East Dulwich (Mobile) Forum

No cyclists on Oxford St?

And what is going to happen to all the busses that need to go from East to West? They're going to congest the few other alternative roads available?
How exactly can you stop a cyclist doing whatever they want?
Darn, sorry that sounded like a set up for a joke... surprised smiley
I didn't know they were pedestrianising Oxford Street - that's great (about time too). Seems fair enough that people shouldn't cycle in a pedestrian area tbh. As long as there is plenty of bike parking around the border of the zone, then fine.
rahrahrah Wrote:

I didn't know they were pedestrianising Oxford
Street - that's great (about time too). Seems fair
enough that people shouldn't cycle in a pedestrian
area tbh. As long as there is plenty of bike
parking around the border of the zone, then fine.

Seems a missed opportunity to create a major east-west cycle artery at no expense though, doesn't it? There are plenty of areas where shared cycling and pedestrian space works perfectly well - the new plaza outside the Faraday memorial at Elephant for example, and the space on Exhibition Road - and I think it could work well there. This is not to say I actually agree with closing Oxford Street to buses - for once I agree with Dulwich Londoner, where are all the Oxford Street routes going to go? - but if they're going to do it excluding cycles would seem a retrograde step.
I don't know why you are apologising KK - the only times I've nearly been mown down is by cyclists, and my sister has a permanently damaged foot by being mown down by an idiot cyclist on the pavement who didn't bother to stop so since some cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible because they think they have an entitlement, or a monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be excluded from pedestrian zones
uncleglen Wrote:

so since some
> cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible
> because they think they have an entitlement, or a
> monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be
> excluded from pedestrian zones

I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement.

Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?
uncleglen Wrote:

I don't know why you are apologising KK - the
only times I've nearly been mown down is by
cyclists, and my sister has a permanently damaged
foot by being mown down by an idiot cyclist on the
pavement who didn't bother to stop so since some
cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible
because they think they have an entitlement, or a
monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be
excluded from pedestrian zones

I so read that as "extermiated"(!!!) *cheers anyway winking smiley
"I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement.

Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?"

totally agree, Rendel!
rendelharris Wrote:

> uncleglen Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
-----
so since some
> cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible
> because they think they have an entitlement, or
a
> monopoly on saving the planet, then they should
be
> excluded from pedestrian zones

I see some car drivers every day who think they
have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run
red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic
islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be
banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much
sense as your statement.

To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense.

(Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)
Loz Wrote:


To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but
'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense.

(Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)

Well, it has to happen sometimes I suppose...UG thinks that because some cyclists behave badly towards pedestrians, all cyclists should be banned from areas shared with pedestrians, so as some drivers behave badly on the roads which they share with other users, ban cars from them is a logical progression.

I guess the confusion is that there are two options, a pedestrian only area or a shared space between pedestrians and cyclists. The Evening Standard headline implies the decision has already been made to be pedestrians only and now they're deciding whether to let cyclists in - in fact no decision has yet been made beyond the fact that motor traffic will be banned.
Considering Oxford St is such a densely pedestrianised area, I really cannot see any logic in allowing cyclists into the area.
Well presently Oxford Street is not only full of pedestrians but packed with buses and taxis - it isn't exactly a pedestrian paradise. There seems to be an assumption that it's already totally pedestrianised, it isn't and it won't be until 2020 at the earliest.
rendelharris Wrote:
for once I agree
> with Dulwich Londoner, where are all the Oxford
> Street routes going to go?

We happen to be in agreement: I shall offer you a pint to celebrate the event! smiling smiley
Fcuks sake I've already sold thousands of tickets. DL vs rh main boxing event.on peckham rye park.ah well return every ones money cancel my trip to las Vegas .cheers lads
teddyboy23 Wrote:

Fcuks sake I've already sold thousands of tickets.
DL vs rh main boxing event.on peckham rye park.ah
well return every ones money cancel my trip to las
Vegas .cheers lads

:-)
Post-Brexit, Blackpool is the new Vegas smiling smiley
TFL has a consultation here: [consultations.tfl.gov.uk]
As is unfortunately common in these 'consultations', details are few and vague. It is not clear at all to me that removing busses from Oxford street wouldn't cause more congestion - and therefore pollution.
By definition a 'pedestrianised' Oxford Street would mean no cyclists and something as someone who uses a bike to get to work I wouldn't have a problem with tbh. Most people on Oxford Street seem to walk around in a trance as it is. There was another clickbait article in the Standard yesterday about banning black cabs from a 'pedestrainised' Oxford Street. I'm not sure of the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble Arch?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 25, 09:35am by Ampersand.

Ampersand Wrote:

I'm not sure of
the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate
at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble
Arch?

And how would busses go from East to West? The whole point is that Oxford street is one of the main arteries between East and West London. TFL talks about using Wigmore street, which I believe is less wide than Oxford street. My concern is that this would create a cascading effect of more congestion and more pollution for everyone. Even if you ban ALL private cars, of which there aren't many already in zone 1, there will still be loads of goods that need to be carried back and forth on large vehicles.

Just to give you an idea, right now it's 10.15 am, ie no longer rush hour. I chose a bus stop at random, and noticed about 10 buses, in one direction only, over the coruse of the next 10 minutes or so: [tfl.gov.uk]

Original thread | JSON