Call for a national cycling ban.

mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by mattheus »

Bonefishblues wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 10:28am
mattheus wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 10:23am
Bonefishblues wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 10:17am What might work is for a national cycling charity to reach out to them and work collaboratively to produce better solutions for all.
The best way to produce better solutions for all would be to work with the RNIB.
Yes I agree

I don't know why coalitions/collaborative working don't work (or aren't attempted?) - or maybe this thread is an indication as to why?
The fact that the NFBUK choose to go it alone without the RNIB might be a good indication too.
For more helpful insights, re-watch Life of Brian! :P
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 10:03am I've written to Cycling UK.
They knew already and are considering what to do.

Jonathan
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 12:08am
Carlton green wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 8:09am
Pete Owens wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 2:11am
Quite the opposite - they are calling for cyclists to be banned from the pavements - thus required to cycle in the street. A situation that used to be taken for granted until local authorities started to put up the silly blue signs.
The NFBUK have clarified what they are seeking see JDSK below. My bold. To my mind they appear to be self oriented rather than socially oriented, well that or that they have not understood and chosen their words sufficiently well.
Indeed - and in no way can that be interpreted as seeking to ban cycling in the streets as implied by the OP.
The wording of the press release as issued did indeed call for banning cycling on the streets and even as of now, the page https://www.nfbuk.org/press-release-upd ... nt-living/ still says "7. Put an end to shared spaces, ..."

It might not be what they are really seeking, but "an end to shared spaces" and thereby ending cycling on any street closed to motorists is clearly what they are still calling for. Your beloved modal filters are under threat, as well as the Cycleways Resembling A Pavement we all hate.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Psamathe »

mjr wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 1:35pm
Pete Owens wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 12:08am
Carlton green wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 8:09am

The NFBUK have clarified what they are seeking see JDSK below. My bold. To my mind they appear to be self oriented rather than socially oriented, well that or that they have not understood and chosen their words sufficiently well.
Indeed - and in no way can that be interpreted as seeking to ban cycling in the streets as implied by the OP.
The wording of the press release as issued did indeed call for banning cycling on the streets and even as of now, the page https://www.nfbuk.org/press-release-upd ... nt-living/ still says "7. Put an end to shared spaces, ..."
...
Their point 7 uses interesting wording in "...on our pavements allowing us to move around ... which sort of says that they have ownership of the pavements (i.e. the "our" followed by "us"). A bit like car drivers claiming ownership of the roads?

Ian
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 323
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Sum »

The important bit of that sentence are the words before the bit you've highlighted i.e. this bit; "7. Put an end to shared spaces, clutter, pavement parking & cycling on our pavements allowing us to move around without fear of accident or death." (My bold.)

If cycling in shared spaces is put to an end then the pavement that was once also a shared cycle path belongs entirely to the pedestrian anyway, i.e. "ownership" is effectively claimed regardless whether "our pavement" is used instead of "the pavement". I wouldn't quibble over the use of words such as "us" and "ours", I would focus on the "Put an end to" bit.
User avatar
plancashire
Posts: 535
Joined: 22 Apr 2007, 10:49am
Location: Düsseldorf, Germany

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by plancashire »

If you read the Charity Commission entries for NFBUK and RNIB you will notice that the former is a much smaller charity which focuses on campaigning and has in recent years consistently submitted its accounts late. The RNIB looks like a more representative partner for Cycling UK to me.
I am NOT a cyclist. I enjoy riding a bike for utility, commuting, fitness and touring on tout terrain Rohloff, Brompton M3 and Wester Ross 354 plus a Burley Travoy trailer.
Ron
Posts: 1382
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Ron »

Pete Owens wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 2:11am Quite the opposite - they are calling for cyclists to be banned from the pavements - thus required to cycle in the street.
What I said was correct at the time, the wording has since been amended.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by mjr »

Sum wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 7:59pm If cycling in shared spaces is put to an end then the pavement that was once also a shared cycle path belongs entirely to the pedestrian anyway,
But does it, if it was never a pavement before and it was built as a true cycleway that people were merely allowed to walk on? Surely it should remain a cycleway and pedestrians who won't share would be banned from that section until a pavement is built.
i.e. "ownership" is effectively claimed regardless whether "our pavement" is used instead of "the pavement". I wouldn't quibble over the use of words such as "us" and "ours", I would focus on the "Put an end to" bit.
The "our" is interesting. If pavements belonged to pedestrians and carriageways belonged to motorists, where would all the other road users go?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10977
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Bonefishblues »

mattheus wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 10:51am
Bonefishblues wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 10:28am
mattheus wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 10:23am
The best way to produce better solutions for all would be to work with the RNIB.
Yes I agree

I don't know why coalitions/collaborative working don't work (or aren't attempted?) - or maybe this thread is an indication as to why?
The fact that the NFBUK choose to go it alone without the RNIB might be a good indication too.
For more helpful insights, re-watch Life of Brian! :P
In all seriousness there's a great deal of competition between charities in the same sector, so I can understand a lack of collaboration, but were CUK so minded it could invite them both to the table.
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 323
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Sum »

mjr wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 9:51pmThe "our" is interesting. If pavements belonged to pedestrians and carriageways belonged to motorists, where would all the other road users go?
Hence I would focus on advocating against the NFBUK's call for action by Government to put an end to shared spaces rather than speculate on what they meant by the use of the word "our", the intent of which is explained anyway by their call for action.
But does it, if it was never a pavement before and it was built as a true cycleway that people were merely allowed to walk on?
You'll have to ask the NFBUK if they had your specific example in mind when they made their call for action. They may have had a more general view on pavement cycling.
Surely it should remain a cycleway and pedestrians who won't share would be banned from that section until a pavement is built.
I'm just pointing out the other bits in the same sentence as the word "our" in the NFBUK's call for action by Government to put an end to shared spaces that seem more pertinent. This doesn't mean I agree with it.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Bmblbzzz »

plancashire wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 6:18pm In Germany a fairly common arrangement is separated sharing, where cycling is one side of a line and walking the other. The cycle part is often coloured red and sometimes the edge is marked with a distinct bumpy cobblestone. (Asphalt is rarely used on footways in town.) The sign for this is round blue with a bike and person separated by a vertical blue line. A horizontal line indicates a completely shared space. There's also the pure pedestrian blue sign but with "Fahrrad frei" in white underneath. In this case we are supposed to cycle with attention to pedestrians, and that would mean slowly when there are many about.

The ADFC (German cycling club) views shared spaces and cycle tracks away from the road as problematic because drivers do not see the cyclists near junctions, plus there's the conflict with pedestrians. We have a special case here in Düsseldorf right now with a space that has a cycle way through the middle but little to warn pedestrians staring at their phones to look out.

We have the usual difficulties with bus stops here too.

Maybe we should treat this as another reason to improve cycling infrastructure in UK?
Yes. Not just cycling infrastructure but walking infrastructure too. If people can walk around without obstructions, on pavements that are wide enough, without tripping over A-boards, wheelie bins, e-scooters, and can easily and safely cross all roads, then this will help create better conditions for cycling too (in fact better living conditions for all).
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by mattheus »

NFBUK should look at the 40 people a year killed on pavements by drivers. Maybe get them across the table?
Ron
Posts: 1382
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Ron »

Phil Fouracre wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 8:06am What is wrong with people? What a ridiculous thread title, and, people on here complain about others twisting the truth.
The thread title was not at all ridiculous, if you had read the original article I would hope you would agree it was the call for a ban on cycling on the streets that was ridiculous, and not my calling attention to the matter.
I had no control over the NFBUK amending the wording of their "call to government" after this was brought to their attention and look forward to an apology from you for the critical tone of your posting.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by mattheus »

Ron wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 3:18pm
Phil Fouracre wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 8:06am What is wrong with people? What a ridiculous thread title, and, people on here complain about others twisting the truth.
The thread title was not at all ridiculous, if you had read the original article I would hope you would agree it was the call for a ban on cycling on the streets that was ridiculous, and not my calling attention to the matter.
I had no control over the NFBUK amending the wording of their "call to government" after this was brought to their attention and look forward to an apology from you for the critical tone of your posting.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

oh hang on ... is he serious ??
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 323
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Call for a national cycling ban.

Post by Sum »

I believe so. I originally thought the OP's title was simply made in jest, to poke fun at the poor wording of the original article. It never occurred to me before that the OP was being serious.
Post Reply