Stan’s launches Rolled Gold: “the fastest, lightest sealant” for road and gravel

Will the authorities of Penge do the same for drivers parking badly thus causing the same problem for disabled people? I won't hold my breath.

Two car crashes, 12 motorists killed ..... but hey, cyclists are the big danger on our roads.

As an aside, Baroness Ludford's dramatic sensationalist language is perhaps an illustration of why many of our politicians are so useless. So much easier to utter eye-catching statements and headline grabbing soundbites, rather than quietly working, getting things done and making a positive difference.

Given there is a marked crossing there, I do think the cyclists should be stopping. That said, there is a reasonable argument that the marked crossing is not necessary. Bicycle Dutch has a good post on the subject (I'm not going to post a link as otherwise this comment may never see the light of day, but just google 'Bicycle Dutch How hard is it to cross the cycle path'). In essence, forcing cyclists to stop wastes a lot of energy compared to a pedestrian stopping, and it's generally not hard for a pedestrian to find a suitable gap in which to cross. So not having a marked crossing, and simply expecting pedestrians to cross when it's sensible to do so, normally works pretty well and keeps everyone moving better. That aligns with what we see in the video - in all cases, it is only a matter of seconds before the pedestrians are able to cross despite cyclists not stopping. If the pedestrians weren't expecting cyclists to stop (because there was no marked crossing) then the pedestrians would not feel endangered.

@Smoggysteve Yes - the infrastructure is designed in such a way that it encourages people to speed through and ignore pedestrians. Though that doesn't absolve those who do so of any blame.

Except I'm not making that argument. I said exactly the opposite - that it's poor that people aren't giving the pedestrians space. 🤷‍♂️ And I agree that people should be moderating their speed on approach to the crossing and being prepared to stop if necessary. I was merely saying that the language of people being 'terrorised' and 'endangered' is, for the most part, hyperbole - they're being inconvenienced by having to wait a while for an opportunity to cross, but very rarely are they actually being 'endangered'. In fact, generally, when they do step out on to the crossing, people do slow or stop sufficiently to allow them to cross. And a number of those clips actually show people negotiating the crossing with no real problem, even while cyclists continue to make progress either side of them - unlike with a motor vehicle it isn't always necessary for a cyclist to come to a complete stop for both to navigate the crossing safely. [Edit: in retrospect, posting my comment as a reply to lesterama's may have been a mistake, as everyone tends to assume that on the internet a reply is always a challenge, so it might have read that I was contesting what they said, but it wasn't intended that way.]

I am not arguing against circuit racing. It is a good idea for less well resourced events. I am arguing that for better resourced events, the introduction of circuit racing would achieve no significant improvement as well as totally change their nature and appeal to television viewers.

@mdavidford But one is creating the conditions for the other to perpetuate. You could be pedantic and state that - even under the HWC - cars, cyclist etc are under no obligation to stop to allow pedestrians to cross - UNLESS they are already ON the crossing. In most cases here that rule is followed. I am highlighting that this is a situation where there is a high volume of cycle traffic moving steadily along this route. there is no means to stop it to allow others to cross other than courtesy (which we all know isn't exactly a common trait among many city folk especially London). So, infrastructure wise, there should be another method of allowing pedestrians to navigate this crossing since this is clearly insufficient

@Smoggysteve I disagree. Would you suggest the same thing for a zebra crossing because its a busy road full of cars? Its very simple, you stop for pedestrians. Sure you can argue that perhaps the infrastructure needs changing but until that happens you can't excuse bad cycling with "well the infrastructure should be different". It isn't at the moment. Surely you can see the irony of blaming everything but the cyclists here when we as cyclists have to constantly hear about how its not drivers fault when they put our lives/safety at risk. Its really simple, you see a crossing like that and you prepare to stop. You don't prepare to stop when the cyclist 2m in front of you stops, you prepare to stop because there is something that might require you to.

Both can be true at once: poorly designed infrastructure AND poor behaviour.