Groomyd wrote:Unc - thanks for your response - coherent and clear and i see where you're coming from - we wont agree on the bikes are different to cars issue or the how to get things done issue ........ but that goes outside of the topic
However i'm not sure you'd share the same view if you cycled in London - the roads there are really no place for cyclists and the only way to cycle safe is to cycle like a car - out in the traffic and visible. Unlike outside of London you wont slow down traffic for any more than 30 seconds as that is how long it will take to get to the next zebra, lights, tail back or junction and yo will get form A-B in a fraction of the time it takes a car - an hour in a car translates into 20 mins for a bike most of the time - which is why so many do jump lights and so on - take away that and you have a slow mode of transport -
not that i'm justifying the nutters.
Speed of journey is one of the key attractions to cycling and constatntly having to stop and start with the cars is a big disincentive.
I still cant see how all of your concerns are not covered by a zebra crossing
Interesting you share the idea that cyclists should be able to get through a red light and turn left
What do the "its the law - we must not question the law" automatons think about that?
re London, that's not dissimilar to any city. It's certainly a lot faster to cycle across Nottingham in Rush Hour than to drive. The big difference is the length of the rush hour and the sheer number of junctions and crossings in London and the fact that in Nottingham its much easier to find quieter non-arterial routes. Don't think there's any such thing as a quiet route in London. The point about taking the lane and cycling as if you're a car applies anywhere. Even on country lanes where if there's no room to overtake you take the lane (but out of courtesy wave cars past when appropriate).
The main problem with cycling in cities is that (some) cars don't like you being there. I've been shouted at too many times by drivers telling me to get on the pavement, get off the road or get in the bike lane to think that I'm seen as an equal rights road user. That's what I want to achieve, and I believe that part of it is sticking to the rules of the road. I find it difficult to justify on the one hand wanting to be a valid road user and on the other hand not wanting to obey the rules of the road. The red light thing isn't really the crux, but I believe that running them undermines my desire to be seen as part of the traffic.
It is quite good fun setting off the '30' flashing signs though, safely of course
I suppose if I was mainly a commuter, my priority would probably be speed of journey, ease and safety. My main priority is enjoying cycling. I don't mind starting and stopping (OK within reason and I accept that I may have a different view if I lived in London. Not everyone cycles in London though. Other towns, villages and cities are available) and I don't mind doing extra miles to have a more enjoyable ride. I live about 4 miles from the office. My usual commute is 11 miles, the short one is 8 miles and the long one about 40 miles. My regular commute might take 40 minutes if I get unlucky at every junction, or 38 minutes if I sail through. It's not a big deal.
Zebra crossings IMO are different. They're in low(er) traffic areas and users know that they have to watch for traffic. Maybe users of pedestrian lights do have a right to expect a worry free passage. tbh it's not something I've given a lot of thought to though, but in general I think it does my 'cause' more good to stop at all lights (where there's anyone around). In short, I believe that I gain more by stopping than by jumping the lights, or conversely I have more to lose by jumping a light in terms of loss of 'road status' than I have to lose by stopping in terms of time taken to get where I'm going.