CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"I'm not trying to compare cars with bikes in term of potential danger, but rather breaking a rule is breaking a rule whether in a car, or on a bike, and we ALL do it."
Wouldn't disagree, but, as asked above, does that mean that all bikes should be fitted with speedos, and therefore have to have regular checks on the calibration etc.? And if people don't have a speedo and so ride at a 'reasonable speed' who determines what 'reasonable' is?
How about implementing cycle counters (improved stats, as we've requested), that also display your speed through a contentious path? That way the cyclists could get a feel for their speed on that path, and could be encouraged to moderate it, perhaps.
Robert
Thinking about the question "Are "Real Cyclists" the enemy?"
No. No they're not. Read the comments on the EEN POP article if you want to label any group of people with a word as strong as "enemy".
I'd label the EEN commenters as broadly "normal", although they are at a fringe, in the same way that we are at a fringe relative to the majority of cyclists who just use bikes to get about, and don't breathe them every hour over the internet ;-)
Baldcyclist nails it with "And as controversial as it may sound, we as cyclists are exactly the same as motorists in that we are only prepared to adhere to the rules which we don't find silly. That limit on the bridge is silly, lets not bother!"
I don't find this controversial at all, rather it's just common sense. Why do people do X? Because the risk is less than the reward (for both drivers and cyclists). The same applies to all road behaviour. Why do drivers jump red lights? Because the risk justifies the reward. Same for cyclists going through red lights, but because the risk is much less and the reward much greater, more do it.
"No. No they're not. Read the comments on the EEN POP article if you want to label any group of people with a word as strong as "enemy". "
Yep, there is an awful lot of hatred being directed at cyclists who do NOT wear helmets and/or hi-viz.
Mainly by people who complain about speed cameras and admit to breaking the 70 limit, what bastions of decency and moral rectitude...
Yep, there is an awful lot of hatred being directed at cyclists who do NOT wear helmets and/or hi-viz.
Eyes open - I think there'd be just as much hatred if all cyclists wore helmets and hi-viz and kept on the road and stopped at red lights. Prejudice doesn't require rational reasoning, only excuses...
"Prejudice doesn't require rational reasoning"
Too true.
Arne - 'Enemy' - its far too strong a word to relate to something as relaxing and mood enhancing as cycling.
These comments on the EEN site beggar belief (except those from our own forumites) but I suspect that some are done to provoke reaction.
Some cyclists are daft, some take chances with their personal safety - but then again, so do car/van/bus/truck drivers. I dont run red lights on the bike deliberately, but I have got 3 points for doing it in my car in error - thats life, we all make mistakes.
p.s. You may think you are getting a hard time - but you are not, its just that there are a lot of opinions on here.
As mentioned earlier - come to a coffee meet if you want a laugh - and a gander at a variety of bikes / bars / beards and clobber.
Today I wore chinos and tucked them into my gentleman's half hose. If the sign saying leith 9 miles was to be believed when I accessed the roseburn path is to believed I then went at 27mph for the next 20mins. This included slowwing down for three legged and four legged dogs and resisting the finish line created by dog walker who accidentally let the leash out instead of pulling the dog in. I always ding a bell,m say I am passing you onLHS/RHS, slow down, thanks pedestrians for taking notice etc.
I do all this when in Lycra or civvies. It isn't the clothing someone chooses to wear that makes them inconsiderate.
Also has nosebleed all through meeting I was racing to get to.
Should point out that the Leith 9 miles sign is about 5 miles out.
Previously discussed -
"Engaging with the enemy"
"
cyclistsinthecity (@citycyclists)
3/14/12 7:55 AM
Well put: 'cyclists should not be judged as a group. Cyclists are a cross-section of society, as are motorists'
http://cycalogical.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-red-light-jumpers.html
Nelly, ta for the invite and thanks for taking the time to address the topic. Three observations:
on balance I think the bike is still the best way to travel, but "something as relaxing and mood enhancing as cycling" is not a description I would recognise from passing through the centre off Edinburgh twice a day.
"I don't run red lights on the bike deliberately, but I have got 3 points for doing it in my car in error - thats life, we all make mistakes" The difference is that by doing it in a car, somebody else is likely to suffer the consequences of your mistake.
"These comments on the EEN site beggar belief.."
It's great to exchange views with (largely) like-minded people, but this is a self-selected group. Talk to some people in the non-cycling/non-Morningside world. The views reflected on the EEN website are sadly the norm (which I think was what Dave said earlier): Cyclists & the trams would appear to be the twin bete-noirs of most Edinburgers.
"The views reflected on the EEN website are sadly the norm (which I think was what Dave said earlier): Cyclists & the trams would appear to be the twin bete-noirs of most Edinburgers."
Nail. Hit. Head.
Mind you, this is spot on as well "... on balance I think the bike is still the best way to travel"
Which I guess is why we, you included, still do it despite the hassle and the aggro and the poor infrastructure provision.
I'm getting a brilliant direct comparison at the moment with having to drive my wife to work (recovering from a broken leg) then riding from her work to mine (and the reverse in the evening of course). Seeing Edinburgh's roads from the saddle and behind the wheel on the same day, at virtually the same time, and so in the same traffic.
The car is easily the most stressful bit of the commute.
I think the commenters on the EEN are a self selected group too, or just that one person talking to himself with lots of different handles. We shouldn't read them, especially if the editorial line is shifting to pro-cycling.
I think most people are against the trams and it is a fiasco but nearly everyone, even in Edinburgh, will love them when they run. [in 2020]. This is the trajectory of all other modern tram developments I am aware of. People's attitudes change through behaviour [not the other way round - e.g. bus desegregation in 1960s USA].
There is a knee jerk reaction to cyclists that is linked to the zeitgeist
but most people seem happy to engage in friendly debate about cycling once over the initial objections to RLJ/pavement hopping. I go for "Yeah, that is bad but you should see what it is like in London, still quite civilised up here in comparison"
The car is easily the most stressful bit of the commute.
I've taken to walking the bairn to nursery to avoid the 3 miles of nose to tail traffic driving him involves. It only really adds ten minutes though first thing those ten minutes are quite valuable. Once i get the mtb fixed this will be much simpler.
I enjoy being an absolute b***ard when I have to drive in town, in a completely legal way obviously.
Buses are the exception, I feel a moral obligation to let them out at any cost to myself. But there is definitely a little bit of nasty in me that thinks "bet you WISH I was on my bike now, enjoy sitting at the lights!" as I refuse to make space with my car for another motorist who's trying their luck.
"The views reflected on the EEN website are sadly the norm (which I think was what Dave said earlier):"
Except that they claim they hate cyclists who not not wear hi-viz and helmets whereas you claim that people hate cyclists who do wear it.
Which is it?
"The views reflected on the EEN website are sadly the norm (which I think was what Dave said earlier): Cyclists & the trams would appear to be the twin bete-noirs of most Edinburgers."
The question is, accepting that cyclists are an even cross-section of society and beyond control (in the same way as "all drivers" or "all black people" or "all Christians" - other groups of unrelated but linked people are available for analogy), what should be done?
Personally I think the only answer is to increase cycle participation until people look at pavement cycling or red light jumping by cyclists in the same way as they look at it by drivers - something they'd prefer not to happen, but something they probably do themselves, and so moan about when it gets enforced :P
There is no way to stop people doing it and it's worse than useless to accept the blame for random strangers' actions on behalf of yourself and other random strangers, as cyclists are so wont to do.
You might be onto something there Dave. Time I've spent in France and Italy, where cycling is more prevalent, but in some cases only just, you'd see people on the pavement a lot - probably more than here. And there never seemed to be any aggro.
That said... I've never actually seen someone complaining to a cyclist about them riding on the pavement here. Running red lights yes (in fact I shouted at a cyclist this morning who did it), but not pavement riding. That seems to be kept back to then complain down the pub or in the newspaper.
Certainly living in Lyon for a year I didn't hear or read a single complaint about cyclists. And that was 16 years ago now, before they got their Velo'V bike hire scheme (before the Velib as it happens).
"Well put: 'cyclists should not be judged as a group. Cyclists are a cross-section of society, as are motorists'
http://cycalogical.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-red-light-jumpers.html "
Excellent link, highly recommended.
I'm not in the habit of "accepting the blame for random strangers' actions on behalf of myself and other random strangers" but it's reasonable to be concerned that someone else's behaviour might be partially attributed to or expected of me through some sort of group-identification process, be it the use a cycle or possession of a double-glazed window. I'm not imagining that pedestrians often wait warily until I've come to a complete stop at crossings before crossing, and have seen someone (other than me) complain at someone for cycling on the pavement.
Anyone seen this?
http://www.bicyclelaw.com/news/n.cfm/paris-green-lights-trial-to-allow-red-light-jumping-cyclists
@Dave 'should not be' but are
@Anth, I suspect it depends on where you live. I've now given up doing anyhting but muttering 'twunt' as they speed past on the pavement, and if I am with my kids I put myself physically in the way, while making it clear that I'm not moving. It's like arguing on the EEN website with the hard of thinking to try and take them on in debate, but I think of them every time a driver does something intentionally stupid.
'Are' perhaps; but don't accept it - it's simple enough.
What I'm trying to argue against isn't that some angry driver won't be wound up by a cyclist committing some infraction (red light, pavement, filtering past in a cycle lane, not wearing a helmet or hi-viz or having daytime running lights, having lights that flash or are too bright, etc. etc.) because I'm sure *all of those things* do wind up some people.
What frustrates me is that instead of objecting about the people who are prejudiced against us, we object about the people who (allegedly) provoke the prejudice.
I don't hate people who jump red lights, I hate people who are stupid enough to attack a cross-section of society based on the actions of some people in that society. But hardly anyone says that, they complain about pavement cyclists like it would actually make any difference if they were all on the road.
Naturally I exclude present company. But put it this way - in the last four years I've never seen someone ride on the pavement in our estate but people will still bend my ear about it... they're just complaining about bikes really.
"...instead of..."
As well as.
"...instead of..."
As well as.
Wot wingpig said. I'll continue doing both. In one case I'm protesting at people carrying out an illegal act (in the same way I'll complain about drivers speeding or on their mobile); in the other I'm protesting about the blinkered views of some and attribution of that illegal act to me simply because I use the same transport.
"The question is, accepting that cyclists are an even cross-section of society and beyond control.....what should be done?"
That is just it: we, as cyclists, aren't an even cross section of society. If we were, there wouldn't be a problem. There are plenty of places (previously mentioned) where this is the case, but Edinburgh isn't one of them. We engage in cycling as a lifestyle choice, rather than it being the default norm in our society. If the bloke up the road's Mum/brother/wife/boss/golf buddy rode a bike regularly he mightn't be so bike-blind when he headed off to Sainsburys in his car.
What should be done is to get as many normal people on bikes as possible for the mundane everyday journeys. Road pricing, cheap trams, speed bumps, all the usual suspects.
This thread seems pertinent to the discussion here:
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5685
Especially the report on drivers' perceptions of cyclists that Instography linked to.
The in group/out group situation has been discussed on this forum a number of times. This report confirms that the situation appears to be very real.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts