New speed bumps for Brockley Road

The Council has introduced speed bumps on Brockley Road next to the remodeled junction with Coulgate Street. Combined with the road narrowing and new layout it will hopefully lead to a safer stretch of street.

With thanks to Kenny Tinsel for the photo.

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wish the council's contractors had thought of road safety when they were widening the pavement - the whole time the pedestrian crossing was out of use, people were crossing close to the blind bend with cars speeding through, it was very unsafe!

poppy said...

Good! Cars dominate that area so much and considering how much that bit of the road is so well used by people getting to and from the station I'd actually go as far as putting a zebra crossing there. In the morning car after car and silent bike will just sweep by and you feel like its a minor lottery win, if there's a break in traffic so you can cross.

Anonymous said...

If there anything like the ones on Hither Green Lane they will be a complete waste of money,most vans,lorries and some cars are wide enough to drive there tyres either side of the hump.

Matt-Z said...

Good news, people hare down Brockley Road when it's clear.

Incidentally the ongoing works seem to be really dragging on, with various bits unfinished and certain finished looking quite rough. Typical of Conways? Also I've seen a number of cars ignore the no entry signs and turn into Coulgate Street next to the Toads Mouth. Will you be doing a follow-up piece on the works Nick?

Headhunter said...

Yeah if it's those waste of time, middle of the road mini humps then cars will just swerve to swing over them. In fact they make things scarier, as a cyclist, there's nothing worse than a car suddenly swerving across towards your side of the road at 30-40mph so that they can get their wheels either side of the hump. This happens frequently along Hilly Fields Crescent, cars parked at irregular intervals on either side, so as a cyclist you are moving in and out from the edge of the road and at the same time trying to stay far enough from the parked cars, outside the "door zone" as well as trying to avoid getting mown down by cars zooming along the other side, swerving towards you to go over the mini humps...

letsfindoutthen said...

what sort of speed bumps are they?

drakefell debaser said...

I was told by a man from the RAC that the speed cushions are designed so that ambulances can drive over them without the need to slow down or risk harming a patient further.

Not sure how much truth there is to that but it kind of makes sense. I wouldn't like to be rigged up to an intravenous drip whilst going 40mph down Drakefell Rd for example.

Anonymous said...

Well maybe cyclists should stay on the designated cycle routes.

drakefell debaser said...

Oh we would. If only said designated cycle routes were continuous and didn't have the odd car, delivery van, traffic bollard, work sign or some other bit of crap obstructing them.

drakefell debaser said...

Forgot to mention trees, telephone booths and general shoddy street planning.

http://ow.ly/5hdSV

Anonymous said...

Cyclists often like to boast about how much they save on fuel and time getting around. That's great but there's also a saying in life that you get what you pay for. Motorists pay, road tax, petrol, insurance whereas cyclists pay little to nothing (often not even bothering with adequate safety equipment) you get a good deal on the roads.

drakefell debaser said...

No one pays road tax anon. I suggest you do some research before you start lecturing about who gets what deal.

Monkeyboy said...

Well petrol is something cars use, only third party insurance is compulsory for cars (to reflect the extent of damage 3/4 of a tonne of car could cause when traveling at 30mph) and road tax stopped being ring fenced before the war (thanks W Churchill) as have many forms of tax. Nothing wrong with taxing in relation to the impact caused by the thing taxed.

There is an argument for 3rd party insurance for cycles but I'm not sure the acident rates and the expense of those accidents warrant it.

By the way, I have a car. I don't like paying out for it, who would? But cycling is a fairly benign form of transport.

Barry said...

More speedbumps Just what Brockley needs. Joy to the world!

PS Anyone noticed the state of Brockley roads....now you know where the money is spent.

HappyBrockers said...

Anon- I own a car, and pay tax, insurance and petrol for the car. I also have insurance for my bike, and get it serviced every six months.
Cyclists like to boast about how much fuel and time they save cycling around, because some people don't seem to understand the benefits of getting on your bike, both for yourself, others and the environment.

Anonymous said...

The argument about road tax not going to the roads is a bit of argumentative sophistry that people with an agenda like to bring out.
Yes there is no direct link between Vehicle Excise Duty and what the government spends on the roads.
But the not inconsiderable £5,000, 000,000.00 that motorists pay goes somewhere and it's not unreasonable to infer that without that sum going into the public coffers the roads of this country would be in parlous state, even more so than they are perceived as being now.

pip said...

Anon - "you get what you pay for" just means there's a positive correlation between price and quality. It just doesn't mean anything in this context. What other option do cyclists have than to cycle on the roads?

drakefell debaser said...

Anon, you are right about sophistry considering there is no road tax in the first place.

As for agenda, the subject of road tax is consistently brought up by motorists looking for an angle to assert their authority over other road users. Precisely why Winston Churchill abolished it.

We own a car by the way. I also use trains, boats and the occaisonal aeroplane to get around.

Brockley Nick said...

Happy Brockers is a very wise woman who is invariably right. If I could "like" her comment, I would.

Anonymous said...

I don't think I've ever been stuck on a bus in a taffic jam caused by Bikes, have never heard of bike pollution, if I had to be hit by a vehicle I'd rather it was a bike, never been disturbed by bike noise. We don't live in a world where cars are unneccesary but they have an impact, pay - thats all.

Anonymous said...

Lets get back to the speed hump discussion eh.

Ed CPZ said...

I assume we are getting some form of speed control at the BX zebra...?

Oh and does anyone know what happened at Tyred Out last night? Screeching of tyres, shouting, phone calls around 1AM then banging (gate repair?), broken equipment littering the yard. More noisy repairs this morning. Sounded like a ram raid but as I didn't spot any criminal activity so I didn't report...

Anonymous said...

Well actually bikes do cause traffic problems. Try being in a bus lane on the Old Kent Road on an average summer morning. You'll them. Who? The Wheezers.

You can't fail to miss them or their gluteas maximus jiggling in brand new lycra, they've got all the gear but lack road sense no too mention condition & toning. But there you are on the bus along with 40 or so paying travellers held up by this individual enjoying the benefits of cycling.

Anonymous said...

That is a very desperate complaint. I have a car, I'm not anti car but to deny that London has a problem with cars or that we could be a more bike or pedestrian friendly city is daft. Would you like MORE cars on the road? Should we encourage MORE Comuting by car? No and no.

Anonymous said...

Cycling is fine, we all have to get about in whatever way we can but for some reason, cyclists, often people who have cars themselves, as we've heard here today. Once they put on the lycra and get onto a bike, just switch, into this holier than thou, boaster. Which the unthinking just lap up.

I think it's important that the other side of the story is heard. They cycle on pavements, run red lights, displace traffic blaming everyone else but themselves and their need to get everywhere super fast cos they're on a bike and they feel they have something to prove. And they dont pay for the benefit for being on the roads fact. And even when they are insured it's incase the bike gets nicked not if they hurt someone else.
/rantover

Headhunter said...

I travel up the Old Kent Road every day at peak time and believe me, Most cyclists I see are much faster than any of the motor traffic which tends to nudge along at less than 10mph, nose to tail, apart from occasional bursts, such as before Bricklayers Arms, then it's nose to tail again. In fact much of the time in Central London it's motor traffic which blocks MY way...

As others have outlined, we do not have any ring fenced taxation in this country. Just as "road tax" (or VED) does not pay for roads, "tobacco tax" does not pay for hospitals, nor does "alcohol tax" pay for pubs and bars...

If the total costs to the economy including damage to health through polution, damage to buildings (pollution again - St Paul's has just undergone a clean up which cost millions), lost opportunity to exercise (cost to the NHS in obesity related illness), cost of traffic jams to business in late deliveries etc, a 1996 enquiry actually found that the motorists is SUBSIDISED by millions of pounds by the taxpayer every year...

Headhunter said...

"I think it's important that the other side of the story is heard. They cycle on pavements, run red lights"

You mean just like motorists ALL speed, talk and text on mobiles whilst driving, cause accidents whilst uninsured, drink/drive, park illegally and then whinge when they get fined etc etc...

"displace traffic blaming everyone else but themselves and their need to get everywhere super fast cos they're on a bike and they feel they have something to prove."

So if all those people on bikes got into their cars what do you think would happen? Suddenly everyone would move around super quickly and efficiently? Of course not! Traffic jams would be even longer and the average speed of traffic in central London would probably fall to less than the 10mph it's already at...

"And they dont pay for the benefit for being on the roads fact."

Yes they do. See above. Roads are paid for council tax, and anyway, many cyclists in London also own cars so do in fact pay your precious, supposedly segregated "road tax"...

"And even when they are insured it's incase the bike gets nicked not if they hurt someone else."

Huh??!

Anonymous said...

I love bouncing over the ones on Hilly Fields Crescent at high speed.

Anonymous said...

Those bumps get bigger, you know, as the cars gradually erode the surface either side.

Your exhaust will one day drop off and your suspension suffer the consequences.

Anonymous said...

Brockley Road junction with Harefield has been the scene of two fatalities that I know of.

Drivers seem to take one look at the straight bit between Wickham Road and Brockley Cross and immediately put their foot down.

This road calming work is long overdue.

The wide pavements are a definite improvement.

It would be nice if they could do something about the road outside Brockley station.

HappyBrockers said...

Apologies for going off point again.

Anon- A large amount of cyclists in London do have third party insurance. You have it automatically if you are a member of the 'London Cycling Campaign,' which I believe there are a lot of (members that is). Also, we don't all wear lycra, that's a bit of a generalisation.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see the percentage breakdown

"we don't all wear lycra"


Only 99% do.

Headhunter said...

Exactly Happy Brockers, if you're a member of LCC or BC you automatically have 3rd party insurance up to several million. Even if you aren't a member of one of these organisations, 3rd party insurance for cyclists costs about £20 per year, a price set by the insurance industry which reflects that cyclists cause barely any accidents on our roads and are low risk. In contrast, insuring a driver 3rd party costs several hundred+.....

"we don't all wear lycra"
Only 99% do.

And? So what if 99% do?

Anyway, back to speed humps...

Anonymous said...

Yeah! exactly Headhunter let's stop talking about cycling and (unflattering elasticated clothing) because this is thread is about the benefit for pedestrians. Oh yeah who first brought up cycling again?

Anonymous said...

It's embarassing how many people treat london as the Tour de France, with the fashion and attitude to match. What happened to just wearing normal clothes and sitting upright normally like in other cities?

drakefell debaser said...

Let's leave it now kids. Attacks on the fashion are a tad desperate.

Anonymous said...

Do ya think I'm sexy ? > http://tinypic.com/r/52jrlj/7

Brockley Nick said...

"It's embarassing how many people treat london as the Tour de France, with the fashion and attitude to match. What happened to just wearing normal clothes and sitting upright normally like in other cities?"

You haven't explained why it should be embarrassing, but the reasons for the difference are pretty obvious:

London is one of the biggest and most populous cities in the world + it has population densities half those of cities like Paris (we live in houses with gardens, they live in apartments with balconies) - so Londoners tend to live further away from work than most other city's commuters.

Rather than pottering along relatively flat streets in a central district like Paris or Amsterdam, London cyclists are found slogging along the Old Kent, often contending with less benign weather than their European counterparts. Cyclists dress accordingly.

It's also the case that London is still a rather cycling-unfriendly city (not helped by attitudes like yours), which means London cyclists tend to be more dedicated, cycling day-in, day-out. That makes it more likely that they will have invested in some proper equipment.

Thankfully, things are changing a bit. The central London bike hire scheme is part of a culture shift which is encouraging more people to cycle. The more mainstream it becomes, the more casual cyclists we'll get and the safer the roads will become for everyone.

Headhunter said...

Each to their own anon 10.05, each to their own. Do I attempt to deconstruct your sense of fashion and tell you what to wear? Lycra is simply the most comfortable and practical fabric to wear on long rides...

BrockleyFF said...

I'd just like to go back to the previous comment about ambulances. I drive fire engines in London and find that the smaller speed bumps (speed cushions?) are far superior. However the need to be placed with a little thought. For instance, they are often placed too close to the cars parked along the kerb. This forces a driver to treat them as a traditional speed bump and can have a surprisingly detrimental effect on attendance times.

Anonymous said...

All most people want is calmer roads. The road system was designed for cars, cycles add a choatic element. They don't belong on pavements they don't (no matter how much the massive cycling fraternity on here argue it) belong on the same roads as cars. This is why I fully support an integrated cycle lane system for them to get about, paid for by some form of cycle taxation so that those who get the benefit, PAY!

Brockley Nick said...

Most of London's roads were designed for horses.

Roads are multi-use, for cars, buses, lorries, ambulances, vans, pedestrians and yes, cyclists.

We all have to learn to use the roads together. I'd like some separated cycle lanes, but in most of London, that's simply not possible.

Cyclists pay plenty of tax thanks.

As for cyclists adding chaos to the otherwise calm world of the motorist, I suggest you spend five minutes at Brockley Cross, watching the aggression and near misses and listening to the blaring horns.

Headhunter said...

Anon 10.52 - I am a cyclist, I don't own a car, I already pay for the roads, thanks as outlined above. I have as much right to be on the road as any motorist, in fact I have more right, pedestrians, horses, cyclists and other self propelled vehicles have, by law, free reign to use the roads. Motorists have to be licensed and insured to reflect the potential danger they represent.

Cyclists and horse riders were on the roads before motorists, both were invented before the internal combustion engine.

I agree that I would like calmer roads and I propose the removal of motor vehicles to A roads only where they can sit in traffic jams, honking their horns at each other to their hearts content while the rest of us get on with getting about without danger...

Anonymous said...

"I have as much right to be on the road as any motorist, in fact I have more right, "

Don't be silly Headhunter, and for your own good loosen the lycra as it might affecting the oxygen supply to your brain.

dude said...

Anon's hero - http://ow.ly/5ieOE

Anonymous said...

tl:dr

Anonymous said...

Is cyclists crap as good as good for the garden as horse manuare?

dave said...

It is it is.

Anonymous said...

"Cyclists pay plenty of tax thanks"

Oh really? What tax is that please?

Headhunter said...

""I have as much right to be on the road as any motorist, in fact I have more right, "

Don't be silly Headhunter, and for your own good loosen the lycra as it might affecting the oxygen supply to your brain."

I'm afraid, me old mucker, this is true. Driving licenses were introduced in the 1930s to regulate the steady increase in what was new technology on our roads at that time to prevent it interfering with existing transportation (horse, cycle, foot). Obviously since then things have changed and now cars dominate, but motorists are still the only road users who require a license, because they are, simply put, the newcomers...

Anonymous said...

I know that as a motorist who doesn't live in a council house, I pay shitloads of it. About a grand a month all told.

Brockley Nick said...

Income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, stamp duty, etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

The average motorist will pay all that plus parking meters, congestion charges.

Plus we're seeing what many view as increasing street culture in the form of bike racks on our streets, useful for the cyclist but she/he is not making any direct payment for this benefit.

As said earlier, cyclists get a good, no GREAT deal.

Brockley Nick said...

Couple of points:

The things you've mentioned aren't taxes, they're charges for services and they relate directly to the social costs of running your vehicle. Driving through town causes congestion, which has a cost for other motorists (and buses, etc). The congestion charge is an attempt to price those costs and since it hasn't eliminated congestion, it has been priced too cheaply. Same with parking. You parking somewhere denies one of your fellow motorists a place. So you have to pay for the privilege. That's not the case with cyclists.

Motorists pay a lot of fuel duty, but it's debatable whether that covers the cost of things like wear and tear on the roads (which cyclists don't really contribute to) and pollution (4,000 deaths a year in London alone, with a large part of that due to diesel engines), not to mention CO2...

Also worth noting that according to the DfT the richest quintile of the population travels by bike (as a percentage of total distance travelled) more than any other quintile (except for the lowest quintile). In other words, cyclists are likely to pay more tax than you.

Finally, let us remember that many, perhaps most, cyclists are also car owners so are paying all those charges. Like me.

Brockley Nick said...

PS - if it's such a great deal the answer is simple: get yourself a bike.

Brockley Nick said...

After all, that's what the tax system is supposed to do - nudge people to choose a healthier, greener, less congesting, less dangerous, less polluting, less noisy form of transport.

Headhunter said...

Exactly, Nick. If you don't want to pay "road tax" (VED - which doesn't pay for roads as outlined above), tax on fuel, for your MOT, parking etc etc, then sell the car and buy a bike... It's a personal choice. If your wish to own a car with all its conveniences whilst polluting the city air, then be prepared to pay for it!

Headhunter said...

The reason the government is keen to encourage cycling by is clear:

It saves money on road repairs - motor vehicles damage road surfaces, bikes don't. In fact if there were no cars, there would be no need for complex road systems, junctions, traffic light systems etc all paid for through taxation

Fewer cars mean less damage to health and buildings through pollution

Cycling improves health, reducing costs to the NHS

Fewer motor vehicles means decreased congestion which costs businesses millions every year in delays, late deliveries etc

London is once again, well on the way to another fine this year for breaching EU air quality regulations. We were fined last year. This money is paid for by taxpayers

Cycling reduces public transport costs, fewer train services needed means less damage to rail networks, fewer buses need to be bought etc

Cost of investment in cycling infrastructure - bike lanes, cycle racks etc is simply dwarfed by the costs associated with motoring.

As I mentioned earlier, "This" mentions a report, "The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, which argues that far from motorists paying excessive taxes, they are in fact SUBSIDISED by the general taxpayer.

Despite motorists constant bitching and whingeing about how much tax they pay, the real costs of motoring have have actually fallen dramatically since the 1970s as taxes and other costs have not kept up with inflation and pay.

Anonymous said...

It's hardly progressive that mainly rich people are getting this public good subsidised in this way.

Cycle racks are deemed street clutter by many they should be charged for just like a parking space. The public needs to claw back the value these people are creaming from the system.

Brockley Nick said...

The poorest cycle most. Try again.

Headhunter said...

Anon - Do you actually read what other people write? What exactly are cyclists supposed to be "creaming" from the system? As outlined and discussed, cyclists already pay their way. I guess you're just trolling now...

bumbags said...

Can't say I'm a fan of more speed bumps- they do make cars swerve which is a danger to cyclists.
I cycle AND have a car too (I can't be the only one!). This means when I'm cycling I HAVE paid my road tax, thanks, so that must give me priority over EVERYONE- HURRAH!
Having been on both sides of this, ALL types of road users in London are guilty of awful, inconsiderate driving/riding. My bugbear when I'm driving (trying to be considerate to cyclists on my left) is the bloody oncoming mopeds/motorbikes that swerve out to overtake traffic. They head straight at me, and I either end up playing chicken with them, or swerving into some poor bugger on a bike.
THINK, PEOPLE, PLEEEEEEEEASE!!!!! All of us ultimately just want to get from A-B safely.

Anonymous said...

"Also worth noting that according to the DfT the richest quintile of the population travels by bike (as a percentage of total distance travelled) more than any other quintile (except for the lowest quintile). In other words, cyclists are likely to pay more tax than you."

You cite some DFT statistics about socio-economic quintiles, to try address my point about cyclists not paying their way. Your (unsourced) stats emphasise how you believe that cyclists are likely to pay more tax than me. Only upon closer inspection the reference you refer to is not actually saying that. It actually undercuts the point you're trying to make: as it's actually lower income who cycle the most.

So yes follow up comment to you about progressive taxation and cycling is negated your comment/point is blown out of the water. By yourself!

Anonymous said...

I own a good honest car and don't need to be paying any more thank you.

Mb said...

Are people seriously suggesting that traffic issues are caused or made worse by bikes?

Get a grip.

Brockley Nick said...

Anon 1909 re: source - here you go, knock yourself out http://bit.ly/iTo8jB

As for contradicting myself, nope. I said originally that the only people who cycled more than the top 20% of earners were the bottom 20%. I'm just challenging your self-righteousness about how much tax you pay: cycling is not the preserve of the low-tax payers.

The suggestion that providing a few low cost facilities (bike rails) to help anyone who can afford a cheap bike is in any regressive is laughable.

Let's be honest, the only rational argument against investing in cycling would be if it wasn't delivering an increase in the number of cyclists. But it is. Cyclist numbers are growing. Everyone wins in that scenario.

It seems that most of the anti-cycling whingers aren't really interested in a rational discussion, their dislike of cyclists is tribal. They don't like their clothes or the way they go past them as they sit in traffic jams. This irrationality is fed by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and a general sense that car use is under attack. If your precious habit is under attack then there must be an enemy - the lurid lycra makes cyclists an easily definable hate group.

But really, if you define yourself as a "motorist", as opposed to someone who happens to own a car, that is incredibly sad.

Anonymous said...

1. MB- "Get a grip" is not an argument.

In Blackfriars the speed limit was temporarily lowered to 20mph due to massive works going on, now the works are coming to an end the limit was to revert back to 30mph. Only the cycle lobby are raising objections, to the extent that even the reportedly cycling friendly Mayor Boris is fed up with them.

Brockley Nick said...

A - what does that prove?
B - whoever thought Boris was cycle-friendly? His transport advisor is an utter clown who wants to reprioritise cars and remove pedestrian crossings.

Anonymous said...

Nick, Cycle Friendly doesn't mean you give cyclist preference every single time does it?

This is why I don't vote.

original anon said...

What it shows is that: Cyclists mixing on roads with cars causes issues for cars.

So Nick you tried the 'rational' approach with statstics you unfortunately scored an own goal. So you are now trying the emotional/abusive approach. Referring to people as clowns. it may make you feel better but it's not helping matters is it?

This whole debate was initiated by Headhunter an individual who I'd suggest based on his comments here is on the 'extreme wing' of the cycling agenda. The types that frequent cycling forums doing exactly the same things you accuse me in reverse "a tribal dislike of cars" the man has exposed himself. Stating that he belives that bikes have more right to be on the roads on the cars because (wait for it) they were there first. Killer logic there, not! But this is the standard of debate we have.

It was gently suggested that cyclists have designated routes to get about particularly commuter routes as this is the fraught travelling period. But for extreme wing this represents 'apartheid'.

This issue is not an emotional one for me, it's a discussion with a bit humour but for you judging from your fevered comments (3 three in a row) and tone (abusive) it clearly is more personal.

Mb said...

"this is why I don't vote" eh? Your loss.

Bikes are prioritised sometimes. Please quantify the amount of bike only space on the road and you may be close to having a point. Its difficult to get around London in a car because there are too many cars for our roads. A difficult paradox for some to get their heads round.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - The only person I've been vaguely rude about is Kulveer Ranger, Boris' transport advisor. And that's because he is a clown. A dangerous one, whose priorities will lead to more road deaths. I'm sure someone like you, with a great sense of humour, won't mind me calling a political figure a clown.

As for losing the rational argument. Perhaps you could explain how.

Anonymous said...

No just calling a someone clown is not good enough. You disagree with his approach what is so dangerous about it. These are some serious charges, you need to clarify exactly what you are saying, otherwise it's just irrational venom.

Headhunter said...

"In Blackfriars the speed limit was temporarily lowered to 20mph due to massive works going on, now the works are coming to an end the limit was to revert back to 30mph. Only the cycle lobby are raising objections, to the extent that even the reportedly cycling friendly Mayor Boris is fed up with them."

Boris Johnson? Cycle friendly? Bwah ha ha ha.... He sat on a bike a couple of times for a few photo shoots during the 1st election. He is about as cycling friendly as any other Tory, the Tories who have decided to "end the war on the motorist"... What war?

What exactly has Bozo done for cyclists other than follow through on Cycle Superhighways which were initiated by Ken and are a waste of space anyway, they have no legal standing and in law are simply "advisory bike lanes"...

"The types that frequent cycling forums doing exactly the same things you accuse me in reverse "a tribal dislike of cars" the man has exposed himself. Stating that he belives that bikes have more right to be on the roads on the cars because (wait for it) they were there first. Killer logic there, not! But this is the standard of debate we have."

I do not have "tribal dislike of cars", if I lived outside London, I'm sure I would own one! It's just completely unnecessary for me in London. I have said here several times that it's impossible to do away with cars in society as it's currently structured. As for me believing that I have more rights to the road than motorists, I don't actually believe that, I was simply making a point to Anon (you?) above who was essentially saying that motorists own the road. They do not. Neither do they pay for the roads.

"It was gently suggested that cyclists have designated routes to get about particularly commuter routes as this is the fraught travelling period. But for extreme wing this represents 'apartheid'."

Whilst I can see that designated, even segregated cycle routes would be beneficial and encouraging for some, I have no desire to be sat behind a woman on a shopping bike in a flowy skirt travelling at 5mph, restricted to this route because some motorist perceives that I shouldn't be on his/her road... As outlined above, I have paid for my share of the roads and I intend to use them, be it on a bike, horse or on foot. Once again, motorists do not own the roads...

As Nick points out, the "motorist lobby" perceives itself to be under threat and for some reason has identified cyclists as the "enemy" on THEIR roads. The thing is that, outside London this is not even an issue as there are so few cyclists on the road anyway.

Anonymous said...

"I have no desire to be sat behind a womanon a shopping bike in a flowy skirt travelling at 5mph"

HappyBrockers have you nothing to say about this bit of gender stereotyping?

Considering the performance of the British female cycling team, including World Record and Olympic Victoria Pendleton. I'd say Headhunter you need to refresh your ideas.

Headhunter said...

Yes, yes, yes but unfortunately I don't get to ride behind Victoria P every day on my commute up the OKR. Unfortunately most women (and men for that matter) on bikes can't match my power and speed...

drakefell debaser said...

Well maybe cyclists should stay on the designated cycle routes.
14 June 2011 12:06

I saw this video and was reminded of you, anon.

http://ow.ly/5lRI6

Anonymous said...

Not interested

drakefell debaser said...

I didn't think you would be.

Anonymous said...

Well stop wasting your time!

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!