Yesterday on Twitter reminded me of what I consider to be the biggest issue with the debate on cycling on Londons roads at present. And that is the extremes of pro and anti behaviour.
Here in London, with a growing population, more congested roads are becoming the norm, so finding alternative methods of transport is a big thing. TfL ( Transport for London) are keen to encourage, walking, public transport and of course cycling. Much emphasis is put on the latter in social media, and press releases, as well as city wide advertising and "initiatives". I say it with quotes, as while some initiatives such as cycle rental are a resounding success, the investment, and development of the infrastructure is seriously lacking.
Cycle Superhighways were to be the answer, large dedicated cycle paths, cutting through the suburbs into the heart of our great city. Carrying large volumes of cyclists quickly and safely into their places of work. Lightening the loads on the roads and public transport system. A master plan showed where they would run, and we were shown that cycling would indeed be the future of transport for many in London.
Sadly, these master plans were never to be realised, for a variety of reasons, from poor planning, to lack of cooperation from local boroughs. Either way, the plan has currently fallen a little short of the goal.
There are some interesting stories about this situation here. https://www.citymetric.com/transport/five-times-boroughs-and-other-authorities-have-blocked-plans-build-new-cycle-lanes-london
As the years creep by, both TfL and individual local boroughs have made plans to improve cycling in their jurisdictions, some a resounding success, others either shelved or executed so badly that the provided infrastructure fails to make good on its promises, and becomes unusable.
While the battle with the authorities rumbles on, people lobbying and begging for areas to be reconsidered and made safer (myself included with a successful discussion with my local MP recently), a bigger battle rages on. On the internet!!
We all have an opinion on things, some we are more passionate about than others, however a line needs to be drawn. Once you pass that line, your voice gets louder, but it has less effect. No one listens to a screaming lunatic, at best we allow someone with a raised voice a short time to gain our interest before we decide to ignore them, or listen on.
The people who discuss such matters on the internet, on platforms such as Twitter, usually break down into two groups. Pro and Anti. As with many other subjects in society which attract such passion and sometimes rage, the members of those two groups usually have the loudest voice, and take up the majority of the space on the platform. Sadly this smothers the voice of reason and rational discussion. Opinions which differ from theirs are not welcome, and every effort will be made to shut you down. Once this is done, some sort of victory dance is done, and your spoils are to be paraded on social media. Well done you, you stopped someone with an opinion from engaging any further in a discussion.
When it comes to cycling, there are many people on the internet who wish to make it clear than cyclists have NO place on the public road. Usually stating that road tax (doesn't exist) and insurance are lacking, therefore the cyclist has no place on the public road.
The counter argument for this is cyclists are "road users" like anyone else, and deserve respect, and a bit of space to go about their journey. Which I as a regular commuter, with 4,000 miles of cycling, mostly in London, this year under my belt, completely agree with.
However that is where I part ways with the Pro group.
The Pro group will go further, making sure anyone who dares to challenge the behaviour of a cyclist is dragged out in front of the crowd and belittled until such a time they admit defeat (or block the other users).
Only yesterday, which commenting on a very scary video in which an HGV driver almost turned straight into a cyclist, I was pulled up in front of the Courts of Twitter to face charges of "victim blaming". This is where you for some reason choose to apportion blame to the victim, rather than accepting and agreeing that the perpetrator was indeed the one to blame. Of course, this is all relative.
If you were to agree the HGV driver were to blame, however point out that the cyclist neither seemed aware of the lorrys presence, or reacted to it, in my books you would be making an observation, rather than "victim blaming". However it would seem that some would disagree with this, and demand that at no point should comment be made about the cyclist, who would have been the victim here.
Now to be clear, blame has already been assigned to the driver at this point, the follow up comment is merely an observation. However to the Pro, this is not acceptable behaviour. All comments prior to mentioning the cyclist will be ignored, and constant ridicule will begin. Name calling, questions of competency, and general comments on your existence will begin.
Should you attempt to engage in a rational conversation at this point, your efforts with be thwarted by what I assume are attempts of further belittling, until you get fed up and stop replying.
I genuinely appreciate passionate conversation and discussion, I am happy to learn from others, and be educated. However, I draw the line in engaging with utter morons who have nothing better to do than troll the internet looking for fights. Take the moral high ground (which they have at no point gained through rational discussion) and come across with a holier than thou attitude.
As a cyclist in London, as well as someone who driver a vehicle in London at times, I believe I am in a position to discuss from both sides of the table. I am able to see situations from both perspectives. I can honestly say my manner of both riding and driving in London has changed, as my understanding of how events unfold has grown. I wonder if others engaging in these discussions share the same standpoint?
Of course, the arguments are not limited to one side. There are of course the Anti cyclists out there, who feel that their journeys in their motorised metal boxes should in no way be impeded by someone on a pushbike. Be it dressed in a suit of lycra. Annoyed that they are unable to join the tail end of stationary traffic in record time after pulling away from the latest red light, they will jostle for position at the stop line, and be off (and stopped again) in the blink of an eye. Should a cyclist get in their way, all hell will break loose, with abuse being splattered all over the place, as well as engine revving, and horn sounding. The result, sometimes a shaken cyclist, sometimes a confrontation, but in general, just a shrug, and getting on with life.
When these sorts arrive on social media, they will vehemently argue their case, they pay road tax, insurance and all sorts of other taxes, so are the priority road users. How dare some hippy on a push bike who makes no contributions to the roads get in their way. Get off the roads, ride on the pavement, even get a car, are some of the regular arguments from Anti cyclists. What is quite amusing in all this is the percentage of Anti cyclists who are "professional drivers". Be it black cab, bus, or lorry, the percentage seems very high. I had a run in with a bus driver the other week who felt I was taking up too much of the left lane (bus lane) as he passed me in the right lane to turn right. Not even impeding him in any way, yet he felt the need to sound his horn and flip the birdie. Our subsequent conversation revealed he felt I was taking up too much space and should have moved closer to the kerb. A very common argument indeed.
For any motorist who isn't aware. The kerb and gutter are the one place no cyclist wants to find themselves. Although some other cyclists who we are forced to share the road with, would ironically disagree, and demand you move over to allow them room to pass you. Really is a dog eat dog world out there, and I will come back to this point in a bit.
However, when passing a cyclist, the guidance is a minimum of 1 -1.5 metres. This is to allow the cyclist room to move from side to side from their path a little, to avoid any potholes, raised iron work, or other obstructions. You know, the exact same things YOU as a motorist swerve to avoid too. Yet somehow don't understand why someone with 1" of contact with the road would want to avoid it? Strange!
So, there we have it, the two sides to the argument on social media.
What do we take away from this? Well it is simple. The loudest voices make the most noise. Noise, not sense. While drowning out the calmer quieter voices of reason. The people willing to try and engage properly to find some resolution to the matter, and are willing to commit to long term discussion and conversation with the powers that be. Not the shouty little people who just want to make every situation a cause for their argument, while refusing to even consider other peoples opinions.
There are some verbal campaigners out there who I really respect. Rational, balanced, and in the right frame of mind. People who appreciate it is a shared space which required mutual respect. Not demanding that their rights are taken seriously, and all their demands are heard and fulfilled .
Maybe the shared video clips of genuine close passes and dangerous behaviour continue to be shared, and those responsible held to account.
However, can we please cut with the streams of "nothing" which is somehow turned into an incident. With drivers being ridiculed for doing nothing wrong.
So, going back to cyclists, and the dog eat dog world. Sometimes, cyclists are their own worst enemies. Not only online with the pro cyclists becoming embroiled with online battles, and being seen as the voice of the majority of cyclists, tarring us all with the same irrational and aggressive brush, but also on the roads.
Travel at rush hour and you will find yourself surrounded by different groups. The racer, must get there first, will bully you out of the way, and almost treat you as a motorist might. You have NO right to get in their way on your pushbike. The blinkered commuter. In their own little world of over ear headphone induced euphoria, oblivious to anything else around them. Weaving about, bumping into people, sawing through red lights and crossings. The general cyclist, trying to get from A to B, safely, calmly, and without any fuss. It's not a race, just a journey, and one they wish to complete with as little engagement with others as possible.
There are many kinds of cyclist out there, but a large percentage of dangerous or aggressive interactions, as well as some quite unsanitary experiences, I have had on the roads, as a cyclist, have been with other cyclists.
My message after all that is a very simple one. Can people please just pay a little more attention to the consequences of THEIR actions, and spend a little less time focusing on what everyone else is doing wrong. If you want to use your voice wisely, instead of spending hours of your day shouting at complete strangers on the internet, find a way to engage and play a part in the evolution of travel. Instead of bombarding officials with letter after letter, video after video about trivial events, most of which do not even warrant said officials time, take the time to be clear, concise, and most of all measured in your communication.
Most importantly, be aware of your surroundings, think ahead, and be ready to react. Being "in the right" will not save you from catastrophic injuries, or indeed causing them to others. It's not about right of way, it is not about rights at all, it is simply about arriving alive, and avoiding any incidents along the way, REGARDLESS of blame.
Never mind "victim blaming", just stop trying to blame, point the finger, and belittle people, and focus on improving things for the future.
Showing posts with label dangerous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangerous. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
It takes all sorts (of cyclists)
The more I ride in London, especially at peak time as a commuter, the more I can see the various groups of cyclists, and how they behave. I have reached the point now where my observations are complete enough to break cyclists down into categories, especially when it comes to behaviour at crossings and traffic signals.
So I thought I would dedicate this entry to those groups, and maybe ramble on a little more about other bits in the process.
If you ignore all the other habits and behaviours of cyclists for now, and just concentrate on how they behave when approaching, and when stopped (or not as the case may be) at traffic signals and crossings. So here we go.
Let us take a pretty standard traffic control signal. Traffic lights have gone red on the cyclists approach, and the stop line has an ASL (Advanced Stop Line) for cyclists to start ahead of the pack so to speak. The highways code would have they cyclist stop in the painted box forward of the stop line for traffic, and behind the ASL. This is deemed a safe and visible place for cyclists to wait. Obviously in some cases it is not possible to filter through to reach this. But for this scenario, you can.
On arrival at the lines, we then see different behaviours appear.
The Law Abider. The Creeper. The Ignorant Twat, are the main three.
The Law Abider, as the name suggests, will arrive at the box, stop inside it, and consider their road positioning ready for when the lights change, allowing where possible, traffic to pass them safely and ASAP.
The Creeper however will obey the stop line, for a moment at least. Before beginning to creep forwards. More common on longer sequences, in some cases The Creeper will decide the way is clear, it is pointless waiting for the lights to change, and off they go.
Similar to how a pedestrian behaves at a crossing really.
The Ignorant Twat however doesn't care for lights, instructions or signs, and has a PB to achieve, so just sails through any kind of stop sign, as they are untouchable, and VERY important! Or so they like to believe.
You have other variations of the above, such as Sailing Sally. A lady I see quite frequently with her little bike, complete with basket and flapping hi-vis jacket. Ignoring pelican crossings, swerving around people on zebra crossings, but obeying traffic lights at junctions where her safety may be compromised. So its all about YOU. Ignore the fact you might harm pedestrians or ever startle them, as long as you are not knocked off jumping lights at a junction.
We can't of course forget the pavement jumper. Hopping onto the pavement to pass the crossing, so not to wait for lights, before hopping back down the other side and carrying on along their merry way. Cheeky, yes, but also dangerous for pedestrians.
The funniest thing about these people, the ones too important or impatient to wait for lights is that they never seem to get anywhere. I commute on a single speed 46/16 heavy old steel bike, I am far from light either, and plod along at a leisurely 14mph average. However at least 75% of the people who jump lights etc to get ahead are not going hell for leather, and I in fact catch and pass them in a short time. Sometimes a few times in one journey. So what the hell is the point?
The bit I find most infuriating about this is the groups of cyclists who apparently spend a lot of their time riding about, but are completely blinkered to this sort of behaviour. Remember this blog entry is only about ONE behaviour, I will cover more another time.
Whenever there is an accident, cries of dangerous road users and conditions go out, but never accepting that sometimes, it is the exact behaviours discussed above, which have led to the accident.
I know from my own experience that there are some very dangerous drivers out there, in all sorts of vehicles. Only the other evening I had an articulated lorry over take me just going into a left hand bend. Thankfully I was aware of him, so backed out of it. Even more thankfully as I saw the trailer come in VERY close to the apex. I would have been hit for sure. So it's not all one sided, and I have never thought this.
If so much can go wrong when no one is even meant to be moving, imagine the stupid behaviour of some of these people when interacting with moving traffic. Something I will cover another time.
For now, cyclist, pedestrian, motorist. Keep your eyes open, and look at how different groups behave out there. Sadly there is no pattern of tell tale sign of how anyone is going to behave, so for now, treat them with caution.
So I thought I would dedicate this entry to those groups, and maybe ramble on a little more about other bits in the process.
If you ignore all the other habits and behaviours of cyclists for now, and just concentrate on how they behave when approaching, and when stopped (or not as the case may be) at traffic signals and crossings. So here we go.
Let us take a pretty standard traffic control signal. Traffic lights have gone red on the cyclists approach, and the stop line has an ASL (Advanced Stop Line) for cyclists to start ahead of the pack so to speak. The highways code would have they cyclist stop in the painted box forward of the stop line for traffic, and behind the ASL. This is deemed a safe and visible place for cyclists to wait. Obviously in some cases it is not possible to filter through to reach this. But for this scenario, you can.
On arrival at the lines, we then see different behaviours appear.
The Law Abider. The Creeper. The Ignorant Twat, are the main three.
The Law Abider, as the name suggests, will arrive at the box, stop inside it, and consider their road positioning ready for when the lights change, allowing where possible, traffic to pass them safely and ASAP.
The Creeper however will obey the stop line, for a moment at least. Before beginning to creep forwards. More common on longer sequences, in some cases The Creeper will decide the way is clear, it is pointless waiting for the lights to change, and off they go.
Similar to how a pedestrian behaves at a crossing really.
The Ignorant Twat however doesn't care for lights, instructions or signs, and has a PB to achieve, so just sails through any kind of stop sign, as they are untouchable, and VERY important! Or so they like to believe.
You have other variations of the above, such as Sailing Sally. A lady I see quite frequently with her little bike, complete with basket and flapping hi-vis jacket. Ignoring pelican crossings, swerving around people on zebra crossings, but obeying traffic lights at junctions where her safety may be compromised. So its all about YOU. Ignore the fact you might harm pedestrians or ever startle them, as long as you are not knocked off jumping lights at a junction.
We can't of course forget the pavement jumper. Hopping onto the pavement to pass the crossing, so not to wait for lights, before hopping back down the other side and carrying on along their merry way. Cheeky, yes, but also dangerous for pedestrians.
The funniest thing about these people, the ones too important or impatient to wait for lights is that they never seem to get anywhere. I commute on a single speed 46/16 heavy old steel bike, I am far from light either, and plod along at a leisurely 14mph average. However at least 75% of the people who jump lights etc to get ahead are not going hell for leather, and I in fact catch and pass them in a short time. Sometimes a few times in one journey. So what the hell is the point?
The bit I find most infuriating about this is the groups of cyclists who apparently spend a lot of their time riding about, but are completely blinkered to this sort of behaviour. Remember this blog entry is only about ONE behaviour, I will cover more another time.
Whenever there is an accident, cries of dangerous road users and conditions go out, but never accepting that sometimes, it is the exact behaviours discussed above, which have led to the accident.
I know from my own experience that there are some very dangerous drivers out there, in all sorts of vehicles. Only the other evening I had an articulated lorry over take me just going into a left hand bend. Thankfully I was aware of him, so backed out of it. Even more thankfully as I saw the trailer come in VERY close to the apex. I would have been hit for sure. So it's not all one sided, and I have never thought this.
If so much can go wrong when no one is even meant to be moving, imagine the stupid behaviour of some of these people when interacting with moving traffic. Something I will cover another time.
For now, cyclist, pedestrian, motorist. Keep your eyes open, and look at how different groups behave out there. Sadly there is no pattern of tell tale sign of how anyone is going to behave, so for now, treat them with caution.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
#LondonIsOpen (and toxic)
There is no secret that I find the Twitter feed of the current London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, very annoying. Constantly bleating on about things, then falling silent when questions are asked, or the tables turned.
One of the original things that really got on my nerves was the constant tweets stating how there would be less strikes and more negotiations under his watch, cutting the number of transport strikes drastically. Boris had called for them to be almost banned, Sadiq felt that negotiation was the way forward.
For days on end there were almost hourly tweets about his pledge and how there were less strikes. Until of course strike season hit, aka holiday season. Then the shit hit the fan and the strikes begun. On the odd occasion when agreement was reached, they would be cancelled or postponed, and Twitter would hear all about how HE had prevented travel chaos, and was so much better than Boris..
Then the tables turned, and strike after strike has hit various transport networks, and silence from the mayor. The occasional "we are disappointed" tweet, but nothing strong worded, demanding further talks or how out of order it was. Certainly no boasts about his involvement in the talks, in fact the opposite. Avoiding having any involvement at all.
Then there is the demand that TfL have control over Southern Rail. Again, another bandwagon jumped aboard before knowing the full story. Granted Southern is a joke, especially with their strikes also, but their services leave a lot to be desired too. Something needs to be done, but with the shambles that is under his control already, I am not sure that adding another pony to the stables is the right move. Again, we heard so much about "I want to take control" but no comments on the strikes that cripple London each time. Obviously the negotiating skills used with the tube unions don't work, so stay out of it. Wise move!
That said, when Southern rejected the idea of handing over to TfL, they DID say be part of our talks, and help us with your ideas on how it could be improved.
With London's best interests at heart, naturally Mr Khan said NO, I want nothing to do with it, and refuse to be a part of this. Nice one Sadiq!
Then my favourite bit of it all. As you can tell from the blog title.. #LondonIsOpen.
Put on most posts from the mayors office, this seems to be the favourite tag of the moment.
My only thought on it is summed up by this scene from Blades of Glory..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRRab36XLI
I don't even know what that means
No one knows what it means, but its provocative
No it's not!
Quite simple, words!
Ringing back to the Brexit referendum, when people started somehow saying that the UK was shutting the world out and didn't want to trade with them, the mayors office coined the phrase and tag #LondonIsOpen
Somehow suggesting that the world thought we were closed for some reason. Not once has it ever been suggested that London didn't want to trade with anyone, or that London was somehow closed for refurbishment. Windows painted out, so no one could see what was happening.
Nope, in fact London has never been closed, and in some ways, suggesting it is open creates an air of negativity towards it.
After that was all done with, the tag remained, and is now used on absolutely everything, from business to events etc. Which when promoting an event which has already been arranged is a bit pointless, as the organisers clearly know London Is Open, or they couldn't have booked it ! Duh!
Speaking of events, that is my next and final grip, mixed in with #LondonIsOpen
Recently, along with being open, the mayor has also identified that London is toxic. Very toxic in fact. To the point of issuing warnings suggesting people don't go outdoors unless really necessary at times, and saying how we are failing, and people are dying each year in London BECAUSE of the pollution.
Now I am no neigh sayer here, I know full well that we live in a very busy city, packed with vehicles and other things churning out toxins all day long. I certainly notice the difference when I visit Wales or the Spanish Mountains. But there seems to be some confusion from the mayors office about how bad it really is.
Day after day, Twitter is flooded with comments about how the government need to give people thousands of pounds towards replacing their diesel car. The same diesel car they were given money towards in the last scrappage scheme. The government needs to act on the pollution, taxes levied and increases to the tolls for the congestion zone. Advising how many people die annually because of the air etc.
And then, in the nest breath (a very toxic one of course) we get told about events being held, in Central London, in the open air, and how people should flock to them, because after all #LondonIsOpen.
I have posted a few examples of the contradictions below. And before you say anything, I am all for London hosting events, I love cycling in London, and spending time in town, so have nothing against it. But you can't be the champion of champions for London, aka the mayor, and scaremonger people into believing we are living in a city which has toxic smog daily, air quality warnings and sirens, and environmental wardens walking around in high vis uniforms so they can be seen through the smog.
THEN expect your same audience on Twitter to flock to events you are promoting. That's just dumb. Get a story and stick to it.
Smog and toxic
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/831929385741668377
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/830718056959709185
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/830367140733714432
London’s dirty air is a public health crisis. I’m committed to tackling this. Read more about my plans here:
Older people & adults & children with lung or heart problems should avoid strenuous physical exercise, particularly outdoors.
Meanwhile... Positives
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/832198886102093825
On 26 Feb we're turning Trafalgar Square into London's biggest cinema for a very special Oscar-night screening of #TheSalesman #LondonIsOpen << There it is!!
https://twitter.com/TfL/status/831862211303845888
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/831823169858203650
So... #LondonIsOpen AND #LondonIsToxic
In short, I guess what I am trying to put across in this entry is quite simple.
Stop talking shit Sadiq. Do what is right for London and its people, stop scaring people with over exaggerated stories, and then contradicting yourself by saying we need to bring people to London for events, tourism etc. Don't you see that by bleating on about air quality, you scare people away, not bring them here. Its the exact same media channel and audience that you speak through and to, but somehow you expect them to be positive.
London IS open, London is proud. It is a diverse yet united city who has been and still is respected globally by millions of potential tourists. Walk in the streets in town and you will see just how open London is, without having to use a damn hashtag and believe it spreads a message of positivity. It really doesn't. London is not a convenience store which has an Open/Closed sign. It is a city right up there on the world stage, historic, respected, and a magnet to people around the world. Stop pretending that YOU are single handedly making the difference, you really aren't.
#RantOver
One of the original things that really got on my nerves was the constant tweets stating how there would be less strikes and more negotiations under his watch, cutting the number of transport strikes drastically. Boris had called for them to be almost banned, Sadiq felt that negotiation was the way forward.
For days on end there were almost hourly tweets about his pledge and how there were less strikes. Until of course strike season hit, aka holiday season. Then the shit hit the fan and the strikes begun. On the odd occasion when agreement was reached, they would be cancelled or postponed, and Twitter would hear all about how HE had prevented travel chaos, and was so much better than Boris..
Then the tables turned, and strike after strike has hit various transport networks, and silence from the mayor. The occasional "we are disappointed" tweet, but nothing strong worded, demanding further talks or how out of order it was. Certainly no boasts about his involvement in the talks, in fact the opposite. Avoiding having any involvement at all.
Then there is the demand that TfL have control over Southern Rail. Again, another bandwagon jumped aboard before knowing the full story. Granted Southern is a joke, especially with their strikes also, but their services leave a lot to be desired too. Something needs to be done, but with the shambles that is under his control already, I am not sure that adding another pony to the stables is the right move. Again, we heard so much about "I want to take control" but no comments on the strikes that cripple London each time. Obviously the negotiating skills used with the tube unions don't work, so stay out of it. Wise move!
That said, when Southern rejected the idea of handing over to TfL, they DID say be part of our talks, and help us with your ideas on how it could be improved.
With London's best interests at heart, naturally Mr Khan said NO, I want nothing to do with it, and refuse to be a part of this. Nice one Sadiq!
Then my favourite bit of it all. As you can tell from the blog title.. #LondonIsOpen.
Put on most posts from the mayors office, this seems to be the favourite tag of the moment.
My only thought on it is summed up by this scene from Blades of Glory..
I don't even know what that means
No one knows what it means, but its provocative
No it's not!
Quite simple, words!
Ringing back to the Brexit referendum, when people started somehow saying that the UK was shutting the world out and didn't want to trade with them, the mayors office coined the phrase and tag #LondonIsOpen
Somehow suggesting that the world thought we were closed for some reason. Not once has it ever been suggested that London didn't want to trade with anyone, or that London was somehow closed for refurbishment. Windows painted out, so no one could see what was happening.
Nope, in fact London has never been closed, and in some ways, suggesting it is open creates an air of negativity towards it.
After that was all done with, the tag remained, and is now used on absolutely everything, from business to events etc. Which when promoting an event which has already been arranged is a bit pointless, as the organisers clearly know London Is Open, or they couldn't have booked it ! Duh!
Speaking of events, that is my next and final grip, mixed in with #LondonIsOpen
Recently, along with being open, the mayor has also identified that London is toxic. Very toxic in fact. To the point of issuing warnings suggesting people don't go outdoors unless really necessary at times, and saying how we are failing, and people are dying each year in London BECAUSE of the pollution.
Now I am no neigh sayer here, I know full well that we live in a very busy city, packed with vehicles and other things churning out toxins all day long. I certainly notice the difference when I visit Wales or the Spanish Mountains. But there seems to be some confusion from the mayors office about how bad it really is.
Day after day, Twitter is flooded with comments about how the government need to give people thousands of pounds towards replacing their diesel car. The same diesel car they were given money towards in the last scrappage scheme. The government needs to act on the pollution, taxes levied and increases to the tolls for the congestion zone. Advising how many people die annually because of the air etc.
And then, in the nest breath (a very toxic one of course) we get told about events being held, in Central London, in the open air, and how people should flock to them, because after all #LondonIsOpen.
I have posted a few examples of the contradictions below. And before you say anything, I am all for London hosting events, I love cycling in London, and spending time in town, so have nothing against it. But you can't be the champion of champions for London, aka the mayor, and scaremonger people into believing we are living in a city which has toxic smog daily, air quality warnings and sirens, and environmental wardens walking around in high vis uniforms so they can be seen through the smog.
THEN expect your same audience on Twitter to flock to events you are promoting. That's just dumb. Get a story and stick to it.
Smog and toxic
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/831929385741668377
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/830718056959709185
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/830367140733714432
London’s dirty air is a public health crisis. I’m committed to tackling this. Read more about my plans here:
Older people & adults & children with lung or heart problems should avoid strenuous physical exercise, particularly outdoors.
Meanwhile... Positives
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/832198886102093825
On 26 Feb we're turning Trafalgar Square into London's biggest cinema for a very special Oscar-night screening of #TheSalesman #LondonIsOpen << There it is!!
https://twitter.com/TfL/status/831862211303845888
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/831823169858203650
So... #LondonIsOpen AND #LondonIsToxic
In short, I guess what I am trying to put across in this entry is quite simple.
Stop talking shit Sadiq. Do what is right for London and its people, stop scaring people with over exaggerated stories, and then contradicting yourself by saying we need to bring people to London for events, tourism etc. Don't you see that by bleating on about air quality, you scare people away, not bring them here. Its the exact same media channel and audience that you speak through and to, but somehow you expect them to be positive.
London IS open, London is proud. It is a diverse yet united city who has been and still is respected globally by millions of potential tourists. Walk in the streets in town and you will see just how open London is, without having to use a damn hashtag and believe it spreads a message of positivity. It really doesn't. London is not a convenience store which has an Open/Closed sign. It is a city right up there on the world stage, historic, respected, and a magnet to people around the world. Stop pretending that YOU are single handedly making the difference, you really aren't.
#RantOver
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Dear Deeply Offended....
I just thought I should put this little blog down on the internet (the battleground of real men and women), just to finish off a conversation which was cruelly struck short by the "block" button on Twitter.
Let's get straight in with how it all started.
As some might know, I have a dashcam on my cars, mainly in case I am involved in any sort of incident. However I openly admit, I do love catching stupidity on camera too.
A couple of months after getting my first, the novelty wore off posting stupid videos, so I don't do that as much these days.
Last night however, while driving through Brockley, SE4, in South London, I was fortunate enough to be hit from behind. Obviously all on camera.
At the time of the accident, the guy who hit me mentioned that a cyclist had startled him, causing him to hit me. Bit of a weak excuse for not stopping in time but hey ho. Shit happens.
All dealt with, I went home and retrieved the footage from the camera, just in case it was needed. On reviewing it, I noticed a cyclist, who had indeed caught my eye before the accident, but I had kinda put to the back of my mind.
I have posted a still image below..
OK, so first glance, I am betting you see a cyclist, with a red pannier bag on the back of the bike.
That's what I saw too, but then I noticed the feet. That is in face a child sitting over the back wheel of a bike, being ridden on a damp road, in rush hour, with very little effort to be seen. This part of the road is well lit, so not such an issue.
Like I say, this was never the issue I retrieved the footage or image for.
Moments after passing this cyclist (far too closely and over taking on a roundabout, so I am told) I came to a stop just on the other side of the roundabout. Sadly for me, the car behind me didn't stop in time, and ran into the back of me. He said when he stopped that the cyclist caused him to swerve, and he ended up hitting me.
Now I am not for one second saying this cyclist caused me to get hit in the car. Quite frankly, that's what insurance is for. No one was hurt, that's the way it goes.
However, at this point I put events together in my head and wonder what would have happened if the car had NOT swerved, or that it had come to a stop 2-3 ft over to the left, where the cyclist was passing me as I was hit.
This is not about who's fault it would have been (motorists without question) or who should have been where. But more me visualising the impact being made on the spine of the child being carried in this manner. Devastating is the word that comes to mind.
Now with the above in mind, I posted the image on social media, saying I felt the cyclist carrying a child in such a way was being irresponsible. I added that her unsteadiness on the bike also didn't help the situation. Simple, but I admit quite damning. I was careful of course to make sure the person was not identifiable, and to be fair, didn't have any images where they were, so all good there.
My point, nice and simple. Dangerous to carry a child like that, just increasing the danger of the trip unnecessarily . Cyclist are always vulnerable, but don't make yourself MORE vulnerable.
Some got it, others however like my friend "Deeply Offended" took dislike to it, and immediately suggested I was attacking and trying to belittle a woman, and a cyclist. Not sure the sex of the cyclist was ever a point of contention, but Deeply Offended seemed to think it was part of my point. Ignoring there was even a child in the image, the comments continued that I had nothing better to do than take pictures of strangers and post them on social media. Like arguing with a nameless and faceless person on Twitter is right up there too eh!
After a few tweets telling me about myself, and I guess trying to mock me as a person for posting such images, it all went quiet. So I prodded. My oh my, I must have prodded somewhere very sensitive, guess it is always going to be the case when you poke a delicate little arsehole on the internet.
What came next was a lovely stream of comments about myself, refusing to address the actual situation for a long time, before moving on to getting me to prove an accident followed the image (I am of course answerable to strangers on the internet). Once this was done, the focus turned to my driving, and how I had apparently forced the cyclist to the left, then over taken them, dangerously on a roundabout.
Not the case I might add, but all the same, IF it had been the case, and taking into account what happened next, did I inadvertently save a life, and prevent an accident. After all, if as accused, I forced the cyclist to the left, they were originally further over right. If this were the case, then the motorist who struck my car would without question have hit them.
Needless to say, after a little name calling, some biased facts being touted about, and some more name calling , I was blocked. Sorry to have offended you @edspindrift , I was really enjoying our conversation.
What I find frustrating about speaking to people like this, is whatever the case, they have an agenda, and are not willing to budge. Nothing is taken into consideration, and one tweet even suggested they had only read one tweet before boarding the bandwagon, so knew nothing else than the 140 characters they had read. Clearly well informed, they decided to go to town.
To be fair, social media would be a boring place without these people, and reminds me that as outspoken as I am, I try to make informed comments, rather than just trolling for key words, and unleashing my uneducated, misinformed rhetoric on strangers. One comment that did tickle me was that if I cared about the safety of the child, I should give the rider some lights. So somehow it becomes my responsibility to buy lights for other road users who choose to put themselves and others in danger, to show I care?
Not the responsibility of the rider to make sure that they are clearly seen, especially when increasing their level of vulnerability? Wow, how things have changed.
As a keen cyclist myself, I make sure I am well lit, easy as possible to see, and present myself to other road users in the safest possible fashion possibly.
This is most likely one of the reasons I take such offence to other cyclists who don't give a crap. And take even more offence to keyboard warriors who take it upon themselves to defend stupid behaviour, automatically suggest the motorist could and should do more to make the roads safer, and refuse at all costs, that the cyclist can ever be either to blame or even increased the risks of the situation.
If today has taught me anything it is that there is no talking to some people. Some just have one thing in their head, and there is no point in trying to get your point across, either politely, or otherwise.
If you try the otherwise approach, they sulk, and block you from the platform they first found you on and started the whole debate. These people are usually habitual people, who spend a lot of their spare time pursuing the same narrow minded road of thinking.
I applaud some for their commitment to their causes. And in the course of the above interactions, I also engaged with another more open minded individual, who I genuinely enjoyed taking to.
So, make of it what you will. To me, the images I caught while retrieving the crash footage just alarmed me. I would hate to see someone I know and care about being carried on the public roads like that. If it's normal or acceptable to you, so be it. We have a different opinion, that's all. Makes neither of us an arsehole. The conversation which follows your opinion will define that.
More out takes from the conversation here... The full transcript is available on twitter on mine or @edspindrift
Let's get straight in with how it all started.
As some might know, I have a dashcam on my cars, mainly in case I am involved in any sort of incident. However I openly admit, I do love catching stupidity on camera too.
A couple of months after getting my first, the novelty wore off posting stupid videos, so I don't do that as much these days.
Last night however, while driving through Brockley, SE4, in South London, I was fortunate enough to be hit from behind. Obviously all on camera.
At the time of the accident, the guy who hit me mentioned that a cyclist had startled him, causing him to hit me. Bit of a weak excuse for not stopping in time but hey ho. Shit happens.
All dealt with, I went home and retrieved the footage from the camera, just in case it was needed. On reviewing it, I noticed a cyclist, who had indeed caught my eye before the accident, but I had kinda put to the back of my mind.
I have posted a still image below..
OK, so first glance, I am betting you see a cyclist, with a red pannier bag on the back of the bike.
That's what I saw too, but then I noticed the feet. That is in face a child sitting over the back wheel of a bike, being ridden on a damp road, in rush hour, with very little effort to be seen. This part of the road is well lit, so not such an issue.
Like I say, this was never the issue I retrieved the footage or image for.
Moments after passing this cyclist (far too closely and over taking on a roundabout, so I am told) I came to a stop just on the other side of the roundabout. Sadly for me, the car behind me didn't stop in time, and ran into the back of me. He said when he stopped that the cyclist caused him to swerve, and he ended up hitting me.
Now I am not for one second saying this cyclist caused me to get hit in the car. Quite frankly, that's what insurance is for. No one was hurt, that's the way it goes.
However, at this point I put events together in my head and wonder what would have happened if the car had NOT swerved, or that it had come to a stop 2-3 ft over to the left, where the cyclist was passing me as I was hit.
This is not about who's fault it would have been (motorists without question) or who should have been where. But more me visualising the impact being made on the spine of the child being carried in this manner. Devastating is the word that comes to mind.
Now with the above in mind, I posted the image on social media, saying I felt the cyclist carrying a child in such a way was being irresponsible. I added that her unsteadiness on the bike also didn't help the situation. Simple, but I admit quite damning. I was careful of course to make sure the person was not identifiable, and to be fair, didn't have any images where they were, so all good there.
Some got it, others however like my friend "Deeply Offended" took dislike to it, and immediately suggested I was attacking and trying to belittle a woman, and a cyclist. Not sure the sex of the cyclist was ever a point of contention, but Deeply Offended seemed to think it was part of my point. Ignoring there was even a child in the image, the comments continued that I had nothing better to do than take pictures of strangers and post them on social media. Like arguing with a nameless and faceless person on Twitter is right up there too eh!
After a few tweets telling me about myself, and I guess trying to mock me as a person for posting such images, it all went quiet. So I prodded. My oh my, I must have prodded somewhere very sensitive, guess it is always going to be the case when you poke a delicate little arsehole on the internet.
What came next was a lovely stream of comments about myself, refusing to address the actual situation for a long time, before moving on to getting me to prove an accident followed the image (I am of course answerable to strangers on the internet). Once this was done, the focus turned to my driving, and how I had apparently forced the cyclist to the left, then over taken them, dangerously on a roundabout.
Not the case I might add, but all the same, IF it had been the case, and taking into account what happened next, did I inadvertently save a life, and prevent an accident. After all, if as accused, I forced the cyclist to the left, they were originally further over right. If this were the case, then the motorist who struck my car would without question have hit them.
Needless to say, after a little name calling, some biased facts being touted about, and some more name calling , I was blocked. Sorry to have offended you @edspindrift , I was really enjoying our conversation.
What I find frustrating about speaking to people like this, is whatever the case, they have an agenda, and are not willing to budge. Nothing is taken into consideration, and one tweet even suggested they had only read one tweet before boarding the bandwagon, so knew nothing else than the 140 characters they had read. Clearly well informed, they decided to go to town.
To be fair, social media would be a boring place without these people, and reminds me that as outspoken as I am, I try to make informed comments, rather than just trolling for key words, and unleashing my uneducated, misinformed rhetoric on strangers. One comment that did tickle me was that if I cared about the safety of the child, I should give the rider some lights. So somehow it becomes my responsibility to buy lights for other road users who choose to put themselves and others in danger, to show I care?
Not the responsibility of the rider to make sure that they are clearly seen, especially when increasing their level of vulnerability? Wow, how things have changed.
As a keen cyclist myself, I make sure I am well lit, easy as possible to see, and present myself to other road users in the safest possible fashion possibly.
This is most likely one of the reasons I take such offence to other cyclists who don't give a crap. And take even more offence to keyboard warriors who take it upon themselves to defend stupid behaviour, automatically suggest the motorist could and should do more to make the roads safer, and refuse at all costs, that the cyclist can ever be either to blame or even increased the risks of the situation.
If today has taught me anything it is that there is no talking to some people. Some just have one thing in their head, and there is no point in trying to get your point across, either politely, or otherwise.
If you try the otherwise approach, they sulk, and block you from the platform they first found you on and started the whole debate. These people are usually habitual people, who spend a lot of their spare time pursuing the same narrow minded road of thinking.
I applaud some for their commitment to their causes. And in the course of the above interactions, I also engaged with another more open minded individual, who I genuinely enjoyed taking to.
So, make of it what you will. To me, the images I caught while retrieving the crash footage just alarmed me. I would hate to see someone I know and care about being carried on the public roads like that. If it's normal or acceptable to you, so be it. We have a different opinion, that's all. Makes neither of us an arsehole. The conversation which follows your opinion will define that.
More out takes from the conversation here... The full transcript is available on twitter on mine or @edspindrift
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Going on the record re L&Q
First up I want to say that this is NOT a dig at L&Q, not for one second.
Over the years since taking over from Lewisham Homes, for me at least, they have done a sterling job of taking care of business.
OK there was the issue with the bathroom taking a little longer than expected to deal with, but other than that. A few hiccups, some no show contractors from time to time, but really nothing to cry about (apart from the bathroom, did I already say that?)
So, a few years back (2010) the driveway was resurfaced. I use this term loosely as the driveway was actually covered over with a good few inches of concrete. During the laying of the driveway, in Dec 2010 we had heavy snow and freezing temperatures, which sadly had an effect on the way the work ended up. Now i'm not saying it is not an improvement on the old drive, it is. But what I have said to L&Q all along is, the finished result was not what I would personally sign off on and agree to pay a contractor for.
Sweep it on a dry day and you can sweep away layers and layers of powdered concrete, walk on it on a wet day and you will slip on the exposed stones. As one of my neighbours did a few years back, breaking her ankle in the process. This was what drove me to contact L&Q again about the condition. The fact it has deteriorated this much in this short space of time, and someone has already slipped on it. Thats not to mention the dust and stones kicking about the place.
Well today the results are in, and after provisionally agreeing it needed repairing, the new surveyor has made the decision that NO work is needed on the driveway and it should remain as it is.
I am fine with this decision, and accept it with no challenges whatsoever. However....
Should anyone have any form of accident in the coming years relating to the condition of the surface of the driveway..... I WILL say I told you so.
So for now, its back to sweeping the drive carefully of leaves and snow when they cover it, in case I sweep the drive away, and looking out for fallen neighbours over the winter as the colder weather makes it even more slippery.
As for the rest of the work being done on the house. Thank you L&Q for looking after us so well. I am more than happy with it all, just bad call on the driveway. In my untrained opinion of course.
Work in progress in Dec 2010 (before the snow stopped play)
The whole area was laid with hand mixed concrete.. The house up the road had it delivered on a mixer for the same contractors working for L&Q. Clearly learned from this mistake. Theirs is fine by the way.
Over the years since taking over from Lewisham Homes, for me at least, they have done a sterling job of taking care of business.
OK there was the issue with the bathroom taking a little longer than expected to deal with, but other than that. A few hiccups, some no show contractors from time to time, but really nothing to cry about (apart from the bathroom, did I already say that?)
So, a few years back (2010) the driveway was resurfaced. I use this term loosely as the driveway was actually covered over with a good few inches of concrete. During the laying of the driveway, in Dec 2010 we had heavy snow and freezing temperatures, which sadly had an effect on the way the work ended up. Now i'm not saying it is not an improvement on the old drive, it is. But what I have said to L&Q all along is, the finished result was not what I would personally sign off on and agree to pay a contractor for.
Sweep it on a dry day and you can sweep away layers and layers of powdered concrete, walk on it on a wet day and you will slip on the exposed stones. As one of my neighbours did a few years back, breaking her ankle in the process. This was what drove me to contact L&Q again about the condition. The fact it has deteriorated this much in this short space of time, and someone has already slipped on it. Thats not to mention the dust and stones kicking about the place.
Well today the results are in, and after provisionally agreeing it needed repairing, the new surveyor has made the decision that NO work is needed on the driveway and it should remain as it is.
I am fine with this decision, and accept it with no challenges whatsoever. However....
Should anyone have any form of accident in the coming years relating to the condition of the surface of the driveway..... I WILL say I told you so.
So for now, its back to sweeping the drive carefully of leaves and snow when they cover it, in case I sweep the drive away, and looking out for fallen neighbours over the winter as the colder weather makes it even more slippery.
As for the rest of the work being done on the house. Thank you L&Q for looking after us so well. I am more than happy with it all, just bad call on the driveway. In my untrained opinion of course.
Work in progress in Dec 2010 (before the snow stopped play)
The whole area was laid with hand mixed concrete.. The house up the road had it delivered on a mixer for the same contractors working for L&Q. Clearly learned from this mistake. Theirs is fine by the way.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Southwark Council, sort it out !
Seriously, the spot I am referring to in the email below has been a joke for a LONG time now, constantly covered in bird faeces, and occasionally jet washed to a seriously slippery finish. Just stop the birds from nesting up there, then the problem is over with surely?
I will get some pics of the said spot in the dry and better lighting when I can to show what I mean, but for now, I am aching and am unimpressed with the state of the pavement. Thanks for falling over into bird crap !
I am writing to you today regarding a fall I
have taken on one of your pavements on Southwark Park Road at the junction of
Raymouth Road opposite Drummond Road.
The cause of the fall was purely down to the
build up of bird faeces on the pavement causing the surface be be very
slippery. As I began to slip I tried to catch myself, causing what I can only
describe as a cartoon slip on the spot before finally falling to my knees.
While this might sound slightly amusing, it has caused me a great deal of distress both mentally and physically. It is humiliating to take a fall like that in public, without the addition of then having to continue my journey covered in bird faeces.
In the fall I have strained the muscles in my neck and shoulder, caused scuffs on both my hands, as well as getting faeces on my trousers, trainers, hands and bag.
(pics attached)
I have seen on a number of occasions that crews jet wash the pavement, however this build up is quite a lot so indicates it has been a while. And even after the attempted clean up, the pavement remains very slippery.
Walking under this rail bridge is always an interesting affair, wondering if you will be bombed by the pigeons above. So it bothers me a great deal that so little has been done to prevent them from settling there. Other bridges have had successful netting work carried out.
So, today I am left with my clothing covered in bird faeces, sore hands, and a tight neck and shoulder, all thanks to the poor efforts of a council in maintaining their pavements. I look forwards to hearing back from you soon with a sensible solution to this matter.
While this might sound slightly amusing, it has caused me a great deal of distress both mentally and physically. It is humiliating to take a fall like that in public, without the addition of then having to continue my journey covered in bird faeces.
In the fall I have strained the muscles in my neck and shoulder, caused scuffs on both my hands, as well as getting faeces on my trousers, trainers, hands and bag.
(pics attached)
I have seen on a number of occasions that crews jet wash the pavement, however this build up is quite a lot so indicates it has been a while. And even after the attempted clean up, the pavement remains very slippery.
Walking under this rail bridge is always an interesting affair, wondering if you will be bombed by the pigeons above. So it bothers me a great deal that so little has been done to prevent them from settling there. Other bridges have had successful netting work carried out.
So, today I am left with my clothing covered in bird faeces, sore hands, and a tight neck and shoulder, all thanks to the poor efforts of a council in maintaining their pavements. I look forwards to hearing back from you soon with a sensible solution to this matter.
Yours painfully
***UPDATE**
Great reply from Southwark Council on Twitter.
@MichaelSnasdell Build up of bird droppings under railway bridges we usually jet wash once a week. TFL are responsible for the netting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)