Forum topic: Cycle Enfield stakeholders to consider alternative to Green Lanes cycle route

Tom Mellor said:
.

That's nonsense. Traffic lights are signals. They were used on the railways a century before cars were commonplace on roads. So, what about lorries, buses, vans and taxis. Aren't traffic lights needed to control those vehicles too, even if you think them unnecessary.

What's your opinion on cyclists riding through a red signal?

Tom Mellor said:

That's not quite the point I was making. Cycle lanes are fine where there is space for them and they do not worsen the circulation of other traffic. Creating parts of town centres that are "car free" is fine if it's not going to harm the flow of traffic around it. Pedestrianisation schemes in towns are usually accompanied by a nice ring road scheme and the creation of some convenient, often, multi-storey car parks. You might even find that to be the case in Holland! Palmers Green is not of course a suitably candidate for such a scheme, so we'd better keep cars flowing on Green Lanes and allow parking to remain much as it is now. In Switzerland, the carless resorts of Zermatt and Saas Fee, have huge car parks on the edge, which frankly are a bit of an eye-sore within the mountain scenery. But, so are the ski-lift networks. c'est la vie.


Tom Mellor said:
.

Absolutely and dangerously wrong. Cycle helmets cut the risk of brain injury by up to 88% and deaths by up to 16 percent
http://www.trl.co.uk/reports-publications/report/?reportid=6528t’s b

Tom Mellor said:
.
This is risible. Cyclists are vulnerable on the road. Drivers and their passengers in a modern car, driven well and at legal speeds are extremely well protected. The risk of head injury is correspondingly much less. I think you are being facetious about pedestrians. Usually, when I’m walking, it’s on a pavement at about 3 mph (my be as much as 8 mph when running) and away from traffic . Don’t think there’s much risk of a head injury Cycling down a hill at 30 mph and hit by another road user emerging from a side road, having not seen me. Or, could easily lose control (pothole perhaps). Hitting ones head on a hard rough sharp surface/object would not be pleasant. Collision with an on-coming motor vehicle doing a similar or greater speed, would be even less enjoyable. Wearing a helmet – sensible precaution.

But, if you find it offensive that cyclists are increasingly expected wear helmets and not pedestrians, why not take your concerns up with the department of Transport or a road safety charity, not me. Or, consult a Dane!
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.html
Anyway, as far as I’m concerned helmet wearing is a matter of individual choice.
Tom Mellor said:

Ahh – getting off-topic even more! I’m guessing you’re quite to the left politically. The far Left, far Right and religious fanatics love obsessing about their fantasy powerful lobbies and conspiracies.

The far Right concentrates on its obsession with a particular religio-ethno-nation (with tragic consequences in mid c.20th Europe). The far Left shares that obsession. But, I suppose, their obsession with the “huge motoring lobby” comprising that “vexatious” Jeremy Clarkson and his fans, is more laughable than it is chilling.

Sorry when I said cars, I meant motor vehicles ( and trains), including all that you mentioned.

I personally don't jump red lights but I know some cyclists do it because they feel safer. They 'get out of the way of traffic' faster. Then there are some that just do it because they are lazy and can't be bothered to wait. At the same time they endanger pedestrians.

Of course Palmers Green is not a suitable area for a pedestrianised zone. It is a thoroughfare. However I don't think the current situation is by any means optimal. No road has good cycle infrastructure and so most people stick with their cars. In my opinion buses are not really a great alternative as they are slower and still expensive.

Increasing road capacity does not improve traffic flow. After a certain period of time the number of vehicles rises to fill the void. This is called 'induced demand' and has been well documented. The corresponding phenomenon, that of shrinking vehicle numbers when capacity is reduced, also occurs.

Getting more people out of their cars is only achievable with good alternative. Bikes are suitable for many journeys we make and are a lot more beneficial to society, but they need to be made attractive. Anything you have suggested so far does not do so.

The Thompson study has many problems with it.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html


I think that it will be very difficult to settle the debate about the efficacy of helmets. I also think this is really a waste of time when we already know brings far more protection to cyclists: good infrastructure. Instead of focusing on a helmet that can at most only protect your head, we should be making the conditions safer for cycling.

The problem with the word 'cycling' is that in encompasses far too many types of activity. Going on a segregated cycle path at 15mph and riding with the peloton at 30mph are not the same thing, and the associated risks are different. Similarly race car drivers do wear helmets.

I agree that they should be a matter of choice, but I don't want there to be a perception - among cyclists as well as authorities - that they offer up any sort of panacea - they don't.

Any way I think the helmet debate is pointless right now and is not on the topic, as well as the lobbyists.

Incidentally I've heard recently that car collisions cost the tax payer £34 billion pounds a year.