Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

How? Much of the worst congestion I see driving to and from work is
due to asshole cyclists on the narrow roads who refuse to use the
cycle paths even after they've stolen half the pavement from the
pedestrians to get them.

Not to mention pricks like the cyclist yesterday who decided that
because the lights had gone red at the T-junction he was approaching
that meant that he could cycle out into the middle of the junction
directly in the way of the traffic that was turning into the road from
the right, forcing them to stop even though they had the green light.
It's a shame the SUV at the front of the queue stopped so fast and
didn't squish him flat... I can only hope there'll be an artic coming
the next time he tries it.

Mark

 

Bad habit picked up from the uk.railway eejits that moan about jumpers
that get hit by trains :redface:

You've obviously never seen a car windscreen which has been hit by a
pedestrian at ~30mph. You ride infront of a car, you get hit, even
ignoring the emotional hell the driver has (and the fact he's immediatly
assumed guilty doesnt help), chances are he's going to have some pretty
serious injuries - traveling at 30mph, suddenly in shock and cant see a
thing, you could hit another car, a lamppost, a tree, or an even more
vulnerable user (a legal cyclist, or a pedestrian). All because of the
selfish actions of "the law doesnt apply to me" crowd of bikers (who, sad
to say, make up a sizable minority, and probably a majority, of the bike
riders on London streets for sure)

 

Well, that's how I do it if I'm stopped for more then a few seconds - left
leg can get very tired you know. I assume others do it this way. Either
way the car has stopped, and you have ignored the idiot that thinks "ooh,
a stopped car and red light, that means I'm allowed to run the old granny
over"

Lucky you, where is this magical place you've

 

Regardless of how much other road users wind you up, there really isn't
any excuse for that sort of attitude.

All it does is get other people's backs up and lead to even less
tolerance, which, contrary to what you probably believe, makes things
even worse for *everyone* on the roads.

No the cyclist shouldn't have done what he did, but your perception of
cyclists and where they should be is very very wrong. Shared-use cycle
paths are more dangerous than being on the road, and to answer your
point about cyclists holding you up, most cyclists in urban settings
(where the perceived delay they cause is greatest) tend to catch the
cars who have overtaken them at the next set of lights.

Many cyclists don't WANT shared use paths. Oh, and by the way - cycles
were on the roads before the cars were. You might like to remember that
next time you think the roads are YOURS.

 

Paul Weaver says...

I drive through London a hell of alot. I'd say the worst culprits on 2
heels are the scooter riders on L plates. Please don't tar us all with
the same brush. Couriers are profesionals, they don't want to crash
because it means they don't earn any money. Scooter riders are generally
scrotes on smashed to bits pieces of crap that I wouldn't want my worst
enemy riding. They are the ones to watch out for, cos I'll bet half of
them are uninsured.

 

A defence I'll use if I ever drive a car over a red light (I've done so
once. No traffic whatsoever, lights were stuck on red)

Perhaps bikes on the road should have numberplates on so when they get
flashed by the red light cameras, they can be fined.

In my experience as a cyclist, its very rare a car doesn't give you enough
room. More are likely to cut me up at junctions, but nowhere near the
percentage of dangerous and discourteous bike riders there are.

 

I'm not defending the cyclist that runs red lights, far from it, but you
appear to be assuming the majority of cyclists are prone to this sort of
thing.

In the same way I could tar all car drivers as being less than perfect
road users, but I choose not to, cos I recognise that they're not all bad.

There are just as many motorists who think the law doesn't apply to
them, after all. One just has to look at the threads on speed cameras
to realise this.

 

"I live in north Kent and am able to commute to most places within the M25
plus Kent and Surrey."

When are you available for an interview? The job is 5 miles away.

 

(bikes) 53.3: YOU MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or
*inconsiderate* manner

(inconsiderate/uncourteous, same thing)

(vehicles) 122.3: YOU MUST NOT drive without reasonable consideration for
other road users.

The site? Or sight? either way why would the welcome it (Personally I find
the tour de france almost as monotonous as grand prix. Scenerys nice, but
it's spoilt by the riders.

I woulnd't mind if there were decent excuses, or if they werent putting me
at risk or intimidating me.

 

Cut spending too. No more "social security". Cant afford a 2 bed flat in
the middle of london housing? Join the club. If you cant (or refuse to)
work hard/smart/long enough, you shouldn't get free housing in the 6th
most expensive city, you should be forcibly relocated somewhere cheap.

The added investment in transport infrastructure means more jobs for the
construction and maintenence industry, more trains and therefore mroe
drivers, etc.

Trim a lot of the other big costs (the NHS sucks £1000 a year per person
for this country. BUPA isn't much more). Dont get me started on the
military either.

 

Sadly true, but the unemployed spend it on Sky TV, booze and fags, not
bikes.

 

Ever heard of the poll tax riots. As cars are essential for many people,
they will run them without VED.

As the road maintenence budget is arroudn 5bn a year, £8M a year means 500
lorries on the road.

Now what they should do is force all foreign cars/lorries etc to have a VED
too, like Austria's vignette.

 

There's VAT on food?

 

Bikers as in push-bikers. I've only had one motorbike (a scooter)
endanger me with an illegal turn.

 

Based on my experience it's over 50%. I'm aware that it's probably worse
in London though

Strange, most cyclists do tar all car drivers with the same brush.

I have no problem with somebody breaking the law if it doesnt endanger me
(or anyoen else)

 

Up to a point.

If car has to be redesigned to such an extent that it significantly alters
the appearance, though that is the side effect, yes I think it's 'a bad
idea'. It's the cost of development and implementation of more and more
rigorous safety measures for circumstances which are very rare, and which
may or may not make a significant difference even were those circumstances
to occur; and which are almost certainly avoidable in the first place, which
are getting out of hand. Where does it end? Say these measures reduced
fatalities by 10%. Was it worth doing? What about if it was 1%? What's an
acceptable figure? What's the next step?

I inhabit urm where my comments would have been unlikely to be considered
bait. Maybe I'm used to a more robust atmosphere. As for 'deserving' the
responses, I really couldn't care less about that. It was obviously a light-
hearted comment but which did have a serious point behind it, I'm not going
to worry if people can't see that.

If the powers that be can legislate for improved secondary [1] safety, they
can also legislate for better primary [2] safety. I.e. better education.
It's only a political decision away.

I agree they are unnecessary, and maybe they should be banned, but the point
is the thing they're attached to is also very dangerous, so a good plan is
to not be in its path.

[1] I don't know what the correct term is but I'm using this to mean
reducing the effect of an incident.

[2] By this I mean reducing the chances of an incident in the first place.

 

Paul Weaver says...

Fair enough, my mistake, I didn't see the context in which you used the
word 'biker'.

 

Beauty, and its opposite, are in the eye of the beholder.

Very true. unfortunately, car drivers have demonstrated themselves
incapable of not driving into pedestrians.

So we're reduced to either mitigating the effect of this incompetence,
or removing more control from the incompetent drivers with e.g. speed
cameras.

A substantial amount. Not enough to mitigate the increases in vehicle
performance, or risk compensatory behaviour by drivers caused by
perceived increases in accident safety for drivers, or the significant
increase in vehicle mass that can be observed as the years roll by.

It tends not to add very much at all - (about the same as seat belt
tensioners add). Most weight increase has already happened, to
advance driver and passenger accident safety.

Are you saying A-pillars have been designed to date to maximise
driver's view? (A quick trip in the now aged Ford Focus will refute
this).

They pretty much are as bad for pedestrians as cars are.

There's a thread ongoing on uk.transport or uk.rec.driving covering
this already.

True. But as long as drivers are killing pedestrians, (as opposed to
pedestrians killing drivers) I'd hope that no drivers would object to
making cars slightly less awful for pedestrians.



--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

How rare do you think car on pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist
collisions are?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Let me know when pedestrian routes are left unaffected, and the
motor-powered travellers are given the lengthy diversions.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk