Locking your bike to railings

[Mrs Miggins]

Hmmm.....I'm not sure what's worse really - no cycle racks or cycle racks that nobody can find! I'm certainly not the only one who locks their bike to the railings.

Thanks for letting me know though - I'll see if I can find 'em when I'm next there. Though as you say, if there are away in a secluded area and not overlooked by anyone, they are probably not a great place to leave a bike anyway. How depressing

 

[abee]

Cheer Up!
At least it's not like More London where the security feds will neither let you cycle or lock up your bike!

 

[Mrs Miggins]

Eh?

 

[abee]

More London - the new (ish) development between Hays Galleria and Ken's building at Tower Bridge.
All very shiny, sexy Foster / Rogers type architecture, with a zillion retail opportunities. So they'll do all they can to discourage you from bringing your (doubtless) scruffy looking pushbike into the area.
For security reasons - you understand?

 

[Mrs Miggins]

Well there you are again! Had no idea that was called "More London". What a stupid name! I rarely get that far down the South Bank anyway. And I'll have you know that my bike is as clean as a whistle and very well looked after thank you very much

 

[abee]

Well there you are again! Had no idea that was called "More London". What a stupid name! I rarely get that far down the South Bank anyway. And I'll have you know that my bike is as clean as a whistle and very well looked after thank you very much

Your welcome

 

[Dougal]

I appreciate the considered attitudes from many here regarding the lack of cycle provision with regard to cycle paths, secure locking spots and so on.

The problem arises in that the pavements are for people and if vehicles of any type start using them then the amount of space for people is reduced. I have had to push a double pushchair with toddlers in the road before due to cycles chained to railings. At least I can see to do so, imagine what it must be like to get stabbed in the midrift by a handlebar and then have to walk into the road to get around the obstruction and you can't see if it's safe?

I think that people should continue to lobby for change, critical mass and so on but perhaps be less pious about their rights to park their cycles wherever they want to.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

...but perhaps be less pious about their rights to park their cycles wherever they want to.

It's more about having somewhere to park a bike. They only get left on railings because the provision is so poor.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I appreciate the considered attitudes from many here regarding the lack of cycle provision with regard to cycle paths, secure locking spots and so on.

The problem arises in that the pavements are for people and if vehicles of any type start using them then the amount of space for people is reduced. I have had to push a double pushchair with toddlers in the road before due to cycles chained to railings. At least I can see to do so, imagine what it must be like to get stabbed in the midrift by a handlebar and then have to walk into the road to get around the obstruction and you can't see if it's safe?

I think that people should continue to lobby for change, critical mass and so on but perhaps be less pious about their rights to park their cycles wherever they want to.

Yeah, pavements are for people and all that. So what's someone on a bike supposed to do? Ring ahead and find out whether there's any available cycle parking, and jump into the Chelsea tractor if not?

Really, I feel that the issues here aren't really ones that cyclists are entirely answerable to. That's not to say that I think cyclists should use this lack of provision as an excuse to wilfully behave antisocially, but if adequate provision isn't made for them, we can hardly expect them to just let their vehicles be stolen or make them walk, can we?

And yes, there is a section of the cycling population which does get pious about stuff like this, and which, given half the chance, would probably claim it as their right to park their bikes on people's heads if it suited them, but the majority of cyclists are just, like, people who ride bikes, and only want somewhere reasonably secure to park them in between times. We manage it for cars...

 

[George & Bill]

The problem arises in that the pavements are for people and if vehicles of any type start using them then the amount of space for people is reduced. I have had to push a double pushchair with toddlers in the road before due to cycles chained to railings. At least I can see to do so, imagine what it must be like to get stabbed in the midrift by a handlebar and then have to walk into the road to get around the obstruction and you can't see if it's safe?

I think that people should continue to lobby for change, critical mass and so on but perhaps be less pious about their rights to park their cycles wherever they want to.

except that virtually all official bike racks are located on the pavement anyway, often in locations that are just as likely to get in the way of pedestrians or stab blind people in the groin. Admitedly they are never, ime, placed where pedestrians would actually be forced into the road, but I have never myself seen a bike parked in such a way as to do this either.

I agree that people should be considerate when locking up their bikes, and I also agree that there should be more bike racks, but to me, using existing street furnature, in principle, makes perfect sense; we'd need a helluva lot of bike racks if people didn't do this, and most of them would probably go in existing pavement space.

 

[Fullyplumped]

All good points, but blind people and their kidneys are more important, and actually less politically powerful, than bicyclists.

 

[George & Bill]

All good points, but blind people and their kidneys are more important, and actually less politically powerful, than bicyclists.

and how do you propose to resolve the conflict?

 

[pembrokestephen]

All good points, but blind people and their kidneys are more important, and actually less politically powerful, than bicyclists.

That's not really terribly helpful, though, is it?

For a start, I can't see why the fact that blind people are "less politically powerful" (tell that to David Blunkett) than cyclists makes any difference to any of the arguments that have been advanced.

As for the relative importance of blind people's kidneys: well, it's my experience that getting into "my cause is more worthwhile than yours" pissing contests gets noone anywhere. But if you wanted to pursue that line of argument, I'd suggest that the number of blind people whose kidneys have suffered trauma probably pales into insignificance against the number of cyclists whose bikes have been stolen or vandalised for want of a secure place to lock them.

So how many stolen bicycles equates to one of your blind people's bruised kidneys? We may as well get the equivalence nailed down at the start.

 

[Fullyplumped]

and how do you propose to resolve the conflict?

I don't! Nor do I have to, thank goodness. Do you think I should? But I do think cyclists shouldn't assume that parking bikes against railings or whatever doesn't hurt people, and my own view is that their interests are secondary to those of pedestrians.

 

[Fullyplumped]

That's not really terribly helpful, though, is it?

For a start, I can't see why the fact that blind people are "less politically powerful" (tell that to David Blunkett) than cyclists makes any difference to any of the arguments that have been advanced.

As for the relative importance of blind people's kidneys: well, it's my experience that getting into "my cause is more worthwhile than yours" pissing contests gets noone anywhere. But if you wanted to pursue that line of argument, I'd suggest that the number of blind people whose kidneys have suffered trauma probably pales into insignificance against the number of cyclists whose bikes have been stolen or vandalised for want of a secure place to lock them.

So how many stolen bicycles equates to one of your blind people's bruised kidneys? We may as well get the equivalence nailed down at the start.

That's easy. No number of bikes is worth even one bruise on a blind person's midriff. Not one.

I am sure that lots of bikes get stolen, probably more than blind people get bruises. But one reason may be that lots of blind people are put off from venturing abroad in the metropolis for fear of such bruising. If you see a blind person in the street saying "Oh my God that hurt" it's probably because a bit of the environment has impacted adversely with their frame. It does deter people from enjoying the right to roam.

Are you saying that blind people pale into insignificance against bike people? Or that the fact that David Blunkett achieved high political office means that all blind people have political power of any kind? That's just silly.

People are more important than property, even if it has 27 gears and an ultra light frame.

 

[pembrokestephen]

That's easy. No number of bikes is worth even one bruise on a blind person's midriff. Not one.

I am sure that lots of bikes get stolen, probably more than blind people get bruises. But one reason may be that lots of blind people are put off from venturing abroad in the metropolis for fear of such bruising. If you see a blind person in the street saying "Oh my God that hurt" it's probably because a bit of the environment has impacted adversely with their frame. It does deter people from enjoying the right to roam.

Are you saying that blind people pale into insignificance against bike people? Or that the fact that David Blunkett achieved high political office means that all blind people have political power of any kind? That's just silly.

People are more important than property, even if it has 27 gears and an ultra light frame.

I'm not saying anything in particular regarding the blind people versus bikes question - you'll notice that there were quite a few question marks in my post.

What I AM saying (and did say) is that getting into some kind of blind-people-versus-cyclists pissing contest doesn't really get us ANYWHERE. Nobody's saying "feh, cyclists should be allowed to dump their bikes anywhere they want" - what's coming from the pro-cycling lobby on this thread is "give us somewhere sensible to park our bikes, so we don't HAVE to inconvenience people, blind or otherwise".

And you'll pardon my callousness, but when I'm looking for somewhere to chain my bike to and the only solid object turns out to be some handy railings, you can be pretty damn sure that the last thing on my mind is going to be someone else's kidneys.

Perhaps you could take this on one step and blame it on the people who steal bicycles? THEY'RE the ones responsible for blind people's kidneys getting bruised...well, it's not much more illogical than the argument you're making.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Perhaps you could take this on one step and blame it on the people who steal bicycles? THEY'RE the ones responsible for blind people's kidneys getting bruised...well, it's not much more illogical than the argument you're making.

You are a callous brute. Anyway I asked a blind person about this. She said that it's your fault if she gets hurt bumping into your bike. Bicycle thieves are no excuse.

 

[George & Bill]

firstly I think you should consider that the number of potentially kidney-bruising parked bicycles on the pavement is inversely proportionate to the number of potentially deadly motor vehicles on the road; while the former may present some impediment to blind persons and pedestrians, the latter not only impedes, but kills quite rampantly.

No number of bikes is worth even one bruise on a blind person's midriff. Not one.

this is an understandable position, on the face of it, but I think you should look at the price we as a society accept to pay for the widespread existence of motor vehicles; enormous hinderance to the free movement of the blind, children, and anyone else, as well as widespread death and injury, as mentioned. you may support the restriction of motor vehicle use almost to the point of eradication, in which case your postion may be considered valid. otherwise, I think you must concede that just as we accept to pay a price - in quality of life and in life itself - for our use of the motor vehicle, so it is reasonable to accept that some price must be paid on behalf of the increasing number who travel by bike - this may even have to include the occasional encroachment by a handlebar into the vacinity of a blind person's midriff, and that is regretable, although not as regretable, as I have implied, as the potential consequences would be if the owner of that handlebar had chosen the obvious alternative mode of private transport.

 

[Major Tom]

FFS - I've just driven a car across London and seen untold numbers of people cowering at the side of the road afraid to cross. I've seen communities that were at some point ripped apart by 4 or 6 lane highways being driven through them.

The damage that cars do is so evident that I don;t think most people even see it any more.

But of course bikes are evil. They hurt blind people.

 

[pembrokestephen]

You are a callous brute. Anyway I asked a blind person about this. She said that it's your fault if she gets hurt bumping into your bike. Bicycle thieves are no excuse.

I find it interesting that you characterise my efforts to try and put the situation into some kind of context as "callousness", or regard any attempt to look at the broader situation as an "excuse".

Frankly, I would have thought that blind people on the streets have considerably more to contend with than the occasional badly-parked bicycle.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

I think people within the disability rights movement would be very interested by your claim that they have less political power than cyclists Fullyplumped!

I also find your attitude a bit patronising. I'm not denying that it happens but when I worked for a hearing and sight impairment charity, potentially bumping into bikes was not considered the biggest barrier to mobility.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

And of course, everyone knows that cars, motorbikes, vans, lorries, etc never ever park on the pavement, thus obstructing the unimpeded progress of all pedestrians do they? Nope, the issue so pertintently raised (originally by Dougal the yuppie mugger none the less) is that cycles attached to railings have blind people cowering in their homes afraid to walk outdoors cos of their fear of impending collisions with locked up cycles causing kidney failure. ffs

I saw a blind person recently walk into a lamp post, should we ban them as well

The issue of cycle parking and the issue of mobility are quite separate, the only commonality being that they are beholden to the vocal car lobby who regard both groups with withering contempt. Pembrokestephen hits the nail on the head imo, when he said "majority of cyclists are just, like, people who ride bikes, and only want somewhere reasonably secure to park them in between times", not a lot to ask really, and with proper bike locking provision, we can make sure that cycles are locked up in places that don't obstruct other peds. Easy really innit?

 

[Fullyplumped]

I find it interesting that you characterise my efforts to try and put the situation into some kind of context as "callousness", or regard any attempt to look at the broader situation as an "excuse".

You asked me to excuse your callousness.

 

[detective-boy]

The west end in particular - I've stopped cycling there - especially Oxford street - cos there's nowhere to park.

And motorbike bays as well - wander round the West End during the day now and there are row after row of unused parking meters ... and the odd solo bike bays are totally overcrowded and watched over by the warden twats waiting for a tyre to be 2mm over the edge of the line.

For a council which allegedly supports two-wheel travel into town Westminster have a fucking stange way of showing it ...

 

[detective-boy]

For a start, I can't see why the fact that blind people are "less politically powerful" (tell that to David Blunkett) ...

I think they meant "competent" ...

 

[trashpony]

And motorbike bays as well - wander round the West End during the day now and there are row after row of unused parking meters ... and the odd solo bike bays are totally overcrowded and watched over by the warden twats waiting for a tyre to be 2mm over the edge of the line.

For a council which allegedly supports two-wheel travel into town Westminster have a fucking stange way of showing it ...

Innit - nowhere to park your bike or cycle in central London. City is just as bad - there is one bike park where I work which has room for 4 bicycles and a bay for motorbikes which is less than twice the length of two car parking bays.

It's rubbish.

The only place I know where there is a decent sized cycle bay is outside my tube station - in zone 2

 

[detective-boy]

That's easy. No number of bikes is worth even one bruise on a blind person's midriff. Not one.

Oh dear. I really do hope you never have to do a Health and Safety Risk Assessment ...

 

[Fullyplumped]

I think people within the disability rights movement would be very interested by your claim that they have less political power than cyclists Fullyplumped!

I think many blind people in the disability rights movement would acknowledge that where it comes to policy priorities and allocation of resources, cyclists come first. Cyclists get a whole national cycle way network through Sustrans, they get special lanes on city streets, and generally thay organise through reclaim the city bike rides and what not. They get taken very seriously. National politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson use the image of bicycling to try and gain credibility (and fail in Dave's case, but that's beside the point). Blind people get a daft wee tax allowance, cheap TV licences and occasional audio description on TV,

I also find your attitude a bit patronising.

You're not the only one.

I'm not denying that it happens but when I worked for a hearing and sight impairment charity, potentially bumping into bikes was not considered the biggest barrier to mobility.

Still a big annoyance, based on exhaustive research on my part. Bumping into scaffolding, cars on the pavement, noticeboards on the pavement. All sore on the shins. But we're here talking about bikes.

 

[cybertect]

Cheer Up!
At least it's not like More London where the security feds will neither let you cycle or lock up your bike!

Even at the bike racks just behind the GLA building?

Then again, in the last three years I think I can count the number of times I've actually seen a bicycle parked there on the fingers of one hand...

 

[detective-boy]

Innit - nowhere to park your bike or cycle in central London.

AND Westminster are one of the few councils NOT to alllow any other form of motorcycle parking (e.g. at right angles to the kerb at the end of other types of bay) http://www.motorcycleparking.com/