The needs of cyclists in London constantly being ignored?

On May 14, 9:04*am, wrote:
On 14/05/2011 06:15, Doug wrote:









On May 13, 6:40 pm, wrote:
On 13/05/2011 07:18, Doug wrote:

You need to consider the fact that a large majority of adults, aka
'democratic mob', including the authorities and MPs,

The majority of people.

choose to be
utterly dependent on cars

Have realised that cars are an excellent form of transport.

While turning a blind eye to its many shortcomings.

I wonder why they are so popular then?

To begin with cars were owned by the rich as a status symbol and
because there were few on our roads they were not so much of a
problem. Obviously, as a status symbol, they were craved by the poor.
When the price of cars started to fall, more and more became available
to the poor. At the same time, the authorities started to redesign the
infrastructures around car use, in ignorance of the harm that mass car
use could cause. That is how we ended up in the present plight today,
with a majority of people both addicted to and utterly dependent on
their cars. Recently cars, especially Chelsea Tractors, are now being
seen as less of a status symbol and more of an ethical liability.


and so suffer from a natural in-built bias,
which can lead to official discrimination against cyclists and/or
neglect of their needs.

And don't give a tinkers toss about the whinging of a weirdo minority group.

Therein lies the problem which you have adequately demonstrated.

Its not a problem. *Cyclists are a bunch of *******.

By revealing your hatred of cyclists you are clearly demonstrating the
discrimination against them.


Until this bias is corrected, probably by
appropriate anti-discrimination laws for local Councils and a major
revision of the Highway Code and its laws, this state of affairs is
likely to continue indefinitely.

Cycling will remain a form of transport that isn't viable in today's
world and the demands of a vociferous minority will be quite rightly
ignored.

Cycling has stood the test of time much longer than motoring.

Horses stood the test of time long before push bikes, but things move on.

So where next? One possibility is putting cars in tunnels, thus
leaving above-ground scenically unblighted and free for people to
enjoy. Another is car-free vertical cities. Who knows? One thing for
certain though is that there will be change eventually. Look what
happened to the horses.


However, looking into the distant
future there is perhaps the possibility that cars, as a mass form of
personal transport, might eventually fall out of favour, in which case
the discrimination would then be eliminated naturally.

In the distant future, there is perhaps the possibility that pigs will fly.

No we can safely assume that the car culture won't last forever. It is
purely a question of how long and how much harm will it cause in the
meantime.

Cars will go from strength to strength because they are excellent forms
of transport.

You seem to forget they are clogging our roads more and more and maybe
have passed their optimum point already. As for excellence they leave
a lot to be desired, particularly in the area of pollution and where
to put them when not in use. Most residential roads are now clogged by
nose-to-tail parking which obstructs other road users. There are also
vast car-parks taking up valuable land space.

What do you envisage then, a world utterly clogged by cars with, say,
six per family on average?

Doug.

On 15/05/2011 07:19, Doug wrote:
On May 14, 9:04 am, wrote:
On 14/05/2011 06:15, Doug wrote:









On May 13, 6:40 pm, wrote:
On 13/05/2011 07:18, Doug wrote:

You need to consider the fact that a large majority of adults, aka
'democratic mob', including the authorities and MPs,

The majority of people.

choose to be
utterly dependent on cars

Have realised that cars are an excellent form of transport.

While turning a blind eye to its many shortcomings.

I wonder why they are so popular then?

To begin with cars were owned by the rich as a status symbol and
because there were few on our roads they were not so much of a
problem. Obviously, as a status symbol, they were craved by the poor.

Yup. Social improvement, the desire to get on in life. Great.

When the price of cars started to fall, more and more became available
to the poor.

The mass production techniques that enabled us to move forward & have a
higher standard of living. We have a lot to thank the car for.


At the same time, the authorities started to redesign the
infrastructures around car use, in ignorance of the harm that mass car
use could cause.

What harm is that then ****wit? Other than some vague ecobollox from a
few wacko environ mentalists?

That is how we ended up in the present plight today,
with a majority of people both addicted to and utterly dependent on
their cars.

You mean appreciating them as an excellent form of transport.

Recently cars, especially Chelsea Tractors, are now being
seen as less of a status symbol and more of an ethical liability.

Only to a few greenie ******s.


Its not a problem. Cyclists are a bunch of *******.

By revealing your hatred of cyclists you are clearly demonstrating the
discrimination against them.

They deserve to be discriminated against. They are scum.
d.

Cycling has stood the test of time much longer than motoring.

Horses stood the test of time long before push bikes, but things move on.

So where next? One possibility is putting cars in tunnels, thus
leaving above-ground scenically unblighted and free for people to
enjoy.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Another is car-free vertical cities. Who knows? One thing for
certain though is that there will be change eventually. Look what
happened to the horses.

No, no, please stop it, my sides are splitting...


Cars will go from strength to strength because they are excellent forms
of transport.

You seem to forget they are clogging our roads more and more and maybe
have passed their optimum point already.

Simple solution. Spend the money raised from motorists on roads & car
parks. Get rid of idiotic cycle lanes & bus lanes - more room for cars.

As for excellence they leave
a lot to be desired, particularly in the area of pollution and where
to put them when not in use. Most residential roads are now clogged by
nose-to-tail parking which obstructs other road users. There are also
vast car-parks taking up valuable land space.

What would you use that space for then?

What do you envisage then, a world utterly clogged by cars with, say,
six per family on average?

Why would a family of 4 want 6 cars **** for brains?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On May 15, 7:19*am, Doug wrote:
On May 14, 9:04*am, wrote:







On 14/05/2011 06:15, Doug wrote:

On May 13, 6:40 pm, wrote:
On 13/05/2011 07:18, Doug wrote:

You need to consider the fact that a large majority of adults, aka
'democratic mob', including the authorities and MPs,

The majority of people.

choose to be
utterly dependent on cars

Have realised that cars are an excellent form of transport.

While turning a blind eye to its many shortcomings.

I wonder why they are so popular then?

To begin with cars were owned by the rich as a status symbol and
because there were few on our roads they were not so much of a
problem. Obviously, as a status symbol, they were craved by the poor.
When the price of cars started to fall, more and more became available
to the poor. At the same time, the authorities started to redesign the
infrastructures around car use, in ignorance of the harm that mass car
use could cause. That is how we ended up in the present plight today,
with a majority of people both addicted to and utterly dependent on
their cars. Recently cars, especially Chelsea Tractors, are now being
seen as less of a status symbol and more of an ethical liability.

and so suffer from a natural in-built bias,
which can lead to official discrimination against cyclists and/or
neglect of their needs.

And don't give a tinkers toss about the whinging of a weirdo minority group.

Therein lies the problem which you have adequately demonstrated.

Its not a problem. *Cyclists are a bunch of *******.

By revealing your hatred of cyclists you are clearly demonstrating the
discrimination against them.

He is one person, his views are not held by everybody.


Until this bias is corrected, probably by
appropriate anti-discrimination laws for local Councils and a major
revision of the Highway Code and its laws, this state of affairs is
likely to continue indefinitely.

Cycling will remain a form of transport that isn't viable in today's
world and the demands of a vociferous minority will be quite rightly
ignored.

Cycling has stood the test of time much longer than motoring.

Horses stood the test of time long before push bikes, but things move on.

On May 15, 10:59*am, wrote:
On 15/05/2011 07:19, Doug wrote:









On May 14, 9:04 am, wrote:
On 14/05/2011 06:15, Doug wrote:

On May 13, 6:40 pm, wrote:
On 13/05/2011 07:18, Doug wrote:

You need to consider the fact that a large majority of adults, aka
'democratic mob', including the authorities and MPs,

The majority of people.

choose to be
utterly dependent on cars

Have realised that cars are an excellent form of transport.

While turning a blind eye to its many shortcomings.

I wonder why they are so popular then?

To begin with cars were owned by the rich as a status symbol and
because there were few on our roads they were not so much of a
problem. Obviously, as a status symbol, they were craved by the poor.

Yup. *Social improvement, the desire to get on in life. *Great.

So you are in favour of infinite economic growth or do you envisage
some limit to this?

When the price of cars started to fall, more and more became available
to the poor.

The mass production techniques that enabled us to move forward & have a
higher standard of living. *We have a lot to thank the car for.

A 'higher standard of living' can be equated with obesity,
wastefulness, and damage to the environment, meanwhile the gap between
rich and poor grows ever greater. Is that what we have to thank the
car for?

At the same time, the authorities started to redesign the
infrastructures around car use, in ignorance of the harm that mass car
use could cause.

What harm is that then ****wit? *Other than some vague ecobollox from a
few wacko environ mentalists?

You must be blind if you can't see perpetual roadbuilding blighting
the landscape. Why too do you ignore the ever increasing noise and
pollution caused by too any cars?

That is how we ended up in the present plight today,
with a majority of people both addicted to and utterly dependent on
their cars.

You mean appreciating them as an excellent form of transport.

Or, enduring them under peer pressure.

Recently cars, especially Chelsea Tractors, are now being
seen as less of a status symbol and more of an ethical liability.

Only to a few greenie ******s.

Why do you imagine car manufacturers keep on making smaller cars and
if, as you claim, there is no demand for them?


Its not a problem. *Cyclists are a bunch of *******.

By revealing your hatred of cyclists you are clearly demonstrating the
discrimination against them.

They deserve to be discriminated against. *They are scum.
d.

I am glad you admit to your discrimination. How far does it extend and
does it include racism and sexism?


Cycling has stood the test of time much longer than motoring.

Horses stood the test of time long before push bikes, but things move on.

So where next? One possibility is putting cars in tunnels, thus
leaving above-ground scenically unblighted and free for people to
enjoy.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Yes I laughed too when I saw this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13401260

*Another is car-free vertical cities. Who knows? One thing for
certain though is that there will be change eventually. Look what
happened to the horses.

No, no, please stop it, my sides are splitting...

As a substitute for a reasoned response?

How about this then?

"...The £1.3billion Shard, due to be finished next year, is a glass
pyramid which already dwarfs everything else on the London skyline.

Unlike other tall buildings in the city, this one will be open to the
public. There will be a viewing gallery at the very top, on level 72.
Beneath that will be 12 floors of apartments – expected to cost
£10million each.

Then there's the five-star Shangri-La hotel and spa, a restaurant and
shops above 595,000sq ft of office space..."

Read mo
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...#ixzz1MUQtQUtd

If you lived in that building and worked in the offices there you
wouldn't need a car. Anything you couldn't find in the shops you could
order on the internet. It is also right next to a major railway
station. Ironic that the rich, who can afford such apartments, may be
among the first to kick their car habit. What if the poor decided they
wanted to imitate the rich, yet again?


Cars will go from strength to strength because they are excellent forms
of transport.

You seem to forget they are clogging our roads more and more and maybe
have passed their optimum point already.

Simple solution. *Spend the money raised from motorists on roads & car
parks. *Get rid of idiotic cycle lanes & bus lanes - more room for cars..

Why do you think the government doesn't agree with you? Surely the
common claim that cars are revenue raising would be favoured by more
motoring? Instead the government seems to be penalising motorists,
despite them being a majority.

As for excellence they leave
a lot to be desired, particularly in the area of pollution and where
to put them when not in use. Most residential roads are now clogged by
nose-to-tail parking which obstructs other road users. There are also
vast car-parks taking up valuable land space.

What would you use that space for then?

Vertical cities, greenspace or more homes.

What do you envisage then, a world utterly clogged by cars with, say,
six per family on average?

Why would a family of 4 want 6 cars **** for brains?

Well, car junkie, motorists sometimes like to own several cars. Surely
as a motorist you must be aware of this?

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 14/05/2011 21:00, Tom Crispin wrote:

wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
wrote:

What "discrimination" would that be?
The ferry company in question treats a cyclist in exactly same way as a
pedestrian foot passenger and doesn't even charge for carriage and storage of
the bike (though that would arguably be perfectly proper). What better
treatment are you seeking?

The discrimination I have questioned the ferry company about is not
its treatment of cyclists, but its treatment of tandem cyclists.
Cyclists generally get a pretty good deal on cross channel ferries,
though cars with a large number of occupants get an even better deal.

You hadn't made that clear. You'd mentioned tandems, but hadn't compared and
contrasted the treatment of single-seat bikes and their riders.

I think that I had made it very clear. What I did was compare the
treatment of tandem cyclists to two people on a motorbike.

Quite. And that is not a comparison between the treatment of a solo bike and
a tandem.

You did. What it now seems is that you were actually trying to compare the
treatment of the two riders of a tandem to the single rider of a conventional
bicycle.

No, you are wrong.

Make your mind up.

At first (as you confirm above) you compared the treatment of two people on a
tandem with a person or people on a motorbike (and in case you ave any doubt
about it, let me remind you that you've recently said it and it is quoted above).

Later, you claimed that the "dsicriminiation" about which you are so
concerned is not that alleged to be operated as between tandem riders an
motor-cyclists, but that as between tandem-riders and solo cyclists. And
that's quoted above too.

When I summarised your position exactly as I have just laid it out, you wrote
"No, you are wrong".

But I'm not wrong unless you are wrong, and I can only be wrong by accepting
what you said at face value.

Should I not have done that, then?

[ ... ]

So are singleton bikes treated the same as tandems, or not? If not, how is
the one and how is the other treated?

A solo bike and rider is treated as one vehicle.
A tandem bike and two riders are treated as two passengers.
A motorbike and rider is treated as one vehicle.
A motorbike and two riders are treated as one vehicle.

So why did you ever mention motorbikes in the first place, if your real
concern is that solo bicycles are being unduly favoured as compared with tandems?

What have motorbikes (which have more of the transport characteristics of
cars) to do with that?

P&O's argument is that is not discrimatory as a solo bike and rider is
treated as one passenger.

I asked P&O to explain the different loading arrangements for
motorbikes and bicycles and they have effectively told me to '****
off'.

Really?

I wonder why they told you to do that.

======================

Dear Mr Crispin,

Thank you for your email.

As you are aware there are daffier prices for motorbikes, cars etc,
Claire has explained if you travel by bicycle you would travel at the
same rate than that of a foot passenger, I am sorry but this is part
of our pricing strategy.

If we can help you with anything else, please don't hesitate to
contact us at the address below or by email at the following address:
.

Regards
Lesley Lawson
Customer Services
P&O Ferries Holdings Ltd
Channel House
Channel View Road
Dover, Kent. CT17 9TJ

======================

Eoither you have edited (so as to traduce) that email or P&O Ferries Holding
Ltd have the full measure of you.

Perhaps it's both - that's very possible.

PS: Do you automatically treat all market differentiation as "discrimination"?

No.

But you are on this occasion.

In my initial email to P&O I had an open mind:
"Is the online price for tandem cyclists incorrect, or do you, as an
acquaintance has suggested, see motor vehicles and their
occupants as better and more desirable customers than cyclists?"

It was you, as the 'acquaintance', who suggested discrimination.

I never suggested that. Would I do that? I suggested market differentiation
on commercial grounds (without using the phrase "market differentiation"
first time round).