Yet we are pleased to see that the BBC came out on our side, with a report on Bristol.
Yes, it lights our bollards up. We see someone wearing a helmet and hi-viz to cycle along the segregated bit of Prince Street Bridge, the one where the only vehicle likely to hit you is a boat if you ignore the "bridge swing" signs -although there is always the ice cream van at the end.
Later on, we see the BBC Bollard Man on Park Row, where he then faults someone for not having lights on as they approach the centre. At that point you can be sure the reporter isn't local -if he were he'd fault her for trying to cycle over the centre with the goal of reaching the other end alive, though she may be appearing to turn right to head towards the Watershed. Either way: in need of criticism.
We also liked the viewer's emails to back up the theme that the real problems are the people trying to cycle round our city, with both the classic evening post comment themes surfacing
- Taxpayers money is wasted on cycle paths unless they are made to use them.
- Why don't cyclists stop at crossings?
Congratulations to the BBC to standing up to this menance, not considering whether the infamous Magnatom did actually have a helmet, bright clothing and the right of way when that HGV lorry nearly ran him over.
I did indeed have a helmet, two bright lights and a hi-vis on the day of my HGV incident. However, it was my fault entirely.
ReplyDeleteI was on a bike. Sorry BBC.
I'd like to know why I, as a cyclist, have to stop the flow of traffic at zebra crossings to let pedestrians to cross. I've found that it doesn't matter whether you wear a reflective jacket, drivers will still not see you and will still overtake when there isn't enough space.
ReplyDelete@Shaun: if you look at our "Zebras Belong in Zoos" campaign we consider that all tax-paying traffic should be exempt from the (outdated) zebra crossing rules. It's another of those bits of needless signage.
ReplyDeleteThat said, apparently some pedestrians have issues with bicycles running crossings (including pelican/toucan crossings) is that these are the only places/times that they feel safe to cross the road. If bicycles go through on red, especially when they have children and push chairs, it doesn't help.
We think: why are they pushing and walking their children anyway?
I think that, as traffic lights were designed for cars, we should have all cycling access to them completely blocked off. If they aren't designed for cyclists then they should have access to them.
ReplyDeleteTraffic lights were designed to regulate all road users, be they cars, buses, trucks, cyclists or horse-drawn vehicles and, in my view, should be treated with respect. Many cyclists seem to ignore them though. If pedestrians ignored traffic signalling systems they'd be dead!
ReplyDelete@Radwagon
ReplyDeleteHaving trouble deciphering your meaning.
And surely the only traffic that traffic lights were designed for is pedestrians, no?
Sorry @between-the-lines I think I feel over my words. But here it is better (I hope!).
ReplyDeleteAs traffic lights were designed for cars, we should have all cycling access to them completely blocked off. Bicycles shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them on the road. So no cyclist should be allowed to use a traffic light, as they really ought to pay the road tax to be able to do that.
If they aren't designed for cyclists then they shouldn't have access to them.
*slight tongue in cheek*
Hi RadWagon, thanks, I'm with you now, I think ... sorry, didn't realise you're in Cambridge ;-)
ReplyDeleteYeah, the best thing would be for cyclists to avoid crossings altogether, like grow wings and hop over them, or have retractible pogosticks attached or something.
Or maybe they should just get off and walk round each one?
Maybe each set of traffic lights could get a "Cyclists dismount" sign. Personally I feel we do not see enough of this important message.
ReplyDelete