Cyclists last night warned Oxford’s Frides-wide Square would become a death trap if new plans go ahead.Oh noes! Disaster!
Neither of the two final options for the congested square’s revamp include any cycle lanes.
Cycle campaign group Cyclox last night branded the plans “shocking” and “dangerous”.Hmmm, it’s only ‘world class’ if it includes cycle lanes? Really?
Cyclox member Dan Levy said: “This is a missed opportunity to create a world-class entry to the city.”
Cyclox vice-chairman Richard Mann said: “We were shocked when we saw the plans. We talked to the council a year ago about how the designs could be improved and it’s been ignored.”Awwww, and you thought you were special. Well, welcome to the real world, sunshine. Out here, everyone gets ignored.
“They don’t appear to have thought through how they would make the square safer for cycling at all.Who wants to make cycling ‘the normal mode of transport in Oxford’..?
“And if we want to make cycling the normal mode of transport in Oxford, that’s not good enough.”
Oxfordshire County Council cabinet member for transport Rodney Rose said the idea behind the square was to create a “shared space” scheme, where everyone used the road equally, negating the need for cycle lanes.Ahh, yes. The very scheme we have here in Southend. And which has just been introduced in London.
And which cyclists are supposed to prefer, aren’t they?
The comments, as ever, are rather interesting. Oh, yes, there’s plenty of cycling diehards, but some common sense too:
Gunslinger says...Indeed. It’d be a mistake to assume that Cyclox speak for all cyclists, too:
“And if we want to make cycling the normal mode of transport in Oxford, that’s not good enough.”
Who are the "we"? Even the city council are only aiming for 25% of journeys to be made by cycle.
It's about time more consideration was given to the reasonable needs of ALL road users, and less attention paid to the self-justifying spokesmen of interest groups.
eatmygoal says...Well said!
Speaking as a cyclist (as well as motorist, pedestrian etc) I don't see how we (cyclists) can begin to expect others to prioritise our needs over others until we prioritise and take responsibility for our own safety. Or insist on legislation that orders it!
On my way to work I am in the tiny minority wearing a helmet, reflective clothing and lights. Why should other cyclists expect others to consider their safety when they don't themselves?
We should insist that helmets and reflective clothing are made a legal requirement, that bikes can only be sold with fixed non removable lights, that we pay a nominal road tax. And that is just to start.
Then, and only then, can we start making demands on authorities and other road users to take our demands seriously.
Think about cars - would drivers dream of not wearing a seatbelt these days? Would you buy a car without lights? Is it acceptable to take to the road without tax? Of course not - that is why they are taken seriously.
If Cyclox started campaigning for law changes to force cyclists to be safe, I might join. At present they just seem like yet another 'woe is me - everybody should put me first before I do anything to help myself' campaign group.
Rant over - just off to don my helmet, reflective vest and cycle across the city not undertaking, cutting over pavements, jumping red lights etc.
Perhaps, if more cyclists had his attitude, and fewer had the attitude expressed by the pressure group spokesmen, there'd be less animosity?
11 comments:
Lights, yes, hi-vis clothing, these days certainly. Helmets though, no.
Study after study has shown they make riding more dangerous rather than less. Counter-intuitive, I know but nevertheless true. Futhermore laws forcing all to wear helmets is something even non-cyclists should be against as before you know it this will be expanded to all road users and then pedestrians. Just ask the smokers and drinks how that goes.
As to a "nominal" road tax, how much more is this going to cost to enforce and collect? The last thing this country needs is yet another army of over-paid paper-shufflers.
I have agree that spending ridiculous amounts of money to favour one group of road users over another is daft, so I'm with you on that one, Julia.
Quick read of your posts this morning seems to show that there is an enormous industry funded by us the taxpayers in respect of minority interests that the majority either have no interest in or seethe with anger when it comes to the fore. Surveys, Reports, Enquiries (judge led - Juducial - or otherwise), Commissions; all of which seek to deflect blame from criminal scum or seek to fund state victimhood amongst wailing minority groups or impose policies on the majority who simply just want to get on with their lives without falling into debt or losing their jobs etc. It is all so fucking tiresome.
I'm fed up with Lycra-clad pillocks barrelling through red lights while pedestrians are crossing the road.
The other evening one berk came tearing along and shouted 'Bike! Bike!' to get the people crossing the road to scatter.
This seems to happen a lot in London. And if it's not up-their-own-backside meeja types then it's young vibrants making a nuisance of themselves peddling along on the pavements, or slinging their bikes onto the ground into front of shop doorways.
Sad old country when something as seemingly useful and innocuous as the bicycle can become a source of frequent irritation.
It's odd how the gentle pursuit of cycling has morphed into an aggressive statement of eco-warrior membership.
And I'm deeply suspicious about the proclivities of the guys in their unfeasibly tight lycra outfits and special cyclists shades, all topped off, in rather surreal fashion, with what appears to be a hand of bananas on their heads. Like something out of "Clockwork Orange".
I mean, really, how can you take guys like these seriously? Good Lord! The puritan banmeisters should look no further!
When I was a cyclist in UK, I was the very antithesis of the lycra-louts, having bought my bicycle purely for the purpose of cycling to and from the pub. Not for me the steely gaze, the girly sunglasses and the bunch of bananas, (not to mention the indecent exposure).
No siree, weaving unsteadily at a sedate pace wearing baggy corduroy trousers and no hat was more my style.
the day bike helmets become compulsory, my trouser clips go in the bucket
I am afraid that the arguments for and against cyclists will never be resolved.
It's clear that ninety per cent of pedestrians and motorists hate the selfish eco-warriors who blatantly ignore the rules of the road, and the remaining ten per cent of people want cyclists banned for being so obnoxious and surly in their anti-social activities. So we will continue to argue which view of them is correct.
I have to agree with Jiks and Kirk.
Compulsory helmets will make me ditch the bike.
I was once told that the Western Australian government, in a rare moment of good sense for any administration, ditched compulsory helmets when they discovered that the number of middle aged cyclists plummeted.
Older blokes didn't want to look like twits I suppose.
"Study after study has shown they make riding more dangerous rather than less. Counter-intuitive, I know but nevertheless true. "
I've seen that mentioned in several articles on cycling. But...why doesn't the same thing hold true for motorcycling?
Or....does it?
"...there is an enormous industry funded by us the taxpayers in respect of minority interests that the majority either have no interest in or seethe with anger when it comes to the fore."
Yup! It's just one massive job-creation scheme for the children of the political classes and their favoured minority group leaders.
"The other evening one berk came tearing along and shouted 'Bike! Bike!' to get the people crossing the road to scatter. "
Grrrrr! How tempting to shout 'Umbrella!' before sticking it in his spokes, though ;)
"It's odd how the gentle pursuit of cycling has morphed into an aggressive statement of eco-warrior membership. "
Quite! Maybe this started with the aggressive couriers in major towns?
"I am afraid that the arguments for and against cyclists will never be resolved. "
Along with Catholics v Protestants, Arabs v Jews, and West Ham v everyone else... ;)
"Study after study has shown they make riding more dangerous rather than less. Counter-intuitive, I know but nevertheless true. "
I've seen that mentioned in several articles on cycling. But...why doesn't the same thing hold true for motorcycling?
Or....does it?
I have read (can't remember where, so no link I'm afraid) that motorcycle helmets can have a protective role at below 30mph, but once above that speed the protection of the skull in an accident is offset by trauma to the neck and spine. Basically, helmet or no helmet, if you have an accident on a motorbike at high speed, your fate is in the lap of the gods.
I have always found a well aimed walking stick, directed at the front spokes, a reliable deterrent to a cry of "bike bike"
Post a Comment