would have a problem with plenty of cycle racks, but I also don't understand why anybody tolerates or downplays the irresponsibility of pavement cycling. But with roads getting narrower and pavements getting wider, I think there is no longer any point grumbling about this any more. Pedestrians need to accept that cyclists will be riding illegally on the pavement and they are virtually powerless to prevent this. If they do confront pavement cyclist they are likely to be verbally and physically assaulted, with little chance of the police taking the slightest of interest.

So my advice to pedestrians when they see a bike coming at them is simply to jump.

[Tim Lund]

So my advice to pedestrians when they see a bike coming at them is simply to jump.

I think this is very bad advice. Pavement cyclists, like pedestrians, do not go out of their way to bump into people. If pedestrians started jumping all over the place, it could get much more dangerous.

[hairybuddha]

If pedestrians insist on jumping then they should be forced to wear helmets for their own protection. And they should get insurance incase they take a tumble on all that street clutter and bump into an innocent bystander.

[Tim Lund]

What Tim means is it's a Them and Us situation.

You're welcome.

Nice one Rachael, LOL.

Actually, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Tim on this, at least as far as I'm concerned. For me, the arguments in favour of compulsory third party insurance for cyclists are exactly the same as for any other road vehicle ...

The same arguments do indeed apply, but crucially not with the same strength - which crucially goes for the arguments against compulsory third party insurance, or any other of the regulation with car drivers and motor cyclists are subject to which cyclists aren't, or where they are, with fewer sanctions if they break the rules. These arguments against being the cost of enforcement and the negative impact of reducing access to the given 'transport mode', in other words deterring people from cycling. Society at large, IMHO correctly, judges it worth the greater regulation of motorists, because they cause more damage when things go wrong, impose more wear and tear on the roads, generate CO2 and other pollutants, lead to people having less healthy life-styles, with consequent costs to the NHS, and yes, enforcement is more feasible.

[marymck]

I don't think the really vulnerable can jump anyway, Tim. Fall yes, jump no

Not many able bodied people realize how affected the elderly can be by balance issues. It's not just being struck by a bike that causes injury or distress. Sadly, a bike whizzing past close to an elderly person can case them to lose their balance and fall. Fear of falling because of loss of balance leads many elderly people to have a fear of going out unassisted. Unless the weather is bad or windy, a vulnerable relative can cope on her village street with a sholley walking aid. But I know she'd never cope in sydenham.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[michael]

I think this is very bad advice. Pavement cyclists, like pedestrians, do not go out of their way to bump into people. If pedestrians started jumping all over the place, it could get much more dangerous.

That is not the advice provided to me by cyclists coming up behind me on the pavement.

And in the words of a pavement cyclist I recently saw stopped by two 80 year olds on London Road; 'Don't make me assault you', before he pushed his bike directly at one of the men, assaulting him and cutting his hand. With people like this on the pavements I reiterate my advice, leave them alone and jump when they say jump. Otherwise they might be forced to hurt you.

Pedestrians who do not feel safe on the pavements should console themselves with the fact that the cyclists are far safer than if they were on the road, and both types of road user are safer than if there was a car involved. Cyclists will only cause minor injuries - broken arms and legs, and will rarely kill a pedestrian. It is only when such inconvenience is caused that we should start to be upset with cyclists on the pavement.

[Tim Lund]

That is not the advice provided to me by cyclists coming up behind me on the pavement.

My universal experience with pavement cyclists is that they go past me without saying a word. Are you in some way known to their fraternity that they say something different to you. Or did one once say something like "get out of the way!"?

And in the words of a pavement cyclist I recently saw stopped by two 80 year olds on London Road; 'Don't make me assault you', before he pushed his bike directly at one of the men, assaulting him and cutting his hand. With people like this on the pavements I reiterate my advice, leave them alone and jump when they say jump. Otherwise they might be forced to hurt you..

Seriously - has any pavement cyclist ever said jump to anyone? If they did, wouldn't it be better not to jump unless they said which way to jump?

It is only when such inconvenience is caused that we should start to be upset with cyclists on the pavement.

A welcome return to common sense here from Michael.

[Tim Lund]

What Tim means is it's a Them and Us situation.

but also with a message of hope, lit up by the beacon of reason, allowing the enlightened to transcend such ways of thinking

[Rachael]

I've heard Michael recount such experiences with cyclists on pavements before, yet I have never, ever had a similar experience or seen a similar incident. Do these incidents mostly happen on London Road, Michael, and if so, could they all be the same rogue cyclist (unlikely, I know, but I don't know how else to account for the discrepancy in our experiences).

I recently had surgery that meant I was a bit unsteady on my feet for a few weeks, and very conscious about not wanting people to knock into me. It made me slightly nervous at first, but I didn't encounter any problems on even the busiest streets. Am I unnaturally blessed in this regard?

[marymck]

Cyclists will only cause minor injuries - broken arms and legs, and will rarely kill a pedestrian. It is only when such inconvenience is caused that we should start to be upset with cyclists on the pavement.

This is the rest of the section of Michael's post that Tim was referring to. Tim, I think you'll find Michael was being ironic here. He doesn't really believe we should only get upset when somebody is killed. I'm sure you don't either.

But just as a point of information, shock and/or a broken pelvis can happen all too easily. They are life threatening injuries.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]