A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Morgrim]

[url]http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/councillor-attacks-23m-birmingham-bikes-7754949[/url]

Birmingham counciller says that cycle lanes are discriminatory because "only white young men" cycle and “women of any ethnic group who wish to wear modest clothing, and I count myself in that category, are not going to cycle. It is a discriminatory form of transport”.

So basically she's saying that you cannot act modestly while on a bike, which is enraging and discriminatory and looks like she's trying to find justification to villify cyclists AND people she believes are dressing 'inappropriately'.

[Wolfshade]

She is the representative for a consituency near me.

Because something has barriers to people's entry it must be descriminatory and spending time/effort/monies to combat it must be bad.

It does amuse me to see you quoting my local newspaper being ont he otherside of the world.

[Denzark]

Her argument that this disproportionately affects one demographic is probably correct. But in terms of it being 'the evil discrimination' I am not convinced this is so - there are no bars to those groups she mentioned cycling - even the modest clothing thing is bollocks because I'm convinced Victorian ladies cycled and their clothing is far more modest than today's.

It is an example of people erroneously hijacking the concept of discrimination to add weight to their argument.

[Wolfshade]

[Wolfshade]

A man in Bradford has to what I think is a landmark case, won a victory vs Bradford City Council.

Mr Armstrong (no, not that one) was riding in Bradford, hit a rut/pothole came off his bike shattered his pelvis, had a collapsed lung, broke his back, three ribs and his collarbone.

He later learned that the hazard had been reported to Bradford Metropolitan District Council 12 months before his crash on September 7, 2013, by another rider, via the CTC’s “Fill that Hole” system that notifies councils of potholes.

In the report that rider noted: “This is potentially lethal and needs very urgent attention”.

The council admitted liability for failure to repair the damaged surface. And huzzah the pothole is filled!

- - - Updated - - -

Signs like this irk me:


Why at this point are cyclists forced to dismount? Well, certainly I am not the only one to think so. Indeed a London cyclist e-mailed Westminster Council to complain about the sign as it implies that cyclists do not have a right to ride on the road. Then, if they were hit in the narrow section the hitter would point to the sign and say "it's your own fault you shouldn't have been there".

As it happens these signs are not recommended by the Department for Transport either and within 48 hours he had a reply



- - - Updated - - -

You may remember me being [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35731-A-Crash-Course-in-Cycling-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-cyclist)&p=427328&viewfull=1#post427328"]annoyed at the TfL stickers [/URL]that seemed to have migrated to the rest of the uk

Well, here is mkII


- - - Updated - - -

And finally,

[URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457514002528"]A study[/URL] funded by the national cyclists’ charity, CTC, suggests that the absence of central road markings and a speed limit of 20 miles an hour cause motorists to take more care when overtaking cyclists. However, the presence of a bike lane was found to make no difference, which CTC says reinforces the need for segregated space for bike riders.

They found that where there was no centre line on the road, motorists gave cyclists more space when overtaking them, and suggested that where one is present, it gives drivers a “visual clue” of where they should “drive up to.”

They added that the absence of a centre line, on the other hand, “may cause the driver to consider his or her road position and speed more carefully.” A lower speed limit of 20mph also resulted in a reduced speed when overtaking.

All of which is quite strange given that CTC is quite vocal for cycle lanes, which this report doesn't support

[Denzark]

Narrow lane do not pass cyclists? Great so we inconvenience the motorist to give convenience to the cyclist. Instead of driving at 30mph I will sit at 13.5mph behind the sweating gurning lycra clad individual.

[Psychosplodge]

I will never support a 20mph limit.

[Wolfshade]

Narrow lane do not pass cyclists? Great so we inconvenience the motorist to give convenience to the cyclist. Instead of driving at 30mph I will sit at 13.5mph behind the sweating gurning lycra clad individual.

The point is that it should be only through roadworks which you would be expected to drive more slowly through anyway, because the lanes are narrower. The bigger issue is that there was an illegal expectation that the cyclist should dismount and how that passes onto the other road users, like you suggest that you have some kind of "right" to do the speed limit, which really isn't the case, you only have the duty not to exceed it. In the same way if I were driving a milkfloat at 10mph you would have no possibility of overtaking me.

I will never support a 20mph limit.

If it gets cars from residential streets and onto main roads, then why not?

[Psychosplodge]

Because it'd be used inappropriately like every other anti car measure the council use.

[Path Walker]

Inappropriatly for who?