In article ,
(Clive) wrote:

In message ,
writes
Why should vehicles that are a danger to other road users (pedestrians
as well as cyclists) be allowed on roads where they are found? Any
vehicle whose driver can't see its near side is in that category.
Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road in the first place, just like
cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. Cyclists should know when
they are in the blind spot of a large vehicle, if the don't then
the road is not the place to be, hence they need to be trained.
Anyway, what counts is safety and if a question exists about your
safety on a bike then your obvious place is behind where you can't
be crushed between rear wheels and a guard rail.

Tell that to the pedestrian on the pavement when a Tesco lorry turning a
corner in Cambridge killed him, then!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes
Pedestrians shouldn't be on the road in the first place, just like
cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. Cyclists should know when
they are in the blind spot of a large vehicle, if the don't then
the road is not the place to be, hence they need to be trained.
Anyway, what counts is safety and if a question exists about your
safety on a bike then your obvious place is behind where you can't
be crushed between rear wheels and a guard rail.
Tell that to the pedestrian on the pavement when a Tesco lorry turning a
corner in Cambridge killed him, then!
And the connection with cycling is?
--
Clive

Clive wrote on 18 July 2010 18:29:08 ...
In message
, MIG
writes
The solution, then, when a lorry pulls up on the right, is to proceed
through the red light before the lorry turns. Or are you one of those
people who think that cyclists should always be in the middle of the
lane, because that's where cars go, and should not let motor vehicles
overtake them?
No, I think that, like other road users, cyclists are responsible for
their own action. It is up to them to take appropriate action, like
passing left turning vehicles on the right and vice-versa. Where there
is doubt then stay behind, in short just stay safe. It's not my duty
to look out for every other road user and in this neck of the woods,
cyclists are few and far between, but I have driven in London and ridden
on the top deck of buses and quite frankly the behaviour of cyclists
there is abysmal.

Agreed. They should stay on the lower deck.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Jul 18, 9:19*am, wrote:
And membership?

It seems the biggest difference for now is the scheme will only be
available to members on the 30th with casual use four weeks later.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/16314.aspx

"Anyone will be able to sign up for a daily, weekly or annual
membership from 23 July at tfl.gov.uk/barclayscyclehire

In order to use the scheme on 30 July, members will need to have
received and activated their Cycle Hire key, so pioneers are urged to
sign up as soon as possible."

In message PyU0o.307277$Hs4.126412@hurricane, Richard J.
writes
but I have driven in London and ridden
on the top deck of buses and quite frankly the behaviour of cyclists
there is abysmal.

Agreed. They should stay on the lower deck.
I walked straight into that, didn't I.
--
Clive

wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along and
start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

Tom

On Jul 19, 11:12*am, Tom Barry wrote:

wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along
and start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. *I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

I'm sure there will be some instances of it though - mindless tyre
slashing and the like - plus other issues like stolen bikes (despite
the deposit - card fraud and the like), and perhaps some 'cycle-
jackings' (hire bikes stolen from users who are on them - i.e. mugging
of sorts). But despite all this I broadly agree with your proposition,
I think it'll basically be respected. I suppose such potential issues
might be more likely to arise if there were to be a future expansion
of the scheme further out from the centre, but I can't imagine that
happening until the existing scheme has bedded down properly. (I can
imagine expansion being something that could come up in the next
Mayoral election, should the scheme be successful which I think it
will be.)

On Jul 18, 11:34*pm, :

(Mizter T) wrote:

On Jul 18, 10:11*pm, wrote:
[snip]
What deposits? How will the enforce the excess charges?

Card pre-authorisation.

Makes sense. Another detail not (yet) on the web site, though.

The scheme hasn't launched yet, so the webpages don't cover all the
details and I don't think that's unreasonable either.

The requirement for a deposit of sorts, via card pre-authorisation,
can be inferred by the "Other charges" that feature on the website -
£300 for a non-return charge, "up to £300" for damage. And some sort
of deposit is needed (others can feel free to argue against this but
it's the only way such a scheme will work) - AIUI this is how most
other similar schemes operate in other cities.

What's not clear is whether or not a potential user will need £300 (or
£150 or whatever) in available funds in their account (via their
credit/debit card) to be able to rent a bike - i.e. those at the edge
of their overdraft or credit card credit limit, or those without an
overdraft and only a small bit of money in their account, will they be
able to access the scheme?

Also it's not clear how it'll work for those with annual membership -
will there be a card pre-authorisation requirement for them, or will
they provide adequate proof of their identity so that TfL (well,
actually Serco, the operators of the scheme) can track them down if
there's an issue such as a missing or damaged bike?

The answers to the above will of course become clear shortly.

Incidentally, FWIW I can imagine that one might only be able to apply
for membership from the date the scheme actually launches, or possibly
even later than that if the membership back-office infrastructure is
not yet fully sorted out - if there's a priority then it'll be
launching the scheme on the prescribed day (30 July) - getting the
bikes out there, making sure they pay stations work etc - and other
things might have to wait. Should this occur I can imagine the write
ups decrying the scheme as being an instant and dismal failure!

On Jul 19, 11:51*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:12*am, Tom Barry wrote:

wrote:
I wonder how long before some adolescent and his mates come along
and start destroying them.

Can I put it on record now that I do not expect vandalism to be a
serious issue for the scheme - it's too well built and generally in
areas with decent CCTV coverage, plenty of passing traffic on foot and
no particular gang or vandalism problem. *I can't see it being much fun
to smash up, basically.

I'm sure there will be some instances of it though - mindless tyre
slashing and the like - plus other issues like stolen bikes (despite
the deposit - card fraud and the like), and perhaps some 'cycle-
jackings' (hire bikes stolen from users who are on them - i.e. mugging
of sorts). But despite all this I broadly agree with your proposition,
I think it'll basically be respected. I suppose such potential issues
might be more likely to arise if there were to be a future expansion
of the scheme further out from the centre, but I can't imagine that
happening until the existing scheme has bedded down properly. (I can
imagine expansion being something that could come up in the next
Mayoral election, should the scheme be successful which I think it
will be.)

Is there any information about how the scheme is paid for? Is there a
certain utilisation rate at which it pays for itself or will it always
be tax payer subsidised? If the later I can't see any expansion
happening for a long time, with the possible exception of Canary Wharf
around the Barclays HQ.

On Jul 19, 12:13*pm, Mizter T wrote:
[snip]
Incidentally, FWIW I can imagine that one might only be able to apply
for membership from the date the scheme actually launches, or possibly
even later than that if the membership back-office infrastructure is
not yet fully sorted out - if there's a priority then it'll be
launching the scheme on the prescribed day (30 July) - getting the
bikes out there, making sure they pay stations work etc - and other
things might have to wait. Should this occur I can imagine the write
ups decrying the scheme as being an instant and dismal failure!

Well, I got that completely wrong then (as per usual)! As David
Walters post upthread recounts, it turns out that for the first month
the scheme will only be available for those with an annual membership,
so "occasional users" (i.e. those wanting 24-hour or 7-day access)
will have to wait - meanwhile sign-up for annual membership opens on
the 23 July, that's this coming Friday.