West Ham Labour Party calls for cyclists to be made to use cycle lanes

Couldn't resist emailing them : westhamlabour [at] gmail.com

Your are revealing your collective stupidity.

Cyclists WILL user proper cycle lanes that keep them safe. (Look to Holland etc)
Cyclists will not use the crappy painted routes along the edge of the kerb that pass for cycle lanes.
They are inherently dangerous:

1. They put cyclists in drivers blind spot.
2. The encourage drivers to overtake and turn left (left hook)
3. Many are painted along side parking bays for cars so there is danger of dooring.
4. They give cyclists poor visibility of traffic.
5. They encourage drivers to squeeze through on the right when the road is narrow.
6. They are often too narrow , where the road surface is poorest.

Your entire nonsense was put  forward by some cycle hating idiot (no doubt convincing themselves it's for cyclists good).

For safety,cCyclists learn to move to center on narrow roads and when crossing mouths of junctions. How many cycle lanes have you seen that follow that pattern?
Now imagine how a mandatory law would work, cyclists would now have move out at danger, and move left when clear, this creates unpredictable direction which itself is dangerous. 

You guys are just dumb. At least speak to someone that regularly cycles (I mean every day).

Mandatory cycle lanes will work  IF you properly invest in proper cycling infrastructure (clue : not paint). I suspect you dont wan't to do that, you just have a cycle hater with too much gob on in your gang..

What a bunch of wankers.    I resigned from tje Labour Party over Iraq.

Before then I had been very active, ex Secretary of Sale LP,  and pushed invironmentally policies through the Party and SERA .   I wonder where the Party is going and it is events like this kill any thoughts I have of rejoining.  One of Allende's ministers said that socialism was only possible on a bicycle.

"West Ham Labour Party passed a motion".

Ooh, Matron.  It don't half pen and ink.  

Oh dear! Yet another reason to stop voting Labour...

(The others being Jeremy Corbyn, the takeover of the party by the far Left, being such a useless Official Opposition under Corbyn,  and their MPs voting for article 50).

The demand to make the bike lanes compulsory derives precisely from the fact that they are inferior: if they were superior, there would be no need to compel their use.

This is as true in West Ham as it is in the Netherlands, where cyclists are often to be found rolling the pavé while the motorist 3m to their left enjoys smooth tarmac (and a direct line at the next junction).

More: http://juliusbeezer.blogspot.fr/search/label/separatist-critique

As a Newham resident I can confirm as previous comments suggested that cycle lanes (segregated from traffic or on the road) are often in terrible condition, however the roads are often in no better condition. The bike lanes that are on the pavement are often covered in litter and filled with pedestrians, and as a cyclist who wishes to cycle more than 5m at a speed above 2kmh, the roads are a much better option, despite the drivers being as unaware of cyclists as a pedestrian in a Newham bike lane with a cyclist coming towards them!! To make bike lanes compulsory would mean changing the whole road infrastructure, the way that drivers learn to drive and in general the way that all road users and pedestrians act when putting themselves or other in a position where someone could be at risk of an accident. Too many times in Newham have the bike lanes been filled with potholes, pedestrians, "cyclists" going in the wrong direction, dirt, gravel, puddles, litter, parked cars etc. and to make these dangerous conditions compulsory would be putting in danger the lives of many people, including myself. I have received a lot of abuse from not cycling in bike lanes in the past, however I am/was fully aware that it is not compulsory to cycle in bike lanes, and the fact that drivers (who have supposedly passed both a theory and practical test in which they should study aspects of the highway code) are not aware of that and direct abuse towards someone who stops them from getting to a red light 2 seconds faster is an issue that should be addressed much more than the compulsory use of bike lanes. Rather than having a reform for cyclists who are aware that their lives are much more at risk, there should be reform among those who may endanger the lives of cyclists: pedestrians, drivers and other road users.

Quote:

brooksby [1851 posts] 8 hours ago

Quote:

Where ever they exist, these should be used for the safety of themselves and all other road users.

I'm pretty sure that whether a cyclist uses a cycle lane or not, has no effect whatsoever on the safety of other road users...

when I'm listening  to the traffic news I'm always thinking "wow all those cyclists that 'nearly caused an accident' have actually caused lots and lots" 

"Enshrined in Law" a beautiful phrase, not much used after 1890.

Newham is a one party state with Labours own Kim il Jung figure of a an elected mayor. Suspect the local constituency party aren't allowed to play with the political equivalent of sharp objects, but someone thought it would be safe enough to let them talk about bikes. 

To answer burtthebikes question, I don't think any of the Newham crowd will own 4x4 s but that would represent an accurate count of the average IQ of those allowed out of the house to go to a party meeting.

And yes, the local cycling infrastructure is crap, apart from the velodrome, but obviously that's not the council's responsibility. Yet.

Just how out of touch do you have to be to become a member of West Ham Labour party?  Is it only open to drivers of 4x4s?  Do you have to be completely wedded to your car?

I'm sure Jeremy Corby will be having a quiet word about concentrating on those little things like, poverty, housing, pollution etc.  Obviously West Ham doesn't suffer any of those problems if they have time to propose and pass something as utterly idiotic as this.

Labour deserve to be annhilated in the next election. This is pathetic.

I'm so glad glad I quit the Labour Party last week.  Sad what it has become and it's lack of principles and leadership.

Councillors tinker

Enforce shit infrastructure

Yeah... good luck with that

Oh, and just to be clear - a "Shared use path" is NOT a cycle lane.

I love this site, this is almost as good as the Haiku afternoon.  Ohh that we could combine the two, could we, please?

Ahh but I have stuff that I need to do.  

I too wish I had the skills, and tyres of Danny.

I like this as well: all cyclists should mandatorily use all available cycle lanes

All cyclists - worldwide, or just within the UK?

All available cycle lanes - All of them? At the same time? Do we have to set up a rota? What if one of us is ill and can't cover their shift?  What's the minimum cyclist per length of cycle lane ratio for us to be able to comply?

And is mandatorily even a word?

Does this mean I can spray paint a bike on the back window of every car parked in the bike lane and ride trails style over the top of them?

It's unenforceable. And there are already laws/rules covering the use of cycling infrastructure (and it's not dog walkers, taxis or delivery vans).

So, apart from making the local Labour party look like a bunch of complete fuckwits, what does this achieve? And people wonder why party membership is declining...

@ianrobo - it's clear that you've seen this all before.

"providing it is safe to do so"

Oooops, that is none of them then!

Where cycle highways/Lanes exist primary legislation should be put in place so that all cyclists should retain their historic and legal right to use the highway. Drivers of motor vehicles licensed to share the highway with those that have a historic and legal right should be required to comply entirely with all laws appertaining to that use; these laws should be enforced  rigidly for the safety of themselves and all other road users.

We call upon West Ham CLP to lobby parliament to this end to have these existing rights confirmed as being enshrined in law.

I reckon that reads better!

The stupid thing is that a lot of motorists already think it's mandatory for cycists to use a cycle path if one is anywhere nearby.

I hope this motion is thrown out and given a bit of publicity so maybe these fools will be informed about the law and the reasons why cyclist don't always use the cycle lanes.

Most of the cycle lanes in my area seem to have been built to tick a box and cater for people taking a gentle leisure ride rather than for people actually wanting to get anywhere, so they are highly convoluted routers that don't go anywhere useful.

Quote:

Where ever they exist, these should be used for the safety of themselves and all other road users.

I'm pretty sure that whether a cyclist uses a cycle lane or not, has no effect whatsoever on the safety of other road users...

As an ex member of Labour I can tell you exactly what happened here

- one idiot with a greivance gets this to be debated

- other people sit there like nodding dogs not to upset said idiot

-no one puts the other side

-motion put through as totally meaningless

-meanwhile MP probably not there but lets say Lyn Brown's rep is not exactly of one who has the intelligence to work this out.

I don't have a problem with it, except that it is a waste of time. If you read the wording:

"Where cycle highways/Lanes exist primary legislation should be put in place so that, providing it is safe to do so, all cyclists should mandatorily use all available cycle lanes. Where ever they exist, these should be used for the safety of themselves and all other road users."

Surely the only reason we do not use the cycle lanes when there is one is because it is not safe to do so. It is not any different from the definition in the highway code really.