Here's one for your lefty wets - Jeremy Clarkson on Cycle Lanes in Holland Park Ave

AlexC

Someone should point out that parts of central London were all forest until they ‘developed’ the city. Soho was Henry Eighth’s hunting ground for example. You can’t stop ‘progress’, Clarkson - you reactionary prick.

VimFuego

beed84 said:

What's funny is not a single person stopped to listen to what he had to say. Literally no one.

maybe, but when the video is titled ''bikes can fuck off'' you're gonna turn a lot of people off with the decor before you ever get to the meat. It's all in the hook baby. 

AlexC

Oh yeah - and what is a ‘lefty wet’? Because if it is some sort of stereotype of a hippy-ish tree hugger, then that clip is about cutting down trees for the benefit of the ‘lefty wets’. So that doesn’t add up. If riding a bicycle in one of the busiest cities in the world - which is usually quicker than trying to drive through central London - is considered some sort of ‘left wing’ statement then I assume quad bikes are for Lib Dem’s (they’re considered quite stable and safe) and huge jet aeroplanes are for Conservatives, or something...
Modes of transportation and city infrastructure as an indicator of who votes for who... discuss! *


*Or probably don’t.

robgilmo

AlexC said:

Oh yeah - and what is a ‘lefty wet’? Because if it is some sort of stereotype of a hippy-ish tree hugger, then that clip is about cutting down trees for the benefit of the ‘lefty wets’. So that doesn’t add up. If riding a bicycle in one of the busiest cities in the world - which is usually quicker than trying to drive through central London - is considered some sort of ‘left wing’ statement then I assume quad bikes are for Lib Dem’s (they’re considered quite stable and safe) and huge jet aeroplanes are for Conservatives, or something...
Modes of transportation and city infrastructure as an indicator of who votes for who... discuss! *


*Or probably don’t.

I will discuss that, politicians and our political system have us all fucking our selves and each other, and most are too consumed in bullshit to even realise.

Discussed.

RandallFlagg

And into the keep net they go...all the lefty wets 

This post and the replies should have been in parody, the set up was comedy genius.

let's balance it up with some Stewart Lee on Jeremy Clarkson:

https://youtu.be/_yon6FGRvxo

siremoon

crunchman said:

He's talking rubbish in a lot of it.   Most of the trees that are going are not the mature trees on Holland Park Avenue, but are mainly young fir trees on the central reservation at Notting Hill Gate.  I think there are two plane trees that are planned to go at a junction.  Holland Park Ave wouldn't lose its appearance.

What he was saying about the cycle lane in Hyde Park was ridiculous as well.  I used to use the one that runs parallel to get to work.  It was a total nightmare.  Far too  narrow, and pedestrians in it all the time.  With increase in cycling in London, it just didn't have enough capacity.

It's also interesting what he's not saying.   The alternative route suggested by Kensington and Chelsea council is an utter joke.

I have mixed feelings on bike lanes.  The one on the Embankment is done well, but London's Roads are too narrow for bike lanes everywhere.  People are going to have to get used to cycling on roads.  The big problem is driver behaviour.  They pass far too close, and cut you up.  Some are just outright aggressive towards cyclists.  In the short term, they need to go after bad drivers.  That would make far more difference.  Put plain clothes plods on bikes with cameras.  They would pay for themselves many times over just from the fines for people using mobile phones.

The other thing with these segregated lanes is value for money.  Cycling along a straight road is very safe.  The problems are at junctions.  They could spend their money redesigning junctions and get a much bigger improvement in safety.

The other problem is that the groups like the London Cycling Campaign really aren't helping matters a lot of the time.  They are in the press bleating on about how dangerous the roads are, and saying how we need segregated lanes, and they put people off cycling.  That actually makes it less safe.  The more cyclists you have, the safer it gets because it changes driver behaviour.  As it is, cycling is actually pretty safe.  Per mile travelled, you are more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than as a cyclist - google it if you don't believe it.  That's a national figure.  It's safer still in London.

When driverless cars come along, the roads will change massively.  They will respect cyclists, and the aggressive behaviour of drivers will be a thing of the past.  I'm not sure of the wisdom of starting projects now that will be rendered redundant by massive changes on the roads within 10 or 12 years.  Once driverless cars are here, the uptake will be quick in London.  There are already a lot of people who don't bother owning their own car, and just get an Uber a couple of times a week.  When the Uber is half the price because you don't have to pay a driver, that will become the norm.  My car costs me around £35 per week before I drive it anywhere.   If Ubers are half the price, owning a car gets uneconomic very quickly.

Having said all that, the cycle lanes are not aimed at me.  They are aimed at people who don't currently cycle.  They are basically a very expensive marketing exercise to try to get more people cycling, as people have been given this misguided perception that cycling is dangerous.

There is a lot of controversy about a lane they want to build local to me.  It hasn't helped that they have not chosen the best route, but what they are proposing won't "destroy the High Road" as some of the local nimbies are claiming.  It probably won't be a lot of benefit to me personally, but at the same time, it would be good for my 11 year old daughter.  She's not ready to cycle on a busy road yet.  The benefit of these lanes is that 11 year olds can use them, and old ladies can use them at 6mph without clogging up traffic.

There is no easy solution.  The wide range of cyclists makes it very difficult.  Designing something that suits the old lady pootling along at 6mph, and a fast commuter cyclist who is doing more than triple that speed is almost impossible.

The other thing they haven't got right yet is how to get on and off these lanes.  The Hyde Park one, and the Embankment one are good when you are on them, but the junctions to get onto them are awful.

We do have to get cars off of London's roads though because of air pollution.  50% of the particulates in the air are from tyre and brake dust, so going electric won't fix it either.  They will be better, especially as regen braking will reduce brake dust, but they won't completely fix it.

On wider environmental issues, electric cars are still bad for the environment.  It takes a lot more energy to move a tonne and half of car than 12kg of bike.  Something like two thirds of car journeys are under 5 miles.  We do need to change the culture on our roads, and make cycling the norm for those kind of journeys.  These lanes are an attempt to do that.  They aren't the best use of money, but on balance they will be slightly better than what we have at the moment.

There is absolutely no way that driverless cars will be in general use in 10-12 years time.  There are just too many complex engineering problems still to solve for that timescale to be anything close to realistic. 

Axe_meister

I've been in one on the Google campus in Mountain View CA. Quite an odd feeling,

beed84

VimFuego said:

beed84 said:

What's funny is not a single person stopped to listen to what he had to say. Literally no one.

maybe, but when the video is titled ''bikes can fuck off'' you're gonna turn a lot of people off with the decor before you ever get to the meat. It's all in the hook baby. 

I’m talking about the pedestrians in the video, not us forum members. 

crunchman

siremoon said:

There is absolutely no way that driverless cars will be in general use in 10-12 years time.  There are just too many complex engineering problems still to solve for that timescale to be anything close to realistic. 

Level 5 driverless cars that can go anywhere may still be a good while off, but several car companies are saying they will have level 4 autonomous cars within the next 2 or 3 years.  That will probably become 5 to 6 years, but once level 4 cars are around, it will massively change London.

(Level 4 are cars that can be autonomous within defined well mapped areas.  London is well mapped.)

Even if level 4 cars are 5 or 6 years off, then, once they are legal, Uber and others will have them on the road in large numbers very quickly.  Without a driver to pay (and saving on fuel costs by being electric), the cost of an Uber will be about half of what it is at the moment.  At that point, a very large number of Londoners will ditch their cars.  I worked out that it costs me around £35 per week to own a car before I drive it anywhere.  Add the cost of the fuel, and I could already take at least 3 Ubers a week, and be better off.  I do know people in London who don't bother owing their own cars any more.  That is going to massively increase.  When their car dies, many won't bother replacing it.

The other thing to bear in mind is that driverless cars will change driving habits even if there are still manually driven cars on the roads.  People driving their own cars will be forced to obey the speed limit because they will be stuck behind a driverless one.  Even if 1 in 5 cars on the road is driverless, it will be enough to bring speeds down significantly.  This will change it for cyclists - especially with all the 20mph limits being imposed.

Also, a driverless Uber could be on the road 12 to 15 hours per day, compared with an hour or two for most privately owned cars.  Even if only 1 in 10 cars are driverless by that time, they will make up a lot more than 10% of the traffic. As it is, a lot of the traffic around here is taxis and minicabs.  That's only going to increase.

Like I said in the post above, London's roads will be completely different in less than a generation - even if it does end up being 15 years, rather than the 4 or 5 years some car companies are talking about.  I think 10 to 12 years is realistic. 

If the roads are going to totally change, we should be planning for that.  They are talking about spending £70 million on a cycle lane near me.  I get why they are doing it, but I'm not sure it's the best use of money for something that shouldn't be needed in 15 years time.

VimFuego

how on earth will you be able to have road rage incidents with driverless cars? Honestly, I don't think this has been thought through at all. 

scrumhalf

VimFuego said:

how on earth will you be able to have road rage incidents with driverless cars? Honestly, I don't think this has been thought through at all. 

I keep saying it; artificial intelligence is one thing but there needs to be more progress with artificial stupidity. 

prowla

It made me laugh!

Grangousier

VimFuego said:

how on earth will you be able to have road rage incidents with driverless cars?

That's why they're trying to increase the number of cyclists, to make up for that. 

RandallFlagg

Insurance liabilities in driverless car accidents will be interesting

ThePrettyDamned

People already won't take responsibility. Did you hear about the yoga instructor who was hit by a bike?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-cyclist-crash-robert-hazeldean-gemma-brushett-london-phone-court-a8972326.html

I should think driverless insurance liability would lay with the company that provides the navigation functionality. Cameras fitted to cars will mean that dickheads get the blame where it's their fault. 

In theory... As you can see by the article above, common sense doesn't always prevail. 

RandallFlagg

ThePrettyDamned said:

People already won't take responsibility. Did you hear about the yoga instructor who was hit by a bike?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-cyclist-crash-robert-hazeldean-gemma-brushett-london-phone-court-a8972326.html

I should think driverless insurance liability would lay with the company that provides the navigation functionality. Cameras fitted to cars will mean that dickheads get the blame where it's their fault. 

In theory... As you can see by the article above, common sense doesn't always prevail. 

Pedestrians have always had the rights over vehicle drivers.
 
No company is going to provide software that accepts accident liabilities, when you pick up your driverless car you will be asked to sign a lengthy legal disclaimers eliminating the companies liabilities, it will all be on the owner and thier insurance company.

After a few Boeing 737-800 MAX software glitches causing driverless fatalities the insurance premiums are going to rocket.

PFAllen2

crunchman said:

munckee said:

I'm a cyclist and a driver and just putting everything down to the driver is only half the story.  Bikes undertaking in traffic when they should overtake, not indicating, jumping lights and cutting across pavements etc all add to the dangerous conditions.

You left out pedestrians.  They are a total menace.  They walk out into the road without looking on a regular basis.  I've done more than 30,000 miles cycling in London and my only trip to A&E was caused by a pedestrian.

Being serious, a lot of cyclists do put themselves in bad positions.  There was an Evening Standard article last week about then inquest of a cyclist who was killed last year.  She was doored and knocked into the path of a taxi.  You shouldn't cycle within a door's width of parked cars.  I would have been doored (again) a couple of years ago if I hadn't gotten out of the habit of cycling close to parked cars.

A lot of the cyclists killed in London are by lorries turning left.  As a cyclist, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that position.  Going up the inside of a large vehicle near a junction is madness.  Having said that, redesigning lorry cabs for better visibility would also make a big difference.  It's very rarely a single thing that causes a bad accident.  There are normally a combination of factors.

These two posts along with @crunchman 's original longer post quite elequently sum up the whole issue of vehicle traffic, bikes and pedestrians. There seems to be a basic lack of common sense and respect for others, which is the root of so many of the problems.  Drivers and cyclists have to see the ways in which they are different ( relative speed, vulnerability in an accident etc.) and both act with respect towards the other!

As a driver, I would never want to have an accident with any other road user.
 As a cyclist, I would never want to have an accident with any other road user.

As a pedestrian, I would never want to have an accident with any other road user.

I just don't understand why any driver would open their car door without checking that it won't be hit by a passing car or lorry!! If you look for that, you also see the cyclist coming and let them pass.

/Rant over

terada

crunchman said:

munckee said:

I'm a cyclist and a driver and just putting everything down to the driver is only half the story.  Bikes undertaking in traffic when they should overtake, not indicating, jumping lights and cutting across pavements etc all add to the dangerous conditions.

You left out pedestrians.  They are a total menace.  They walk out into the road without looking on a regular basis.  I've done more than 30,000 miles cycling in London and my only trip to A&E was caused by a pedestrian.

Being serious, a lot of cyclists do put themselves in bad positions.  There was an Evening Standard article last week about then inquest of a cyclist who was killed last year.  She was doored and knocked into the path of a taxi.  You shouldn't cycle within a door's width of parked cars.  I would have been doored (again) a couple of years ago if I hadn't gotten out of the habit of cycling close to parked cars.

A lot of the cyclists killed in London are by lorries turning left.  As a cyclist, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that position.  Going up the inside of a large vehicle near a junction is madness.  Having said that, redesigning lorry cabs for better visibility would also make a big difference.  It's very rarely a single thing that causes a bad accident.  There are normally a combination of factors.

I too cycle in London very regularly and agree the situation is a mess from multiple angles. 

Just wanted to add though (because it wasn’t dealt with at all appropriately by that article) that the taxi driver involved killed himself after the accident.

Fretwired

I've been hit by three cyclists (on a zebra crossing) which is odd as I'm 6' 2" and 16 stone .... this seems to be an issue .. the cock on a bike with his head down for better aero ...

Fretwired

And cycling on the pavements ... I got hit by a woman cycling a high speed .. bit like this ...