MP accuses council of creating "Battle Royale" over cycle lanes after angry motorist drives over wands; Unicycle commuting; Prolific bike thief banned from station cycle parking; 38 million unused bikes; Active travel boost + more on the live blog

It has been covered in previous articles that the barriers were to stop cyclists from going down the normal route as they have to divert the pavement and make it peds only due to the size. However it seems the Uni only decided to do the barriers and the no cyclists sign and not the more helpful "Cyclists join carriageway" sign they promised is there, honest guv.

Whilst I suspect you are right, the banning order at least allows the Police or security to arrest the man if they do see him around as without the order, they couldn't do anything unless he actually stole another bike. 

Mungecrundle wrote:

Is the MP suggesting that we base policy decisions on which side of the argument can gather the most persuasive angry mob?

Well, it worked for Bre***, didn't it?

Hasn't worked since though...

You've read the car crashes into building thread in the forum ?

It's bad enough riding these often narrow constrained bollard lanes thinking theres a steel pole hidden in the plastic cover (other bollards may vary in design,but ours definitely do) ready to impale me if I fall into them, I really dont want my knees to be near things made of concrete or metal

Yes, it was Tim Vine with the funniest joke of the Edinburgh Fringe 2014. I did include a link.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

"It has sucked in residents who have no interest in a public fight. They ... now feel the need to enter battle riled, angry and feeling like victims. 

I feel that some of his contituents are maybe taking their driving (or their parking) a bit too seriously...

Well, one of them anyway.  I wonder if this people's representative makes all his decisions based on the single idiot he sees physically destroying what the rest want?  I had to check that he wasn't a tory, but is there much difference now?

brooksby wrote:

I'm of the opinion that the bendy wands used by many councils (I'm looking at you, Bristol City Council!) need to be replaced by rigid concete or metal posts/bollards.

Like these ones?
"A cyclist needed surgery after breaking his elbow when he fell onto the concrete base of a bollard brought in as part of Edinburgh’s Spaces for People scheme."
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-cyclist-...

Bristol tried using concrete "tombstones" along Clarence Rd (by the river) but took them out due to the number of cars driving into them.

More details here: http://bristol.mag-uk.org/Tombstones.htm

That Labour MP is an utter cockwomble. If you're cycling along in a cycle lane and a motorist starts acting aggressively, why on earth would you blame the cycling facilities for that? It's like blaming ethnic groups for the violence carried out by the KKK.

I'd like to see some monitoring cams put up to protect the flexy-bollards and anyone caught deliberately knocking them down gets a one year driving ban.

Yup: I remember those concrete things, hawkinspeter <face-palm>  There's a wonderful photo on the internet somewhere of somebody's car marooned on top of one, IIRC.

I guess I'm trying to think my way around what to do to actually protect the cycle lanes short of laying proper kerbs (which (1) councils cannot afford to do, and (2) we know also don't really work because scaffolders park in them).

Clearly, the wobbly plastic ones don't work.

Clearly, concrete tombstones don't work.

(and Sriracha has brought up failings in having steel rebar down the middle of the plastic ones).

So what do we do?

Lines of tethered kittens? (because nobody would drive over a tethered kitten)

Horses?(because motorists seem to give them more room than they do cyclists).

It's difficult.. whatever solution, it won't suit everyone; like the steel cables used to separate high speed roadways, to prevent motor vehicles that lose control from running into oncoming traffic, which are very bad for motorcyclists that crash into the cables.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Bristol tried using concrete "tombstones" along Clarence Rd (by the river) but took them out due to the number of cars driving into them.

That doesn't seem like a reason to remove them. It seems like an excellent way to take people who probably shouldn't be driving in the first place off the roads, at least temporarily.

mdavidford wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Bristol tried using concrete "tombstones" along Clarence Rd (by the river) but took them out due to the number of cars driving into them.

That doesn't seem like a reason to remove them. It seems like an excellent way to take people who probably shouldn't be driving in the first place off the roads, at least temporarily.

I agree, but there's other issues with the "tombstones". The MAG link (which happened to be the best link that I found) cites issues with the height being dangerous for motorcycle's foot pegs and it could easily cause problems for cyclists clipping them with pedals too. The colour isn't a great contrast either and although they have reflective bits on them, they get obscured with road dirt etc.

We don't want road furniture to be dangerous to anyone even if it's drivers being careless though obviously some fixtures have to be a bit more robust (e.g. traffic lights, lamp posts). If there's a problem with deliberate sabotage, then I think that law enforcement is the correct way to deal with it.

EK Spinner wrote:

MP Peter Kyle, seriously, when did you last see a Renault 5, never mind a "souped up" one, any still existing high perormance R5s are now very cherised classics and it would seem very unlikly that the owner would start using it a battering ram.

Start your story with unbelievable rants and the rest is just mince

just another mp who will say anything for votes basically, even though he should've worked out by now the majority of the voting population want this sort of thing at least in Brighton.

He needs to remember the local paper and cab industry is made up of permanently angry gammons who would never, ever vote Labour.

Too many Labour MPs not supporting progressive policies. Absolutely no logic in his argument. It's just covert victim blaming. A driver that is triggered by the site of a cycle lane should not be behind a wheel.  Translate this to another current topic; would he think it okay for a man to get angry with policies introduced to protect women from abuse from men? 

Exactly why I won't be voting Labour.

IanMK wrote:

Too many Labour MPs not supporting progressive policies. Absolutely no logic in his argument. It's just covert victim blaming. A driver that is triggered by the site of a cycle lane should not be behind a wheel.  Translate this to another current topic; would he think it okay for a man to get angry with policies introduced to protect women from abuse from men? 

Exactly why I won't be voting Labour.

The Baroness in question doesn't have an issue with discriminating against men to favour women. This is the usual anti-male knee jerk reaction, and it's ridiculous since men are by far the majority of assault victims. We already have many biased laws targeting men and benefiting women, and this will only get worse while decision making by successive Governments is gyno-centric and anti-male.

Jenova20 wrote:

IanMK wrote:

Too many Labour MPs not supporting progressive policies. Absolutely no logic in his argument. It's just covert victim blaming. A driver that is triggered by the site of a cycle lane should not be behind a wheel.  Translate this to another current topic; would he think it okay for a man to get angry with policies introduced to protect women from abuse from men? 

Exactly why I won't be voting Labour.

The Baroness in question doesn't have an issue with discriminating against men to favour women. This is the usual anti-male knee jerk reaction, and it's ridiculous since men are by far the majority of assault victims. We already have many biased laws targeting men and benefiting women, and this will only get worse while decision making by successive Governments is gyno-centric and anti-male.

you are either on drugs or have a tiny dick. 
 

possibly both.

Please, please tell me you're being sarcastic. 

Jenova20 wrote:

This is the usual anti-male knee jerk reaction, and it's ridiculous since men are by far the majority of assault victims. We already have many biased laws targeting men and benefiting women, and this will only get worse while decision making by successive Governments is gyno-centric and anti-male.

I've not seen recent figures but traditionally yes, young men are the group most likely to be victims of assault. The vast majority of those assaults are carried out by other men.

But that doesn't negate the fact that women are too often being assaulted, raped and murdered by men.

And your comments suggest that you simply have no clue about what it's like to be a lone woman on the street, public transport, anywhere. This twitter thread provides a very revealing perspective that you may be unaware of.

As for biased laws, I can't imagine you're talking about any laws in the UK, a country dominated in so many ways by middle-aged and older white men. You should spend a bit more time outside that male-only cave you've been hiding in.