CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Times Cycling Campaign

(70 posts)

  1. Roibeard
    Member

    'Tis an old argument - "we don't want the public to think cycling is dangerous and thus be discouraged to ride", versus "we do want the public to think cycling is dangerous and be so outraged that matters are improved". Usually citing the mythical "child murder" moment in Europe - "mythical" because it has become a powerful myth, not "fictional".

    To be honest, I can't see which is the best approach, but then again, I'm not a cycle evangelist (although I may at times be a cycling evangelist!)

    Robert

    Posted 13 years ago #
  2. wingpig
    Member

    @Iseewhatyou'retryingtodothere,butIwouldn't
    bedoinganythingwarrantingpoliceintervention,
    soyourattemptedcombinationofthelabelwithmyuser-name,whilstterriblyamusing,isinvalid Assuming that you were excluding various country-inhabitants such as those too young to understand traffic signals and those who genuinely think that road signs and signals only apply to motor vehicles but being willing to gather fresh data, I watched a popular road junction at lunchtime, though gave it four minutes rather than thirty seconds in order to see the full sequence. I have summarised the inferences about the lights' instructions which were able to be drawn from various vehicles' behaviours in this flowchart:

    There are probably variations, such as the RLJ-ing cyclists' "proceed across anyway, but hunch the shoulders slightly to pretend you're invisible" technique, but no-one did that in this instance.

    The wait time at purely pedestrian crossings isn't much. A light-controlled junction could conceivably introduce a 'delay' of a couple of minutes (if there are a couple of other directions of traffic to be signalled through as well as a short pedestrian phase) but I find it's easier and less stressy just to wait for the green rather than introduce an extra re-joining-the-traffic event after scampering across potentially live traffic streams (where it's not possible to saunter across on the pedestrian phase and then re-mount and head off before traffic starts steaming past again).

    Posted 13 years ago #
  3. Dave
    Member

    @etc.etc.etc. - that was actually a typo (possibly freudian though!) I had to go and look back on the previous page to understand what you were talking about. Oops!

    Can't see your media at work, so I'll not try to reply just now, except to say that I've found great success with just walking across on the pedestrian phase. Very impressed with the dedication to do a field test, so I'll match your pioneering spirit by timing the sequences on the way home, and we can see. :)

    Posted 13 years ago #
  4. wingpig
    Member

    Walking across a ped phase is fine. 'Shooting' it, assuming that means rolling across it, is not.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  5. Dave
    Member

    I don't think anyone other than cyclists who've buffed up on their law, knows there's a difference though. I fully expect everyone else who sees me walk across gets just as annoyed as if I'd ridden through!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  6. Instography
    Member

    I can see why The Times' campaign is unsatisfactory if what you're expecting of them is to argue two things: that the conditions in which people are being asked to cycle is sufficiently dangerous to justify intervention, particularly in the form of expensive segregated infrastructure, while simultaneously arguing that cycling is great fun and certainly safe enough to be enjoyed by the bulk of the population.

    I doubt there was anyone on the brink of going out and buying a bicycle, thinking that cycling was all sunshine and country lanes, who opened up their Times and were horrified to find that cycling is actually way more dangerous than they thought.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    LOTS of personal stories here -

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3314591.ece#tab-5

    Posted 13 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    "Letter from From Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State Norman Baker MP and Mike Penning MP"

    "
    We are writing to let you know the action the Coalition Government is taking both to promote cycling and to improve safety for cyclists, and to ask for your help at the local level to further these aims.

    Cycling has risen up the political agenda in recent weeks, not least due to the excellent campaign run by The Times, and we are keen to seize the moment to make good progress on a number of fronts

    "

    Full text - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3334735.ece

    Posted 13 years ago #
  9. Roibeard
    Member

    The letter is indeed disappointing. The government essentially washing its hands of the issue and saying "it's a local government matter". Which will result in local government saying, "we can't afford it, because Westminster have cut our funding".

    Hence, status quo, with the MPs assured of the cyclist vote come election time.

    Robert the Cynic

    Posted 13 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    "The government essentially washing its hands of the issue and saying "it's a local government matter""

    Pretty much the same in Scotland.

    Also still seen largely as a 'transport issue'.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin