Forum Topic

"when people spend good money on something that is not banned or against the law,people just dont like being told what you can and cant do."That's a description of entitlement and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the minority of people being persistent and long-term opponents of safer streets. But there are loads of other reasons. Almost as many as there are other genuine active members of OneChiswick:Car addictionCar fetishisationDeep-seated grudges and grievances against the Council or other authoritiesNPD - can't stand losing against perceived inferiorsIrrational fear or hatred of cyclistsStupidityAnnoyance at smugness of people like me who support and enjoy the changes and take pleasure in saying soPoliticsFear of changeReactionary conservatismLazinessActual genuine car dependency and fear (mainly stoked by the opponents of changes) that actual genuine freedoms rather than privileges are going to be taken awayPathological need to argue with people on the internetDementiaOther forms of mental illnessPersecution complexesDesire to deny others the privileges they themselves enjoyLibertarianism (overlapping with other reasons in this list)Genuine concerns for personal safetyFear of lack of competence in driving and causing danger to othersCager syndromeMGIF syndrome PsycopathySuperiority complexExceptionalismI could go on as this is definitely not an exhaustive list. But I'm sure many of the opponents of safer streets will find something here that they can identify with. And diagnosing the problem is the first step in healing. Not for the psychopaths though - lock 'em up!

Paul Campbell ● 1438d

God, you are pathetic Ed. Your logic is utterly illogical.Firstly, gaslighting by saying I believe a third of drivers are hypocrites isn’t a good start from you. I’d suggest you and the few other ultra zealots like Campbell, James and others are hypocrites because you don’t practice what you preach. If you really think there’s too much traffic then vow never to use motorised transport again. That includes deliveries and taxis. Fewer vehicles on the road then, no? I’ve no problem with normal people who drive and cycle if they aren’t foaming at the mouth about the perceived injustices inflicted on cyclists.Pavements are indeed set aside for pedestrians. Walking is rolled up with cycling in active travel, otherwise the justification for spending inordinate amounts of public money on cycling infrastructure wouldn’t be justifiable. Take out the pedestrian element and you’re left with minuscule numbers of supposed beneficiaries.But the pavements aren’t looked after are they? If the active travel money was properly allocated far more would be spent on improving footways, especially since they are used by far higher numbers of people than bike lanes. I’m sure Pike will have some stats about that somewhere.Which leads into the use of pavements by cyclists, of all ages and types. That’s illegal yet carries in daily, everywhere, with impunity. I don’t hear you or others condemning that. I wonder why?Most pedestrians don’t ask for the whole road, since most pedestrians are quite sensible. There was a period during and just after the pandemic when some thought it a good idea to walk in the roads regularly. That seems to have stopped now, mainly because it’s a stupid and dangerous thing to do, especially when delivery drivers are rushing from place to place.Yes, pedestrianised squares can be pleasant, but they should be in appropriate places and for a purpose, not just some randomly selected location.You seem to have lost your sense of perspective. Where do I say that ‘all traffic should stop when I cross the road’? Gaslighting again. Using pedestrian crossings is another matter, but covered in the Highway Code. Traffic does stop on those occasions, apart from.....cyclists, who seem to think those rules don’t apply to them. One of my daughter’s young friends was badly hurt last year by one oaf in a bike who decided to ignore the stopped traffic at a crossing and ploughed into her. He didn’t even stop to see if she was okay, just checked his bike and rode off. Nice. Then you wonder why your pals get a bad rap.And your last point is just laughable. Where do I say you should get nothing? Gaslighting again. I’m saying cycling investment should be proportional, not a tool to simply make driving impossible. That’s the ultimate aim of the LCC and its political chums. So who’s not compromising there.

Simon Hayes ● 1438d