Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Cyclists / electric scooter users

245

Comments

  • Scooters, electric or otherwise, should smashed up on sight. They are the most ridiculous mode of transport for an adult to ride.

    Just my opinion, but I don't know a single person who would disagree.

    London would be a far more enjoyable city if there were less large motorised vehicles on the roads. If electric scooters persuade people to ditch their cars they're OK by me. 
  • Scooters, electric or otherwise, should smashed up on sight. They are the most ridiculous mode of transport for an adult to ride.

    Just my opinion, but I don't know a single person who would disagree.

    London would be a far more enjoyable city if there were less large motorised vehicles on the roads. If electric scooters persuade people to ditch their cars they're OK by me. 
    They need to be made legal first and the safety aspect investigated - electric scooters have stability issues given the speed they can go.

    The road network in London is not fit for purpose for shared use at the present time. You can't get rid of all motorised vehicles but a lot of 'unecessary' journeys can be avoided.

    Some cars are hardly used - they're definitely dwindling in popularity.
  • Scooters, electric or otherwise, should smashed up on sight. They are the most ridiculous mode of transport for an adult to ride.

    Just my opinion, but I don't know a single person who would disagree.

    London would be a far more enjoyable city if there were less large motorised vehicles on the roads. If electric scooters persuade people to ditch their cars they're OK by me. 
    They need to be made legal first and the safety aspect investigated - electric scooters have stability issues given the speed they can go.

    The road network in London is not fit for purpose for shared use at the present time. You can't get rid of all motorised vehicles but a lot of 'unecessary' journeys can be avoided.

    Some cars are hardly used - they're definitely dwindling in popularity.
    I don't see how the roads can be an issue, London's road network is vastly superior to Kunming and we have over a million electric bikes on the roads. 

    Anything that reduces traffic and emissions must be a good thing, surely.
  • Daggs said:

    Scooters, electric or otherwise, should smashed up on sight. They are the most ridiculous mode of transport for an adult to ride.

    Just my opinion, but I don't know a single person who would disagree.


    If you're including motor scooters of historic nature (Lambretta/Vespa etc.) Or indeed modern 'twist 'n' go' scooters (they're scooters not mopeds if over 50cc) I could introduce you to several thousand individuals who would disagree.

    No, I think you know the type I mean. The super sized 3 year olds toy or the ones with electric motors ridden by selfish prats who pay no insurance but have no regard for anyone or even themselves.

    (I never thought of the old Italian style scooters when  I said they should be smashed up but food for thought there as well) 

     

  • Scooters, electric or otherwise, should smashed up on sight. They are the most ridiculous mode of transport for an adult to ride.

    Just my opinion, but I don't know a single person who would disagree.

    London would be a far more enjoyable city if there were less large motorised vehicles on the roads. If electric scooters persuade people to ditch their cars they're OK by me. 
    They need to be made legal first and the safety aspect investigated - electric scooters have stability issues given the speed they can go.

    The road network in London is not fit for purpose for shared use at the present time. You can't get rid of all motorised vehicles but a lot of 'unecessary' journeys can be avoided.

    Some cars are hardly used - they're definitely dwindling in popularity.
    I don't see how the roads can be an issue, London's road network is vastly superior to Kunming and we have over a million electric bikes on the roads. 

    Anything that reduces traffic and emissions must be a good thing, surely.
    Presumably if the roads weren't an issue there wouldn't be any accidents. I've found them unsatisfactory as both a cyclist and a driver - quite possibly other cities are a lot worse.

    Reducing traffic is a good thing and I do think a lot of vehicle journeys could be avoided if people used public transport. Some use is unavoidable.
  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
  • Daggs said:

    Scooters, electric or otherwise, should smashed up on sight. They are the most ridiculous mode of transport for an adult to ride.

    Just my opinion, but I don't know a single person who would disagree.


    If you're including motor scooters of historic nature (Lambretta/Vespa etc.) Or indeed modern 'twist 'n' go' scooters (they're scooters not mopeds if over 50cc) I could introduce you to several thousand individuals who would disagree.

    No, I think you know the type I mean. The super sized 3 year olds toy or the ones with electric motors ridden by selfish prats who pay no insurance but have no regard for anyone or even themselves.

    (I never thought of the old Italian style scooters when  I said they should be smashed up but food for thought there as well) 

     


    I don't live within London, so have never encountered the type of scooter to which you refer, here in my more rural area.

     I did bump (not literally) into some in the Canary Islands earlier this year and they were being 'driven' appallingly by irresponsible lunatics. I mentioned to my wife ' I can't believe these things are legal'

  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
  • Of the 448 killed by a vehicle in 2016, 3 were caused by cyclists, compared to 289 by cars. These levels have been broadly consistent over the past five years.

    102 cyclists were killed on British roads in 2016. Around 3,400 were seriously injured, and there were around 15,000 other casualties. This data won’t cover any incidents that weren’t reported.

    Maybe that's why the police see it as less of a priority?
  • Sponsored links:


  • 'light blue touch paper and retreat'

    5...4...3...2...1...

    As soon as I see this thread my immediate thought was.. 'I hope you've got your tin hat on' 
  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
    No one is suggesting we don't try to improve things, I just think you've got totally the wrong target, whilst some cyclists may be a problem, clearly people who drive cars are doing far, far more damage.
  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
    No one is suggesting we don't try to improve things, I just think you've got totally the wrong target, whilst some cyclists may be a problem, clearly people who drive cars are doing far, far more damage.
    The thread is not about cars - I have said this several times but invariably everyone keeps changing the subject.

    I'm not clear what your point is? I've said we should improve the road network to prevent avoidable accidents so I'm assuming you can at least agree on this. If the road network is not fit for purpose as it stands we should at least acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise.

    Vehicles are not going to disappear so why not try and make things safer for all road users and pedestrians.


  • Of the 448 killed by a vehicle in 2016, 3 were caused by cyclists, compared to 289 by cars. These levels have been broadly consistent over the past five years.

    102 cyclists were killed on British roads in 2016. Around 3,400 were seriously injured, and there were around 15,000 other casualties. This data won’t cover any incidents that weren’t reported.

    Maybe that's why the police see it as less of a priority?
    The police should protect all road users and pedestrians - they are failing at present. It's abundantly clear they don't target those on two wheels whatever they do but for some reason this group are above the law?

    If a cyclist or electric scooter crashed into you on the pavement or pedestrian crossing I'm assuming you'd be unhappy.


  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
    No one is suggesting we don't try to improve things, I just think you've got totally the wrong target, whilst some cyclists may be a problem, clearly people who drive cars are doing far, far more damage.
    The thread is not about cars - I have said this several times but invariably everyone keeps changing the subject.

    I'm not clear what your point is? I've said we should improve the road network to prevent avoidable accidents so I'm assuming you can at least agree on this. If the road network is not fit for purpose as it stands we should at least acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise.

    Vehicles are not going to disappear so why not try and make things safer for all road users and pedestrians.


    I agree the road network can be improved, I don't agree its not fit for purpose, I believe that's somewhat OTT.


    You also claimed the roads are getting worse as cyclists increase, that's utter nonsense, as proven by the stats, cars are the problem, so whilst no one should be above the law, the police need to use their resources in a sensible way. Their primary focus should be reckless car drivees, whilst still enforcing the law against cyclists, which already happens.
  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
    No one is suggesting we don't try to improve things, I just think you've got totally the wrong target, whilst some cyclists may be a problem, clearly people who drive cars are doing far, far more damage.
    The thread is not about cars - I have said this several times but invariably everyone keeps changing the subject.

    I'm not clear what your point is? I've said we should improve the road network to prevent avoidable accidents so I'm assuming you can at least agree on this. If the road network is not fit for purpose as it stands we should at least acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise.

    Vehicles are not going to disappear so why not try and make things safer for all road users and pedestrians.


    You may have started the thread and named it but it isn't yours thereafter. It'll do what all conversations do. Follow it's own course until it ends.
  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
    No one is suggesting we don't try to improve things, I just think you've got totally the wrong target, whilst some cyclists may be a problem, clearly people who drive cars are doing far, far more damage.
    The thread is not about cars - I have said this several times but invariably everyone keeps changing the subject.

    I'm not clear what your point is? I've said we should improve the road network to prevent avoidable accidents so I'm assuming you can at least agree on this. If the road network is not fit for purpose as it stands we should at least acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise.

    Vehicles are not going to disappear so why not try and make things safer for all road users and pedestrians.


    I agree the road network can be improved, I don't agree its not fit for purpose, I believe that's somewhat OTT.


    You also claimed the roads are getting worse as cyclists increase, that's utter nonsense, as proven by the stats, cars are the problem, so whilst no one should be above the law, the police need to use their resources in a sensible way. Their primary focus should be reckless car drivees, whilst still enforcing the law against cyclists, which already happens.
    Try driving in Central London in early morning surrounded by hordes of cyclists many of whom pay no attention to traffic lights etc and then tell me it's fit for purpose. It's not an OTT comment.

    There are plenty of bad cyclists out there who contribute to the problem and I rarely see any action taken. I don't expect them to be the priority but I do expect some action to be taken. 

    Cyclists and electric scooters use pavements like a racetrack near where I live and show no regard for pedestrians. Their anonymity protects them and they know that.

    Cars are obviously more dangerous but it's a myth to pretend tbere are no issues with bikes, scooters etc.


  • Who said there are no issues with bikes and scooters? You just made that up to suit your argument.

    You're also ignoring the evidence on this very thread showing cyclists being dealt with by the police.
  • There's always going to be accident, even the best road in the world are gonna have accidents, human error.
    Doesn't mean you can't make roads safer - a better road network would cut down on accidents. A lot of the roads in London weren't designed to be shared by motorists/cyclists and they're getting worse as the number of cyclists increases.

    Some of the accidents could be avoided.
    No one is suggesting we don't try to improve things, I just think you've got totally the wrong target, whilst some cyclists may be a problem, clearly people who drive cars are doing far, far more damage.
    The thread is not about cars - I have said this several times but invariably everyone keeps changing the subject.

    I'm not clear what your point is? I've said we should improve the road network to prevent avoidable accidents so I'm assuming you can at least agree on this. If the road network is not fit for purpose as it stands we should at least acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise.

    Vehicles are not going to disappear so why not try and make things safer for all road users and pedestrians.


    By getting rid of cyclists. I think that is what you'd really like.

    The police do target bad cyclists as i've shown above but i think you'll find for every bad cyclist there are 10 bad car/lorry/scooter drivers and riders.
    I don't drive so i use the bus a lot. You should sit on the upper deck sometime and see the amount of people texting while driving, especially mums with kids on board. It's shocking.
  • Who said there are no issues with bikes and scooters? You just made that up to suit your argument.

    You're also ignoring the evidence on this very thread showing cyclists being dealt with by the police.
    One example of police targetting cyclists in Greenwich and a few videos on Youtube is not really proof of anything.

    The police rarely target transgressions by cyclists/scooters - it's done very rarely. As a motorist if I drove through red lights, up pavements etc I'd soon be prosecuted and  quite rightly. My number plate would identify me.

    There is a minority of dangerous cyclists who know they're highly unlikely to ever be held to account - their anonymity protects them.

    In all my time living in London I have never seen a cyclist or electric scooter stopped by the police.
  • Sponsored links:


  • What more proof do you want, if video evidence isn't enough? Written testimony from a police officer?

    What do you think would make the roads safer, no cyclists, or no car drivers?
  • edited July 2019
    Of the 448 killed by a vehicle in 2016, 3 were caused by cyclists, compared to 289 by cars. These levels have been broadly consistent over the past five years.

    102 cyclists were killed on British roads in 2016. Around 3,400 were seriously injured, and there were around 15,000 other casualties. This data won’t cover any incidents that weren’t reported.

    Maybe that's why the police see it as less of a priority?
    The police should protect all road users and pedestrians - they are failing at present. It's abundantly clear they don't target those on two wheels whatever they do but for some reason this group are above the law?

    If a cyclist or electric scooter crashed into you on the pavement or pedestrian crossing I'm assuming you'd be unhappy.


    Depends if it killed me or not.

  • I really think the Police have more important things to do than waiting at traffic lights in case a cyclist goes through a red light.
  • I really think the Police have more important things to do than waiting at traffic lights in case a cyclist goes through a red light.
    I wish they'd start arresting bloody pedestrians in Looe high street at this time of year.  Flagrant disregard for other pavement users.
  • I really think the Police have more important things to do than waiting at traffic lights in case a cyclist goes through a red light.
    They wouldn't have long to wait!
  • What more proof do you want, if video evidence isn't enough? Written testimony from a police officer?

    What do you think would make the roads safer, no cyclists, or no car drivers?
    Cyclists are rarely stopped by the police for road traffic offences - I've not seen a single cyclist stopped in my entire life in London. One person on here has mentioned that there was once an operation in Greenwich to target errant cyclists and there are a few videos on Youtube. They're basically given a free pass and have anonymity on their side - I don't see any wealth of evidence to suggest police make them a priority.

    Your other question is just plain infantile. I've made the point that the road network in London needs tweaking to make it safer for all road users - vehicles and cyclists have to share the network unless you think London can function free of motor vehicles.

    Dedicated cycle paths would help that stop vehicles and cyclists having to share narrow roads that don't have enough space or where there is poor visibility.

    Do you think cities can function free of motor vehicles?
  • Of the 448 killed by a vehicle in 2016, 3 were caused by cyclists, compared to 289 by cars. These levels have been broadly consistent over the past five years.

    102 cyclists were killed on British roads in 2016. Around 3,400 were seriously injured, and there were around 15,000 other casualties. This data won’t cover any incidents that weren’t reported.

    Maybe that's why the police see it as less of a priority?
    The police should protect all road users and pedestrians - they are failing at present. It's abundantly clear they don't target those on two wheels whatever they do but for some reason this group are above the law?

    If a cyclist or electric scooter crashed into you on the pavement or pedestrian crossing I'm assuming you'd be unhappy.


    Depends if it killed me or not.

    How about broken arm, leg or head injury?
  • I think we will see carless cities in the not too distant future, yes!  Maybe not London but a more forward thinking progressive city, for sure.

    Cars are an unnecessary menace and I say that as someone whos owns a bicycle, an electric scooter and a car.
  • My belief is, if your over 12 and on a bike the road is for you. We get a lot cyclists around and a high percentage use the pavement. Strangely I never have a problem with them and they will leave the pavement and return to the road when we come along. 🐕🐕🐕😂😂😂
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!