Barriers on london bridges

[Vorpal]

It's not about cyclists? No, It's clearly about being seen to do something, so it shouldnæt matter if it is at the expense of cyclists. And if we object we are clearly terrorist-supporting-leftist freaks. Because who would object to security measures in the vulnerable moments after a terrorist attack?

Why didn't they put the barriers outside of the cycle lane? It would have the same effect of being seen to do soemthing, and it would actually help to protect cyclists.* I guess maybe that would be a step too far.



*yes, I know that it has other problems, especially for people using wide trikes, trailers, etc.; and also that those lanes can be quite busy, but then they can just revert to the 'cyclists can always use the road' thing

[pwa]

It's not about persecution of cyclists!

It's not about the persecution of cyclists. I doubt a single person involved gave a moment's thought to us. That's the problem.

It's a first response in a situation in which it is thought that something has to be done immediately. If there is a problem with the temporary measures the correct way to deal with it will be for London cycling groups to say something like "We understand why you have done that and we support your aim of protecting people on the pavement, but don't you think a better long term solution would be X, Y or Z, which would work better for cyclists?" This is a time for patience, cooperation and solidarity.

[Tangled Metal]

It's not about persecution of cyclists!

It's not about the persecution of cyclists. I doubt a single person involved gave a moment's thought to us. That's the problem.

It's a first response in a situation in which it is thought that something has to be done immediately. If there is a problem with the temporary measures the correct way to deal with it will be for London cycling groups to say something like "We understand why you have done that and we support your aim of protecting people on the pavement, but don't you think a better long term solution would be X, Y or Z, which would work better for cyclists?" This is a time for patience, cooperation and solidarity.

+1

It's a knee jerk reaction one incident too late but it's still better than nothing. A first iteration while they work out a permanent design with the relevant stakeholders (nice Blairite Labour term for you). Cycling groups are likely to be among those stakeholders.

[The utility cyclist]

Is it obligatory for a cyclist to have a persecution complex to post on this forum?

It's a barrier put up on a prominent London bridge that's been a target of the same type of terrorism that said barrier would stop. It was put up to stop another attack. I'm ok with that and not blind because of that. It wasn't put up to restrict cyclists but as a security measure. Should they have considered cyclists? Well obviously yes but if that leads to delay then better to get any barrier up then work out a better solution long term.

It's not about persecution of cyclists!

PS usual suspects making the same sort of persecution narrative. I wonder what they'd be like if they actually suffered persecution?!!

you are absolutely sure 100% it would stop another attack and no casualties? Not that whoever is behind this is dumb enough to want to aim precisely there but south of the bridge gets busy and is an easy target, you should go tell the authorities they need barriers there too! It's worse than nothing because now it endangers others, you know that group that the majority have as much contempt for on a par not shy of those commiting the crimes.

Get off and walk is the cry among more explicit hate crime language, so this IS persecution of an 'out' group, no other group has been put in more danger, no other group is told to stop how they are travelling, no other group is singled out with hate speech and death threats/threats of violence because some spoke out against the increase in danger. Yep, nothing to see here

PS usual suspects making the same sort of naive/clueless comments, (thinking it's a 'security' measure ) I wonder what they'd be like if they actually woke up and realised what's happening.

[Tangled Metal]

There's no guarantees with terrorism. Even after the good Friday agreement there were terrorist bombs and shootings. It's an.immediate action that should have been put in place after the first instance. By now they should have the second, more considered iteration of this barrier. They're late on the case and no doubt bureaucracy will delay a better, more user friendly option.

The correct.action IMHO would have been to put these up after the first case of this style of terrorism at that location. By now they should have assessed its impact, consulted with stakeholders and as a consequence be installing mark 2 barrier solution.

There fact it's there in this current, probably temporary form isn't evidence of any conspiracy or hate crime against cyclists. That's your imagination. Suggesting that walking your bike over the bridge if you're not happy riding is pragmatism not hate crime of an out group.

BTW any deaths or accidents on the bridge since the installation? Evidence led paranoia is better than what you've got!

[mjr]

There fact it's there in this current, probably temporary form isn't evidence of any conspiracy or hate crime against cyclists. That's your imagination.

Was there any reason for this current, probably temporary form to be placed blocking the cycle track rather than protecting it?

Given the publicised examples of people pushing the past and current mayors to remove that section of track, it doesn't take much imagination to suspect that this was a way of exploiting terrorism to remove it.

Suggesting that walking your bike over the bridge if you're not happy riding is pragmatism not hate crime of an out group.

It's not pragmatism - it's discrimination against anyone who can't walk over the bridge pushing their bike, aka some disabled cyclists. I don't know whether that's a hate crime or not, but it seems pretty evil.

BTW any deaths or accidents on the bridge since the installation? Evidence led paranoia is better than what you've got!

No further deaths AFAIK but how can we know about injuries until months later when the casualty data is published? Do you have any evidence that there haven't been any injuries in that area?

[pwa]

There fact it's there in this current, probably temporary form isn't evidence of any conspiracy or hate crime against cyclists. That's your imagination.

Was there any reason for this current, probably temporary form to be placed blocking the cycle track rather than protecting it?

Given the publicised examples of people pushing the past and current mayors to remove that section of track, it doesn't take much imagination to suspect that this was a way of exploiting terrorism to remove it.

Suggesting that walking your bike over the bridge if you're not happy riding is pragmatism not hate crime of an out group.

It's not pragmatism - it's discrimination against anyone who can't walk over the bridge pushing their bike, aka some disabled cyclists. I don't know whether that's a hate crime or not, but it seems pretty evil.

BTW any deaths or accidents on the bridge since the installation? Evidence led paranoia is better than what you've got!

No further deaths AFAIK but how can we know about injuries until months later when the casualty data is published? Do you have any evidence that there haven't been any injuries in that area?

Given that they are still pulling bodies out of the Thames today, I think it would be better if you give them a little slack at the moment and take more interest in whatever permanent measures they propose when the dust has settled.

[Tangled Metal]

We can't allow body recovery to get in the way of a good cyclist's whine about cycling provisions and hysterical rant about hate crimes just because they put up barriers. Any opportunity for that must be taken!

However, pwa I get your point about discussions concerning barriers and cycling provision should be conducted after the dust has settled and all victims have been recovered, mourned and buried. Sensitivity is not my strong point and not that of a few others I'd wager.

[mjr]

There fact it's there in this current, probably temporary form isn't evidence of any conspiracy or hate crime against cyclists. That's your imagination.

Was there any reason for this current, probably temporary form to be placed blocking the cycle track rather than protecting it?

Given the publicised examples of people pushing the past and current mayors to remove that section of track, it doesn't take much imagination to suspect that this was a way of exploiting terrorism to remove it.

Given that they are still pulling bodies out of the Thames today, I think it would be better if you give them a little slack at the moment and take more interest in whatever permanent measures they propose when the dust has settled.

Thank you for the great example of how "exploiting terrorism" works. I rather doubt that the highways officers of Westminster Council and TfL are pulling bodies out of the Thames.

I don't know how much those who don't ride in London know or care, but it took us a lot of protests and funerals to get protected space for cycling there, finally of a half-decent standard, and now the flagship route is under attack, effectively punishing cyclists for the evil deeds of motorist terrorists. I think it would be better if cyclists from around the country showed solidarity with those in London, rather than telling them to shut up for arbitrary lengths of time and "give [government] a little slack"!

[pwa]

Was there any reason for this current, probably temporary form to be placed blocking the cycle track rather than protecting it?

Given the publicised examples of people pushing the past and current mayors to remove that section of track, it doesn't take much imagination to suspect that this was a way of exploiting terrorism to remove it.

Given that they are still pulling bodies out of the Thames today, I think it would be better if you give them a little slack at the moment and take more interest in whatever permanent measures they propose when the dust has settled.

Thank you for the great example of how "exploiting terrorism" works. I rather doubt that the highways officers of Westminster Council and TfL are pulling bodies out of the Thames.

I don't know how much those who don't ride in London know or care, but it took us a lot of protests and funerals to get protected space for cycling there, finally of a half-decent standard, and now the flagship route is under attack, effectively punishing cyclists for the evil deeds of motorist terrorists. I think it would be better if cyclists from around the country showed solidarity with those in London, rather than telling them to shut up for arbitrary lengths of time and "give [government] a little slack"!

I suggest you go there, right now, with a placard and let folk know what you think. Let's see how that pans out.

[bovlomov]

I suggest you go there, right now, with a placard and let folk know what you think. Let's see how that pans out.

We know that if you go anywhere in the country at any time, with a placard supporting the rights of cyclists, you will mostly get a hostile reception. That's no guide to the merits of the case.

[pwa]

I suggest you go there, right now, with a placard and let folk know what you think. Let's see how that pans out.

We know that if you go anywhere in the country at any time, with a placard supporting the rights of cyclists, you will mostly get a hostile reception. That's no guide to the merits of the case.

Imagine what would happen if you tried that on London Bridge today. You would be greeted with dismay and disbelief if you were lucky, and anger if you weren't. Now is not the time to talk about cycling rights in that location. I'm not saying never. Just not now.

[mjr]

I suggest you go there, right now, with a placard and let folk know what you think. Let's see how that pans out.

We know that if you go anywhere in the country at any time, with a placard supporting the rights of cyclists, you will mostly get a hostile reception. That's no guide to the merits of the case.

Imagine what would happen if you tried that on London Bridge today. You would be greeted with dismay and disbelief if you were lucky, and anger if you weren't. Now is not the time to talk about cycling rights in that location. I'm not saying never. Just not now.

I know you don't ride in London much, but Westminster Bridge (which is the one I really object to having blocked), Waterloo Bridge and Lambeth Bridge are not London Bridge. Maybe only Blackfriars Bridge would be a bigger loss.

A cyclist has been injured this morning in a collision with a white van ignoring the road closure at Bank. Shall we not mention that either because terrorism?

Some commentators have expressed surprise that a van driver ignoring a road closure in the heart of the City of London wasn't stopped abruptly by armed police. I'm not surprised. The barriers in a few isolated spots are for show and there's still very little to stop future attacks with motor vehicles, whether motivated by terrorism or simple selfishness.

[mjr]

And for context, here's an image from a tweet showing the barrier that could obviously have been placed a few metres out from the kerb and served two purposes. The white line you can just see next to the barrier is a substandard cycle lane which is now even narrower... but I bet there will still be motorists telling cyclists to use it!

[mjr]

And I trust you're also using your best green ink to write to the letters page of the Telegraph telling them that they should shut up because terrorism: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/feature ... iers-much/