On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:27:45 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 22 June, 14:36, Mizter T wrote:

No bikes yet of course - they'll come later, and the system goes live
on 30 July. I've a more lengthy post gestating in my head about the
CycleHirescheme - must get on with putting fingers to keyboard and
post it soon!

I've noticed some Things in Tavistock Place. The first I'd noticed,
but I probably hadn't been paying attention. No bikes yet.

They aren't covered (and apparently people have been mistaking them
for parking meters).

I have yet to see a parking bay and totem for the scheme with my own
eyes.

There are two near my office - one on Bishopsgate and one on Commercial
Street, i think, with stelae and stands. There's plumbing for one on my
commute, on New North Road where it forks off from the road down to Old
Street, but it's not complete yet. None have bikes.

I still can't my head round the charging model although I've not devoted
a lot of brain power to understanding it.

I see the indefatigable Mr T has explained all downthread. But basically,
the take-home point is that short trips are cheap, and long trips are
disproportionately expensive, with the break between short and long being
at about an hour.

It's going to be very interesting to see how it goes. I'm still not sure
whether I think it is a good idea in principle or just a waste of money
scheme

It could be both.

I'm confident it will not be good value for money in terms of travel. It
will certainly do nothing to help existing cyclists - we already have
bikes! - or potential cyclists who could commute in from the suburbs,
where there won't be any Things. It might enable modal shift from bus and
tube to bike for the terminal legs of commutes that come into London by
surface rail; i have a hard time seeing people switching from tube to
bike if they're already underground when they arrive in town. It will be
useful for tourists, and for people who live and work in zone 1 -
students, perhaps?

from a Mayor who loves cycling.

I wish people would stop saying that. If Boris really loved cycling, there
are all sorts of things he could do to make it safer, easier, and more
popular. Like not deciding to disband the Commercial Vehicle Education
Unit, which was the only police unit which actually enforced safety rules
on lorries. I know there was a minor furore over that - i don't know if
the decision was eventually reversed. Either way, he could also be
spending the money he's spending on absurd blue paint on something else,
providing more cycle parking on streets, pushing for more cycle capacity
on trains serving London, making sure the planning rules about cycle
parking are actually enforced, and so on. Instead, he's just chasing
headlines.

tom

--
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:03:30 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

from a Mayor who loves cycling.

I wish people would stop saying that. If Boris really loved cycling, there
are all sorts of things he could do to make it safer, easier, and more
popular. Like not deciding to disband the Commercial Vehicle Education
Unit, which was the only police unit which actually enforced safety rules
on lorries. I know there was a minor furore over that - i don't know if
the decision was eventually reversed. Either way, he could also be
spending the money he's spending on absurd blue paint on something else,
providing more cycle parking on streets, pushing for more cycle capacity
on trains serving London, making sure the planning rules about cycle
parking are actually enforced, and so on. Instead, he's just chasing
headlines.


Well, he is a journalist. Of sorts.

On 18/07/2010 01:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

from a Mayor who loves cycling.

I wish people would stop saying that.

I wish you'd stop saying that any Mayor who doesn't spend his entire
budget on cycling is a cycle hater! :-)

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
Even the Standard has been quite
ferocious on the lorry / bicycle accident issue in London and I don't
think we have a coherent position from City Hall about to properly deal
with increasing cycling and having huge lorries on the road.
May be a course of cycle proficiency would be in order, as it should
instruct cyclists that stopping at the left side of a lorry about to
turn left is not in there best interest, if they are looking for a long
life.
--
Clive

On 18 July, 14:59, Clive wrote:
In message , Paul Corfield
writesEven the Standard has been quite
ferocious on the lorry / bicycle accident issue in London and I don't
think we have a coherent position from City Hall about to properly deal
with increasing cycling and having huge lorries on the road.

May be a course of cycle proficiency would be in order, as it should
instruct cyclists that stopping at the left side of a lorry about to
turn left is not in there best interest, if they are looking for a long
life.
--
Clive

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?

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.
--
Clive

In article ,
(Clive) wrote:

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.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.
--
Clive

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

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)