Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

"donquijote1954" wrote

[snip]

Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of
bike
routes - we call them "streets".

But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on
London states?

[snip]

Er, what article? Large numbers of articles, and books too, about
London get written, of varying degrees of sense.

I suppose you could try to operate by the law of the jungle, but
generally in Britain it's considered better to operate in a civilized
manner. Following the rules is especially important if you are the
most vulnerable vehicle on the road. We have a book here, John
Franklin's "Cyclecraft", to tell you how to do it. Besides, if you
break the rules, you might get a ticket. The risk's low, I grant
you, but occasionally they do have a crackdown.

The laws in Britain are much the same as the laws anywhere else,
except that there's no nonsense about having to use bike facilities.
A "mandatory" bike lane is mandatory for cars to stay out, not
mandatory for you to stay in. Do remember, though, that we drive on
the left.

If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than walking.

Jeremy Parker

On Mar 5, 12:48*pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote

[snip]

Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of
bike
routes - we call them "streets".

But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on
London states?

[snip]

Er, what article? *Large numbers of articles, and books too, about
London get written, of varying degrees of sense.

See below.


I suppose you could try to operate by the law of the jungle, but
generally in Britain it's considered better to operate in a civilized
manner. *Following the rules is especially important if you are the
most vulnerable vehicle on the road. *We have a book here, John
Franklin's "Cyclecraft", to tell you how to do it. *Besides, if you
break the rules, you might get a ticket. *The risk's low, I grant
you, but occasionally they do have a crackdown.

The UK has one of the best road safety records. Still few cyclists
seem to be comfortable among the big predators (not because they are
bad, but because they are big).


The laws in Britain are much the same as the laws anywhere else,
except that there's no nonsense about having to use bike facilities.
A "mandatory" bike lane is mandatory for cars to stay out, not
mandatory for you to stay in. *Do remember, though, that we drive on
the left.

I agree with that concept: no mandatory bike lanes, but bike lanes in
places where it would increase ridership.

If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than walking.

Jeremy Parker

I'm glad it works for you, but ridership seems to be ridiculously low
in the UK. This article states its dangers...


Cyclists are Victims of the Law of the Jungle

And in reference to the above article about London, this reader states
that cyclists should not have equal rights as automobiles, but
actually MORE rights.

Again, before there's war, it's better to separate.

Velorution in the mind The Financial Times has a worthy but dull
article on the resurgence of urban cycling in the UK, with a focus on
London. It cannot escape from the cliche' of the number of people
riding through red lights; it is like if every article about digital
photography mentioned people taking illegal pictures at museums. Of
course figures of injuries caused by riding through red lights are
never offered.

The torpor in the journalist's mind is evident in the last few
paragraphs:

There's no doubt that car drivers need to clean up their act. Taking
speed limits down to 20mph in built-up areas will make the roads safer
for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Enforcing the ban on
mobile phone use will help drivers become more attentive. And applying
the Highway Code more strictly will make many people think twice about
engaging in the current bully-boy hierarchy of bigger is better.
...

Now, saying that motor vehicles should have the same rights as
pedestrians or cyclists is like saying that water skiers should be
allowed on all waters in front of a popular beach. The Highway Code by
instigating this non-sensical equality status, that inevitably leads
to the law of the jungle, is bunk. It has the same moral standing as
the South African Pbutt Law.

It is not abiding to rules that we should exhort, but consideration to
all other people and especially to those who are more vulnerable than
ourselves. Yes there are definitely inconsiderate bicycle riders in
London, and it is absolutely no excuse to say, 'It is a jungle out
there, I need to defend my self'. We need to raise the level of social
responsibility, starting by ourselves. The roads are a commons to be
enjoyed by everyone, starting by people on foot. Then the greater or
more dangerous the vehicle one chooses to use, the fewer rights one
has and the more consideration one needs to give to more vulnerable
people.

(http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclis...he-Law-of-the-
Jungle-4890.html)

"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote

[snip]

Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of
bike
routes - we call them "streets".

But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on
London states?

[snip]

Er, what article? Large numbers of articles, and books too, about
London get written, of varying degrees of sense.

See below.
-------------------------
OK, article noted. That article is one of the less sensible ones, to
my mind. Perhaps it was planted by some disgruntled motorist hoping
to scare a few of the more suggestable cyclists off the road It
makes sense to do one's scaring on the internet - there's less chance
of encountering a policeman than if you actually tried to use a car
to do it
------------------------
The UK has one of the best road safety records. Still few cyclists
seem to be comfortable among the big predators (not because they are
bad, but because they are big).
------------------------
They must be reasonably comfortable, or they wouldn't be cyclists.
Hundreds of thousands of people cycle the streets of London every
day. There are enough different ways of getting round London that
nobody has to cycle in London if they don' t want to. The best
reason for riding a bike in London is because it's fun
-----------------------
[snip]
I agree with that concept: no mandatory bike lanes, but bike lanes
in
places where it would increase ridership.
---------------------
Well, a third of a century of building the things have pretty much
proven that there's no such place. It's time to stop building them,
and then spend an equal amount of effort to remove the things that
haven't worked
----------------------

If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than
walking.

Jeremy Parker

I'm glad it works for you, but ridership seems to be ridiculously low
in the UK. This article states its dangers.
---------------------------
Actually, when you look at the article
(http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclis...ngle-4890.html)
it doesn't mention any dangers at all.

You don't say what you mean by "ridership seems (to you) to be
ridiculously low" Thus it says more about you, and not to your
credit, than it does about cycling. Ridership in Cambridge is higher
than Amsterdam. Is that "ridiculously low?

Jeremy Parker

On Mar 8, 2:16*pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:
"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message

...
On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:

"donquijote1954" wrote

[snip]

Here in London UK it's bike friendly now. We have 8500 miles of
bike
routes - we call them "streets".

But aren't you expose to the law of the jungle, like the article on
London states?

[snip]

Er, what article? Large numbers of articles, and books too, about
London get written, of varying degrees of sense.

See below.
-------------------------
OK, article noted. *That article is one of the less sensible ones, to
my mind. *Perhaps it was planted by some disgruntled motorist hoping
to scare a few of the more suggestable cyclists off the road *It
makes sense to do one's scaring on the internet - there's less chance
of encountering a policeman than if you actually tried to use a car
to do it

That would have been very deceitful, but the article is genuinely
suggesting lower speed limits to 20MPH, which should be a pre-
requisite for safe biking.

Perhaps *you* are the disgruntled motorist. Just kidding.

------------------------The UK has one of the best road safety records. Still few cyclists

seem to be comfortable among the big predators (not because they are
bad, but because they are big).
------------------------
They must be reasonably comfortable, or they wouldn't be cyclists.
Hundreds of thousands of people cycle the streets of London every
day. *There are enough different ways of getting round London that
nobody has to cycle in London if they don' t want to. *The best
reason for riding a bike in London is because it's fun

London is leading in eliminating traffic congestion in the city. Good
for you.

-----------------------
[snip]I agree with that concept: no mandatory bike lanes, but bike lanes
in

places where it would increase ridership.
---------------------
Well, a third of a century of building the things have pretty much
proven that there's no such place. *It's time to stop building them,
and then spend an equal amount of effort to remove the things that
haven't worked
----------------------

Lanes would certainly bring a lot of people out, but I can live
without them if other arrangements are made, particularly lowering the
speed limit and placing speed cameras all over the place.



If it's any comfort to you, cycling in Britain is safer than
walking.

Jeremy Parker

I'm glad it works for you, but ridership seems to be ridiculously low
in the UK. This article states its dangers.
---------------------------
Actually, when you look at the article
(http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclis...he-Law-of-the-...)
it doesn't mention any dangers at all.

You don't say what you mean by "ridership seems (to you) to be
ridiculously low" *Thus it says more about you, and not to your
credit, than it does about cycling. *Ridership in Cambridge is higher
than Amsterdam. *Is that "ridiculously low?

Jeremy Parker

Cambridge is not London, nor it's the UK. My number for the UK is
4%... compared to a 30% for the Netherlands.