Naked road scheme in London

"Mark Thompson" wrote in message
. 1.4...
There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

How precisely does that work?

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with regard to
competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which are also expected
of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in enforcement - I don't see how
this makes a difference.

As for road tax/VED, I don't see how that reduces the right of a motorist to
use the roads. All rights come with responsibilities - it just so happens
that one of those responsibilities for motorists is to put a bit extra back
in return for use of the roads to pay for the wear, tear and other damage
done by this use. Insurance is similar - it's just a responsibility that
comes with the right.

If responsibilities somehow annul rights, then I'm pretty sure we don't have
any rights at all. :-)

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

Last night I watched a cyclist going through multiple red lights, the
one at the end of uni rd she crossed the advanced stop box and actul
stopped in the middle of the junction, so delaying the change of the
lights (missed the induction loops under the box), every set of lights
down Burgess Rd she went through on red, the motorists stopping at reds
set for average bus progression.... So whats the advantage for cyclists,
without the other traffic forced to a standstill how can they make
better progress????

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
"Mark Thompson" wrote:

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with
regard to competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which
are also expected of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in
enforcement - I don't see how this makes a difference.

Motorists use the roads by licence, not by right. A licence can be
taken away.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
"Mark Thompson" wrote:

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with
regard to competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which
are also expected of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in
enforcement - I don't see how this makes a difference.

Motorists use the roads by licence, not by right. A licence can be
taken away.


I believe it is possible to remove the right for a cyclist to use the road -
just by different means. I am sure I have read of ASBOs being used in this
manner

The only real difference is that drivers are expected to prove they are
competant first. The only reason that cyclists are not required to do the
same is that the cost of such a system would far outweigh the benefits. But
it is just as easy to rescind someones right to use the road on a bicycle.

None of this really has much relevence to the scheme mentioned in the OP
mind.

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

The needs of cyclists have to be considered when designing any
scheme on a road which cyclists are permitted to use. It may well
be these needs do not require any special provision, or any
alteration to the scheme, however the consideration still needs to
be there - and if this scheme follows form then cyclists needs will
not have been considered enough (if at all).

Unfortunately we are all too familiar with the results of the
consideration cyclists are given in road design. Almost all of the
special provision we get makes cycling more difficult. The whole point
of this kind of scheme is that there is no special provision for any
class of road user. Suits me fine.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" wrote in message
ups.com...
Nathaniel Porter wrote:

The needs of cyclists have to be considered when designing any
scheme on a road which cyclists are permitted to use. It may well
be these needs do not require any special provision, or any
alteration to the scheme, however the consideration still needs to
be there - and if this scheme follows form then cyclists needs will
not have been considered enough (if at all).

Unfortunately we are all too familiar with the results of the
consideration cyclists are given in road design. Almost all of the
special provision we get makes cycling more difficult.

I think the problem is that cyclists needs aren't given consideration per
se - instead a token measure is simply lifted out of a handbook written by
some clueless beaurocrat and plonked on the road without consideration. If
cyclists needs were given proper consideration, farcilities would not be
implemented.

The whole point
of this kind of scheme is that there is no special provision for any
class of road user. Suits me fine.


I certainly agree that, provision of footpaths aside, generally there should
not be any special provision for any particular class of road user on all
purpose roads.

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

The only real difference is that drivers are expected to prove they
are competant first. The only reason that cyclists are not required
to do the same is that the cost of such a system would far outweigh
the benefits.

No, cyclists have never been licensed simply becuase it has never
become necessary.

But it is just as easy to rescind someones right to use the road on
a bicycle.

It is extremely rare for an order to be issued restricting someone from
cycling. It is not rare for drivers to be disqualified. It's rather
glib to assert that an order restricting someone's normal rights is
similar to removing a licence.

None of this really has much relevence to the scheme mentioned in
the OP mind.
Then you shouldn't have brought it up, should you?

--
Dave...

"Colin Blackburn" wrote:

It is interesting that drivers on Exhibition Road do currently have
automatic right of way of pedestrians. No mention in the article of
the potential effects for cyclists.

Pedestrians will just continue to walk straight out in front of cyclists
whether they are "allowed" to or not, but it will just mean that the poor
cyclist on the receiving end of some dumb ped will now have little comeback.

Adrian Boliston wrote:

Pedestrians will just continue to walk straight out in front of cyclists
whether they are "allowed" to or not, but it will just mean that the poor
cyclist on the receiving end of some dumb ped will now have little comeback.



Or cyclists will just have to go a bit more slowly and take a bit more
care - unless you think you should be able to take over the expectation
from motorists of having the rest of the world get out of your important way

Tony

"Tony Raven" wrote:

Adrian Boliston wrote:

Pedestrians will just continue to walk straight out in front of
cyclists whether they are "allowed" to or not, but it will just mean
that the poor cyclist on the receiving end of some dumb ped will now
have little comeback.

Or cyclists will just have to go a bit more slowly and take a bit more
care - unless you think you should be able to take over the
expectation from motorists of having the rest of the world get out of
your important way

The trouble is that schemes like this disadvantage cyclists more than they
disadvantage motorists, as only a ped with a death wish would actually
choose to "put the scheme to test" by stepping straight in front of a
motorist, wheras they may consider a cyclist "fair game" as there is much
less risk to themselves.