Skip directly to content

Comment is free..but not much else is...

e2toe4's picture
on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 17:54

Like an army of oocupation the Council continue to bear down on their own citizenry.

Is there anything wrong with bus lanes? Not at all, and nor is there anything wrong with enforcing laws and traffic regulations.

But 10,000 people caught in a 10 week period ought to drive some debate about whether the people of Edinburgh realloy are so rich they flout the law even when they know capture (at least for the law breakers who correctly insure and register their vehicles) is inevitable, and conviction automatic.

In this article the interesting thing is to see the comments and the polarisation of views between 'pro and anti' closely matching  'drivers and cyclists'.

This is a false oppostion that suits only the Council as it allows them to avoid properly segregating traffic from cyclists, and indeed cyclists from pedestrians.

The silent cyclist flashing by a pedestrian on a pavement isn't unknown and enforcement of cycling behaviour is extremely lax because it is so difficult--the police car, or even motor bike, or police cyclist, can't easily apprehend a speedy cyclist so the behaviours are left unchallenged, and in some cyclists, worsen.

Are all cyclists would be Bradley Wiggins's oblivious to anything that impedes their progress or daydream?  Not at all and of course many, many cyclists are extremely responsible, the overwhelming majority I would imagine ... and many, many cyclists are 'us', or our family, just as many vehicle drivers are 'us' and 'we' all use things transported in vans, lorries, heavy goods vehicles and the like, which are also often caught out by the sheer confusion of signs and signage around roads these days.

 

The fostering of the idea that only 'other people' are nasty, selfish motorists, or 'nasty , selfish pavement-using cyclists, or even dawdling pedestrians 'not paying enough attention' suits only the council.  Because it muddies the water because it allows them not to do things properly and not make our cities fit for purpose; but instead divide us, and then set about taxing us all even more to pay for their mistakes.

Banks were incentivised to commit crimes and changing that is at the heart of what is needed to be done to start to deal with what happened.

Councils and their staff are incentivised to waste money (improving(?) services) and then raise it by monetising more and more activities whereever they can.

If car use in the city falls, parking charges, fines, and parking fees etc also fall and it is likely 'they' may well suddenly discover compelling (probably safety) reasons to make cyclists behaviour 'better' and then attach fines and obligations to cycling that are not there at present.  Perhaps compulsory registration for any cyclist wishing to ride inside the 'central zone', just in case they whizz down a hill at faster than 20mph or slide around a pavement, in order that they can be effectively controlled via the cameras in place already?

That is a possibility we should all be worried about, not just 'them' cyclists... just as we should all be worried about the massive destruction of effective vehicle capacity caused directly by the tram, and the other clouds of confusion fostered by a council anxious not to have it's own actions properly interrogated.

Post new comment