Cycling restrictions to be lifted in Bournemouth in bid to make town more bike-friendly

Bournemouth Echo: BIKES: Cyclists spotted riding in the pedestrian zone of Bournemouth Square BIKES: Cyclists spotted riding in the pedestrian zone of Bournemouth Square

CYCLING restrictions are to be lifted in Bournemouth in the hope of making the town more bike-friendly.

Cyclists will be allowed to ride through Bournemouth Square and across Pier Approach for a 12- month trial period, to try and combat the town’s reputation as a dangerous place for cyclists.

The council’s transport chief Cllr Michael Filer has appealed to cyclists to act responsibly to ensure the initiative is a success and has promised to stop the trial if there are accidents.

Police statistics for the past five years show there were nine pedestrians hit by cyclists between January 2008 and December 2012 and none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas.

In the same period, 638 cyclists were hit by vehicles and last year Bournemouth was labelled the second most dangerous place for cyclists outside of London.

A report by council cycling officer Lucy Marstrand said the current proliferation of ‘No Cycling’ signs at key tourist spots sent an “unwelcoming message” to cyclists.

And she said the restrictions forced cyclists onto unsuitable, hazardous routes, including Bath Hill, Lansdowne roundabout and Richmond Hill roundabout.

She said cyclists and pedestrians currently co-existed at Hengistbury Head and along the seafront with no reported problems and pointed to Cambridge, Exeter and Darlington as examples of areas where cycling restrictions had been successfully lifted.

Cllr Filer said: “In order to show that we’re really serious we’ve been persuaded that for a trial period we’re going to give cyclists the opportunity to go across the Pier Approach and Square.

“We are urging cyclists to take this very easy and to realise that shared space means shared space – we don’t want any accidents.

“The number of accidents that there has been between cyclists and pedestrians is very low and we want this to continue. If there should be any major problems or large numbers of accidents then the permission will be withdrawn well before the 12-month trial is up.”

He added: “We’re putting a lot of effort into trying to make this a good town for cyclists. If we don’t do anything at all about cycling then traffic is going to snarl up over the next 10 to 20 years.”

Comments (166)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:36am Wed 23 Apr 14

Lord Parkstone says...

The amount of elderly that visit the town not to mention young families this decision can only make for a spate of cycling related incidents involving pedestrians being knocked over.
Still, it will give the echo the chance to come up with more lame headlines and amateur reporting.
The amount of elderly that visit the town not to mention young families this decision can only make for a spate of cycling related incidents involving pedestrians being knocked over. Still, it will give the echo the chance to come up with more lame headlines and amateur reporting. Lord Parkstone
  • Score: -72

5:52am Wed 23 Apr 14

guisselle says...

Old ladies will be taking up cycling as the bus pass becomes obsolete.
Panic shock horror, the buses will have more spaces for students and
young mums!
Old ladies will be taking up cycling as the bus pass becomes obsolete. Panic shock horror, the buses will have more spaces for students and young mums! guisselle
  • Score: -62

6:36am Wed 23 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

Good news. Hackney in London has increased the numbers of cyclists by making it easier to get around by bike: one-way streets are often two-way for bikes, roads closed to cars are open to bikes and other similar measures. It's not ideal, but it's a good start.
Good news. Hackney in London has increased the numbers of cyclists by making it easier to get around by bike: one-way streets are often two-way for bikes, roads closed to cars are open to bikes and other similar measures. It's not ideal, but it's a good start. FNS-man
  • Score: 97

6:36am Wed 23 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision
Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision alasdair1967
  • Score: -58

6:36am Wed 23 Apr 14

ashleycross says...

Presumably whoever made this rule has shares in castle point, as if the drunks and druggies begging in bournemouth aren't enough to drive everyone there now we have this attack on the area and the people using it. Close the roads to cars and let the cyclists have those, don't make them share with pedestrians.
Presumably whoever made this rule has shares in castle point, as if the drunks and druggies begging in bournemouth aren't enough to drive everyone there now we have this attack on the area and the people using it. Close the roads to cars and let the cyclists have those, don't make them share with pedestrians. ashleycross
  • Score: 24

6:48am Wed 23 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.
Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming. anotherfatslob
  • Score: -12

6:49am Wed 23 Apr 14

John T says...

Yet more waste of the Free Clowns Travel Project £12 million taxpayer funded windfall money.
The money would be better spent, not least on behalf of encouraging cyclists, in repairing potholes in the Three Towns Roads.
Yet more waste of the Free Clowns Travel Project £12 million taxpayer funded windfall money. The money would be better spent, not least on behalf of encouraging cyclists, in repairing potholes in the Three Towns Roads. John T
  • Score: -13

6:50am Wed 23 Apr 14

High Treason says...

Can those injured by a cyclist sue the council. This stupid idea will simply deter more people going to the town centre. It was bad enough avoiding the druggies and drop outs, now we will have to watch out for cyclist's and forget browsing in shop windows.
Can those injured by a cyclist sue the council. This stupid idea will simply deter more people going to the town centre. It was bad enough avoiding the druggies and drop outs, now we will have to watch out for cyclist's and forget browsing in shop windows. High Treason
  • Score: -45

7:13am Wed 23 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

I look forward to not seeing you in the town centre then high treason
I look forward to not seeing you in the town centre then high treason anotherfatslob
  • Score: 25

7:26am Wed 23 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

Look what happened when Norman Tebbit talked about bicycles.
Look what happened when Norman Tebbit talked about bicycles. Lord Spring
  • Score: 3

7:29am Wed 23 Apr 14

retry69 says...

I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.
I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel. retry69
  • Score: 2

7:33am Wed 23 Apr 14

Howdie says...

as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........
as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........ Howdie
  • Score: 108

7:33am Wed 23 Apr 14

BournemouthMum says...

Excellent news. I try to do a bit of cycling during the summer months for exercise, but wouldn't dare cycle on the dangerous roads and risk being killed. This is great news also for those who use their bikes as their only form of transport - they can travel in safety at last.
Excellent news. I try to do a bit of cycling during the summer months for exercise, but wouldn't dare cycle on the dangerous roads and risk being killed. This is great news also for those who use their bikes as their only form of transport - they can travel in safety at last. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 83

7:55am Wed 23 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

retry69 wrote:
I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.
Have you altered your gates yet.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.[/p][/quote]Have you altered your gates yet. Lord Spring
  • Score: 0

7:59am Wed 23 Apr 14

djd says...

Cyclists are a bit like motorists, you only have to have one or two idiots among them and all are labelled the same.
Cycling like motoring needs more law enforcement so the idiots are weeded out and the streets are made safer for the responsible majority.
Cyclists are a bit like motorists, you only have to have one or two idiots among them and all are labelled the same. Cycling like motoring needs more law enforcement so the idiots are weeded out and the streets are made safer for the responsible majority. djd
  • Score: 85

8:09am Wed 23 Apr 14

BIGTONE says...

The Council might introduce free "dive out of the way" courses for non bike owners.
The Council might introduce free "dive out of the way" courses for non bike owners. BIGTONE
  • Score: -24

8:14am Wed 23 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Does this mean the July/August cycling ban on the prom will be lifted?
Does this mean the July/August cycling ban on the prom will be lifted? The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 44

8:16am Wed 23 Apr 14

Dragback says...

Not a problem for cyclists with common sense - unfortunately judging by the amount that already speed through the sqaure can't say this applies to everyone.
Not a problem for cyclists with common sense - unfortunately judging by the amount that already speed through the sqaure can't say this applies to everyone. Dragback
  • Score: 63

8:16am Wed 23 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

djd wrote:
Cyclists are a bit like motorists, you only have to have one or two idiots among them and all are labelled the same.
Cycling like motoring needs more law enforcement so the idiots are weeded out and the streets are made safer for the responsible majority.
I think this is great news for families and pleasure cyclists, I just hope that the amateur competition cyclists don't turn the prom into some sort of personal time trial, they ignore the speed limit as it is?
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: Cyclists are a bit like motorists, you only have to have one or two idiots among them and all are labelled the same. Cycling like motoring needs more law enforcement so the idiots are weeded out and the streets are made safer for the responsible majority.[/p][/quote]I think this is great news for families and pleasure cyclists, I just hope that the amateur competition cyclists don't turn the prom into some sort of personal time trial, they ignore the speed limit as it is? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 40

8:22am Wed 23 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

BIGTONE wrote:
The Council might introduce free "dive out of the way" courses for non bike owners.
Bike awareness courses for peds i.e. to leave to enough room for cyclists to pass and a ban on extending dog leads so we can't have dog walker on one side of the path and dog on the other which is often the case at Hengistbury Head.
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: The Council might introduce free "dive out of the way" courses for non bike owners.[/p][/quote]Bike awareness courses for peds i.e. to leave to enough room for cyclists to pass and a ban on extending dog leads so we can't have dog walker on one side of the path and dog on the other which is often the case at Hengistbury Head. The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 25

8:26am Wed 23 Apr 14

susi.m says...

Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.
Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists. susi.m
  • Score: 24

8:34am Wed 23 Apr 14

BournemouthMum says...

susi.m wrote:
Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.
Good point. Some of us (myself included) also drive cars, so we're fully aware of the Highway Code and of course have passed our driving tests. It does seem odd that someone without any knowledge of the Highway Code or even the meanings of road signs and 'rules of the road' can take to the road on a bike with the potential to cause a lot of damage. I'm all for introducing a scheme that makes it compulsory to at least show an awareness of road safety and maybe pay an insurance of say, £10 per year which would cover claims and go towards building cycle ways etc. I'm sure most decent cyclists would advocate such an idea.
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.[/p][/quote]Good point. Some of us (myself included) also drive cars, so we're fully aware of the Highway Code and of course have passed our driving tests. It does seem odd that someone without any knowledge of the Highway Code or even the meanings of road signs and 'rules of the road' can take to the road on a bike with the potential to cause a lot of damage. I'm all for introducing a scheme that makes it compulsory to at least show an awareness of road safety and maybe pay an insurance of say, £10 per year which would cover claims and go towards building cycle ways etc. I'm sure most decent cyclists would advocate such an idea. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 41

8:35am Wed 23 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

susi.m wrote:
Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.
Same for peds too!
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.[/p][/quote]Same for peds too! The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 6

8:36am Wed 23 Apr 14

Dibbles2 says...

Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.
Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it. Dibbles2
  • Score: 4

8:37am Wed 23 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.
Good point. Some of us (myself included) also drive cars, so we're fully aware of the Highway Code and of course have passed our driving tests. It does seem odd that someone without any knowledge of the Highway Code or even the meanings of road signs and 'rules of the road' can take to the road on a bike with the potential to cause a lot of damage. I'm all for introducing a scheme that makes it compulsory to at least show an awareness of road safety and maybe pay an insurance of say, £10 per year which would cover claims and go towards building cycle ways etc. I'm sure most decent cyclists would advocate such an idea.
Same for peds too!
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.[/p][/quote]Good point. Some of us (myself included) also drive cars, so we're fully aware of the Highway Code and of course have passed our driving tests. It does seem odd that someone without any knowledge of the Highway Code or even the meanings of road signs and 'rules of the road' can take to the road on a bike with the potential to cause a lot of damage. I'm all for introducing a scheme that makes it compulsory to at least show an awareness of road safety and maybe pay an insurance of say, £10 per year which would cover claims and go towards building cycle ways etc. I'm sure most decent cyclists would advocate such an idea.[/p][/quote]Same for peds too! The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: -15

8:39am Wed 23 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Dibbles2 wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.
He's not on the road, he's on the pavement outside Tescos in the Square.
[quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.[/p][/quote]He's not on the road, he's on the pavement outside Tescos in the Square. The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 14

8:40am Wed 23 Apr 14

Valerie W. says...

it would be better if cycke lanes were marked out across the places in question. There is enough room for everyone, but cyclists and pedestrians do not mix easily without any organisation. They manage very well in the Netherlands because things are clearly arranged and each group tends to stay on their own part of the pavement. In Bournemouth, of course, they will do it on the cheap and then moan when it doesn't work. 'A stitch in time saves nine'.
it would be better if cycke lanes were marked out across the places in question. There is enough room for everyone, but cyclists and pedestrians do not mix easily without any organisation. They manage very well in the Netherlands because things are clearly arranged and each group tends to stay on their own part of the pavement. In Bournemouth, of course, they will do it on the cheap and then moan when it doesn't work. 'A stitch in time saves nine'. Valerie W.
  • Score: 28

8:43am Wed 23 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

All the pederastrians are on the wrong side of the road in that pic.


Keep left.
All the pederastrians are on the wrong side of the road in that pic. Keep left. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 2

8:51am Wed 23 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Dibbles2 wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.
And the 4 pedestrians "jaywalking" in the road, one of whom is clearly concentrating more on her phone than what is going on around her?

Oh wait a minute, let's have a close look at the photo, that isn't the road is it?
[quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.[/p][/quote]And the 4 pedestrians "jaywalking" in the road, one of whom is clearly concentrating more on her phone than what is going on around her? Oh wait a minute, let's have a close look at the photo, that isn't the road is it? Franks Tank
  • Score: 24

8:55am Wed 23 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Lord Parkstone wrote:
The amount of elderly that visit the town not to mention young families this decision can only make for a spate of cycling related incidents involving pedestrians being knocked over.
Still, it will give the echo the chance to come up with more lame headlines and amateur reporting.
638 cyclists hit by cars compared to 9 pedestrians and the fact you take from that is the 9 and how cyclists are the problem?

Says it all really.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Parkstone[/bold] wrote: The amount of elderly that visit the town not to mention young families this decision can only make for a spate of cycling related incidents involving pedestrians being knocked over. Still, it will give the echo the chance to come up with more lame headlines and amateur reporting.[/p][/quote]638 cyclists hit by cars compared to 9 pedestrians and the fact you take from that is the 9 and how cyclists are the problem? Says it all really. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 21

8:57am Wed 23 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision
According most of the anti-cycling brigade, such as yourself, already ignore al the restrictions anyway so how can it make a difference?

Either they adhere or they don't but as usual 'you lot' try to have it both ways.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision[/p][/quote]According most of the anti-cycling brigade, such as yourself, already ignore al the restrictions anyway so how can it make a difference? Either they adhere or they don't but as usual 'you lot' try to have it both ways. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

9:03am Wed 23 Apr 14

nickynoodah says...

retry69 wrote:
I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.
Its St Georges day today George
so hands off your ***** and put on your socks
and watch out for those giant gutters .
it mentions Bath Hill above
that's a DIRTY word for nobath you know.
that's all he wants to make his day
lets wait and see.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.[/p][/quote]Its St Georges day today George so hands off your ***** and put on your socks and watch out for those giant gutters . it mentions Bath Hill above that's a DIRTY word for nobath you know. that's all he wants to make his day lets wait and see. nickynoodah
  • Score: -14

9:03am Wed 23 Apr 14

southbourne lover says...

Another reason not to go into town.
Another reason not to go into town. southbourne lover
  • Score: 6

9:03am Wed 23 Apr 14

Tripod says...

I guess that's one way of attracting more shoppers to run-down town centre NOT!
I guess that's one way of attracting more shoppers to run-down town centre NOT! Tripod
  • Score: -8

9:07am Wed 23 Apr 14

Townee says...

Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town.
As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to.
Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road. Townee
  • Score: -2

9:09am Wed 23 Apr 14

nickynoodah says...

retry69 wrote:
I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.
Its St Georges day today George
so hands off your ***** and put on your socks
and watch out for those giant gutters .
it mentions Bath Hill above
that's a DIRTY word for nobath you know.
that's all he wants to make his day
lets wait and see.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.[/p][/quote]Its St Georges day today George so hands off your ***** and put on your socks and watch out for those giant gutters . it mentions Bath Hill above that's a DIRTY word for nobath you know. that's all he wants to make his day lets wait and see. nickynoodah
  • Score: -8

9:10am Wed 23 Apr 14

Dibbles2 says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Dibbles2 wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.
He's not on the road, he's on the pavement outside Tescos in the Square.
Ah yes I see now I thought it was the crossing there.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.[/p][/quote]He's not on the road, he's on the pavement outside Tescos in the Square.[/p][/quote]Ah yes I see now I thought it was the crossing there. Dibbles2
  • Score: -3

9:15am Wed 23 Apr 14

Dibbles2 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Dibbles2 wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.
And the 4 pedestrians "jaywalking" in the road, one of whom is clearly concentrating more on her phone than what is going on around her?

Oh wait a minute, let's have a close look at the photo, that isn't the road is it?
Ok thanks for that I have noticed on the full pic now as only saw the thumbnail previously which looks like the cobbled crossing.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: Has anyone noticed that the cyclist in the picture is on the wrong side of the road? Oh the irony of it.[/p][/quote]And the 4 pedestrians "jaywalking" in the road, one of whom is clearly concentrating more on her phone than what is going on around her? Oh wait a minute, let's have a close look at the photo, that isn't the road is it?[/p][/quote]Ok thanks for that I have noticed on the full pic now as only saw the thumbnail previously which looks like the cobbled crossing. Dibbles2
  • Score: 1

9:16am Wed 23 Apr 14

a.g.o.g. says...

It`s not cyclists we need in The Square + Pedestrian Areas but ``Trick-Cyclists`` in The Town Hall methinks!
It`s not cyclists we need in The Square + Pedestrian Areas but ``Trick-Cyclists`` in The Town Hall methinks! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 4

9:23am Wed 23 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

One more reason for not going into town.
One more reason for not going into town. pete woodley
  • Score: -4

9:23am Wed 23 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Townee wrote:
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists.......
.....
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists....... ..... suzigirl
  • Score: -12

9:29am Wed 23 Apr 14

Andrew96 says...

The streets are dangerous enough for pedestrians without having to contend with more cyclists who consider they have a God given right to cycle on pavements/trough red lights etc already.
Anyone brave enough to use the pedestrian crossing across Castle Lane opposite the hospital will contend that it is only a matter of time before the multitudes of cyclist who also think they have right of use of the crossing knock waiting pedestrians into the path of moving traffic whilst they execise their 'green' right to cycle whereever their flourescent clothing takes them..
Totally daft idea...first and foremost the town should be a PEDESTRIAN friendly town...but I guess one of our invisible council officials chrged with box ticking will get a pat on the back for this one
The streets are dangerous enough for pedestrians without having to contend with more cyclists who consider they have a God given right to cycle on pavements/trough red lights etc already. Anyone brave enough to use the pedestrian crossing across Castle Lane opposite the hospital will contend that it is only a matter of time before the multitudes of cyclist who also think they have right of use of the crossing knock waiting pedestrians into the path of moving traffic whilst they execise their 'green' right to cycle whereever their flourescent clothing takes them.. Totally daft idea...first and foremost the town should be a PEDESTRIAN friendly town...but I guess one of our invisible council officials chrged with box ticking will get a pat on the back for this one Andrew96
  • Score: -2

9:38am Wed 23 Apr 14

frarog says...

Shouldn't the town be made safer for pedestrians first???
Shouldn't the town be made safer for pedestrians first??? frarog
  • Score: 22

9:39am Wed 23 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Townee wrote:
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town.
As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to.
Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Then what difference can this initiative make as it will simply be 'business as usual' surely. Unless you are spouting complete BS.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Then what difference can this initiative make as it will simply be 'business as usual' surely. Unless you are spouting complete BS. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 7

9:44am Wed 23 Apr 14

EdBmth says...

suzigirl wrote:
Townee wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists....... .....
Its not just cyclists who they can break any law they like. There are a minority of cyclists, just as there are a miniority of motorists who think they can break the law.

Cyclists caught with no lights during police crackdown - 20
Motorists caught drink driving Xmas 2013 - 65
Cyclists caught breaking 10mph limit Bournemouth seafront - 69
Motorists caught using mobile phone - 180

So you see, there are the stupid minority whatever mode of transport you use who break the law.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists....... .....[/p][/quote]Its not just cyclists who they can break any law they like. There are a minority of cyclists, just as there are a miniority of motorists who think they can break the law. Cyclists caught with no lights during police crackdown - 20 Motorists caught drink driving Xmas 2013 - 65 Cyclists caught breaking 10mph limit Bournemouth seafront - 69 Motorists caught using mobile phone - 180 So you see, there are the stupid minority whatever mode of transport you use who break the law. EdBmth
  • Score: 23

9:45am Wed 23 Apr 14

Baywolf says...

Omg are they insane? The whole point of pedestrianising the square was for pedestrians. The elderly and small children are the like Kelly candidates for A&E under this ridiculous idea. Money wasted bike lanes that they don't stick to and now allowing them to ride where pedestrians are. Next they will allow them to ride on pavements...oh they already do. No doubt the council will wave any fines for them doing so .
Omg are they insane? The whole point of pedestrianising the square was for pedestrians. The elderly and small children are the like Kelly candidates for A&E under this ridiculous idea. Money wasted bike lanes that they don't stick to and now allowing them to ride where pedestrians are. Next they will allow them to ride on pavements...oh they already do. No doubt the council will wave any fines for them doing so . Baywolf
  • Score: 3

9:54am Wed 23 Apr 14

B'mth 56 says...

I really don't know how the council make their decisions lately. They really are out of touch when it comes to peoples feelings or the sensibility of schemes. If you stand outside Debenhams cyclists are meant to dismount gardens side to cross into the pedestrianized Square. Many, not even experienced cyclists do, which causes mayhem with pedestrians, especially those with children and/or the elderly trying to cross the road. Add into the equation this is the main Buses and Taxi route through the town centre and when they open it up legally to all cyclists its an accident waiting to happen. At Christmas when the town centre has its market in full flow with pedestrians how the hell will it be possible for cyclists to cycle through? Probably the reason that so few accidents with cyclists are reported is because unlike a motor vehicle, there is no way of identifying them, which means there is no hope in catching them.
I really don't know how the council make their decisions lately. They really are out of touch when it comes to peoples feelings or the sensibility of schemes. If you stand outside Debenhams cyclists are meant to dismount gardens side to cross into the pedestrianized Square. Many, not even experienced cyclists do, which causes mayhem with pedestrians, especially those with children and/or the elderly trying to cross the road. Add into the equation this is the main Buses and Taxi route through the town centre and when they open it up legally to all cyclists its an accident waiting to happen. At Christmas when the town centre has its market in full flow with pedestrians how the hell will it be possible for cyclists to cycle through? Probably the reason that so few accidents with cyclists are reported is because unlike a motor vehicle, there is no way of identifying them, which means there is no hope in catching them. B'mth 56
  • Score: 2

10:03am Wed 23 Apr 14

BournemouthMatt says...

Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads.

I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.
Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads. I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen. BournemouthMatt
  • Score: 20

10:03am Wed 23 Apr 14

bosco1 says...

So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."
So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist." bosco1
  • Score: 6

10:05am Wed 23 Apr 14

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
retry69 wrote:
I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.
Have you altered your gates yet.
Waiting for planning permission as there seems a problem that they are opening outwards.:)
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.[/p][/quote]Have you altered your gates yet.[/p][/quote]Waiting for planning permission as there seems a problem that they are opening outwards.:) retry69
  • Score: -2

10:07am Wed 23 Apr 14

retry69 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.
Its St Georges day today George
so hands off your ***** and put on your socks
and watch out for those giant gutters .
it mentions Bath Hill above
that's a DIRTY word for nobath you know.
that's all he wants to make his day
lets wait and see.
You still haven't apologised for keeping me waiting for nothing the other day you little **** :)
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I assume that at last we are extraditing the clueless anti-cycling trolls that continue to clog up this site with their continual non-sensical drivel.[/p][/quote]Its St Georges day today George so hands off your ***** and put on your socks and watch out for those giant gutters . it mentions Bath Hill above that's a DIRTY word for nobath you know. that's all he wants to make his day lets wait and see.[/p][/quote]You still haven't apologised for keeping me waiting for nothing the other day you little **** :) retry69
  • Score: 0

10:10am Wed 23 Apr 14

Moro99 says...

Will Boscombe precinct be included? This would free up the police time to deal with the real problems.
Will Boscombe precinct be included? This would free up the police time to deal with the real problems. Moro99
  • Score: 8

10:13am Wed 23 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

I predict a bloodbath , cyclists with swords attached to their wheels mowing down helpless pedestrians Bodicea style, the collapse of civilisation as we know it! All cyclists should be made to attach large pillows all over their bikes as they are such dangerous and heavy machines, unlike motor vehicles which are soft and cuddly and only travel at a snails pace. Besides drivers are highly trained and responsible people who never break the law or endanger anyone unlike these pshyco-cyclists who only feel they've had a good day out if they can add a few more pedestrian stickers to their bike frames. You KNOW it's all true !
I predict a bloodbath , cyclists with swords attached to their wheels mowing down helpless pedestrians Bodicea style, the collapse of civilisation as we know it! All cyclists should be made to attach large pillows all over their bikes as they are such dangerous and heavy machines, unlike motor vehicles which are soft and cuddly and only travel at a snails pace. Besides drivers are highly trained and responsible people who never break the law or endanger anyone unlike these pshyco-cyclists who only feel they've had a good day out if they can add a few more pedestrian stickers to their bike frames. You KNOW it's all true ! uvox44
  • Score: 24

10:13am Wed 23 Apr 14

Dave2207 says...

Silly council! This will only lead to more confrontations between pedestrians and cyclists, such as the one last week, on Boscombe. Cyclists should be on the roads and keep off the FOOTpath - it's not a WHEELpath!
Silly council! This will only lead to more confrontations between pedestrians and cyclists, such as the one last week, on Boscombe. Cyclists should be on the roads and keep off the FOOTpath - it's not a WHEELpath! Dave2207
  • Score: -3

10:21am Wed 23 Apr 14

poolebabe says...

I used to cycle through Bournemouth gardens and down to Boscombe pier for fitness. I never had a problem with walking my bike through the pedestrian areas. It is no big deal! It gets so busy through the square I'm surprised this has been put forward. It will be difficult to cycle there anyway during peak times?
I used to cycle through Bournemouth gardens and down to Boscombe pier for fitness. I never had a problem with walking my bike through the pedestrian areas. It is no big deal! It gets so busy through the square I'm surprised this has been put forward. It will be difficult to cycle there anyway during peak times? poolebabe
  • Score: 27

10:24am Wed 23 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

EdBmth wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Townee wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists....... .....
Its not just cyclists who they can break any law they like. There are a minority of cyclists, just as there are a miniority of motorists who think they can break the law.

Cyclists caught with no lights during police crackdown - 20
Motorists caught drink driving Xmas 2013 - 65
Cyclists caught breaking 10mph limit Bournemouth seafront - 69
Motorists caught using mobile phone - 180

So you see, there are the stupid minority whatever mode of transport you use who break the law.
Quoting figures means nothing if you don't have the full stats.
69 cyclists were caught breaking the speed limit, but out of how many? Was that on one day or over a period of weeks/months? How many weren't breaking the speed limit? How many had lights? How many stopped weren't drunk? etc, etc.
[quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists....... .....[/p][/quote]Its not just cyclists who they can break any law they like. There are a minority of cyclists, just as there are a miniority of motorists who think they can break the law. Cyclists caught with no lights during police crackdown - 20 Motorists caught drink driving Xmas 2013 - 65 Cyclists caught breaking 10mph limit Bournemouth seafront - 69 Motorists caught using mobile phone - 180 So you see, there are the stupid minority whatever mode of transport you use who break the law.[/p][/quote]Quoting figures means nothing if you don't have the full stats. 69 cyclists were caught breaking the speed limit, but out of how many? Was that on one day or over a period of weeks/months? How many weren't breaking the speed limit? How many had lights? How many stopped weren't drunk? etc, etc. BarrHumbug
  • Score: -6

10:26am Wed 23 Apr 14

southbourne lover says...

I heard an old lady on the bus say that a stout walking stick in the spokes serves well if the cyclist gets too close. She'll have a field day in the square.
I heard an old lady on the bus say that a stout walking stick in the spokes serves well if the cyclist gets too close. She'll have a field day in the square. southbourne lover
  • Score: 13

10:28am Wed 23 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

uvox44 wrote:
I predict a bloodbath , cyclists with swords attached to their wheels mowing down helpless pedestrians Bodicea style, the collapse of civilisation as we know it! All cyclists should be made to attach large pillows all over their bikes as they are such dangerous and heavy machines, unlike motor vehicles which are soft and cuddly and only travel at a snails pace. Besides drivers are highly trained and responsible people who never break the law or endanger anyone unlike these pshyco-cyclists who only feel they've had a good day out if they can add a few more pedestrian stickers to their bike frames. You KNOW it's all true !
I apologise, I down voted you by mistake after your opening line. But to be fair that is pretty much what the drama queens are saying.

You hear them all the time - 'that cyclist nearly hit me then it was a miracle I survived' - yet the cyclist never went closer than within 4 or 5 feet of them and were fully aware the pedestrian was there, (moving over, breaking) but either the accuser didn't see or 'chose not to see' this.

It is all about perception and nothing to do with reality for most of the "oh the horror" brigade.

Even when the facts are given to them (the 638 v the 9) the blinkers do not budge an inch.

I do not consider myself a 'cyclist' but do consider myself to be a realist and look at the facts and what I see.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: I predict a bloodbath , cyclists with swords attached to their wheels mowing down helpless pedestrians Bodicea style, the collapse of civilisation as we know it! All cyclists should be made to attach large pillows all over their bikes as they are such dangerous and heavy machines, unlike motor vehicles which are soft and cuddly and only travel at a snails pace. Besides drivers are highly trained and responsible people who never break the law or endanger anyone unlike these pshyco-cyclists who only feel they've had a good day out if they can add a few more pedestrian stickers to their bike frames. You KNOW it's all true ![/p][/quote]I apologise, I down voted you by mistake after your opening line. But to be fair that is pretty much what the drama queens are saying. You hear them all the time - 'that cyclist nearly hit me then it was a miracle I survived' - yet the cyclist never went closer than within 4 or 5 feet of them and were fully aware the pedestrian was there, (moving over, breaking) but either the accuser didn't see or 'chose not to see' this. It is all about perception and nothing to do with reality for most of the "oh the horror" brigade. Even when the facts are given to them (the 638 v the 9) the blinkers do not budge an inch. I do not consider myself a 'cyclist' but do consider myself to be a realist and look at the facts and what I see. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 15

10:40am Wed 23 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

I assume that all parking restrictions will be removed going on the assumption that it's easier to remove restrictions that people ignore rather than enforce them? The Square is already iffy enough given the amount of cyclists ignoring the ban (never mind the ones who also ignore it on Old Christchurch Road). So this will only make it worse. What is the council's obsession with making everywhere 'bike friendly'?
I assume that all parking restrictions will be removed going on the assumption that it's easier to remove restrictions that people ignore rather than enforce them? The Square is already iffy enough given the amount of cyclists ignoring the ban (never mind the ones who also ignore it on Old Christchurch Road). So this will only make it worse. What is the council's obsession with making everywhere 'bike friendly'? speedy231278
  • Score: -6

10:40am Wed 23 Apr 14

Bloss45 says...

We really do need improved enforcement if this is to be allowed. As a committed "silver" cycler I am often horrified at the behaviour of many cyclists. Let us have a few fines on these people and make the place useable by all.
We really do need improved enforcement if this is to be allowed. As a committed "silver" cycler I am often horrified at the behaviour of many cyclists. Let us have a few fines on these people and make the place useable by all. Bloss45
  • Score: 21

10:47am Wed 23 Apr 14

BmthNewshound says...

Nothing against lifting the restrictions but somewhat puzzled that if its considered safe to cycle across the Square and across the pier approach why haven't seasonal restrictions prohibiting cycling along the prom been lifted ? - why else would you want to cycle across pier approach if it isn't to head for the prom. In common with most of his decisions Filer is being inconsistent in his approach and giving out mixed messages. He seems to confuse being cyclist friendly with creating randomly located cycle lanes and removing cycling restrictions from some locations but retaining them in others.
.
Lifting restrictions is all well and good but there really does need to be a crackdown on the minority of cyclists who ride aggressively and show little consideration for pedestrians and other road users. There seems to be a general assumption that when there is an accident involving a cycle and car/van that the car/van driver is at fault but when cyclists ignore the highway code, jump red lights, and ride at night without lights they only have themselves to blame.
.
I think this plan could also backfire as families with small children and elderly people may feel less safe and could abandon the town centre in favour of Castlepoint, where they do not feel at risk of being hit by a cyclist.
Nothing against lifting the restrictions but somewhat puzzled that if its considered safe to cycle across the Square and across the pier approach why haven't seasonal restrictions prohibiting cycling along the prom been lifted ? - why else would you want to cycle across pier approach if it isn't to head for the prom. In common with most of his decisions Filer is being inconsistent in his approach and giving out mixed messages. He seems to confuse being cyclist friendly with creating randomly located cycle lanes and removing cycling restrictions from some locations but retaining them in others. . Lifting restrictions is all well and good but there really does need to be a crackdown on the minority of cyclists who ride aggressively and show little consideration for pedestrians and other road users. There seems to be a general assumption that when there is an accident involving a cycle and car/van that the car/van driver is at fault but when cyclists ignore the highway code, jump red lights, and ride at night without lights they only have themselves to blame. . I think this plan could also backfire as families with small children and elderly people may feel less safe and could abandon the town centre in favour of Castlepoint, where they do not feel at risk of being hit by a cyclist. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 12

10:47am Wed 23 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

People can be antisocial and dangerous, or they can be polite, sensible, and safe, whatever the rules are and whether they are armed with a knife, a car, a bicycle or a feather duster. This is why rules need to be implemented with discretion and common sense, and why in the good old days of the Police, we managed without so many rules. The vast majority of cyclists do not cause problems wherever they are and will recognise when it makes sense to get off and walk. So this is a good thing, but what we really need is a lift on the ridiculous cycling ban on the sea front July and August. There is CCTV, just use it to stop and prosecute dangerous / antisocial behaviour of ALL kinds.
People can be antisocial and dangerous, or they can be polite, sensible, and safe, whatever the rules are and whether they are armed with a knife, a car, a bicycle or a feather duster. This is why rules need to be implemented with discretion and common sense, and why in the good old days of the Police, we managed without so many rules. The vast majority of cyclists do not cause problems wherever they are and will recognise when it makes sense to get off and walk. So this is a good thing, but what we really need is a lift on the ridiculous cycling ban on the sea front July and August. There is CCTV, just use it to stop and prosecute dangerous / antisocial behaviour of ALL kinds. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 17

10:50am Wed 23 Apr 14

B'mth West says...

B'mth West I believe this trial period should be given a chance . It will be up to the cyclists of all ages to make it work. In the past I have cycled , motor cycled and driven cars in the area over many years and have survived by assuming other road users will do the unexpected at any time including pedestrians . This means concentrating the whole time and taking pride in your riding and driving skills .
B'mth West I believe this trial period should be given a chance . It will be up to the cyclists of all ages to make it work. In the past I have cycled , motor cycled and driven cars in the area over many years and have survived by assuming other road users will do the unexpected at any time including pedestrians . This means concentrating the whole time and taking pride in your riding and driving skills . B'mth West
  • Score: 10

10:56am Wed 23 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
I predict a bloodbath , cyclists with swords attached to their wheels mowing down helpless pedestrians Bodicea style, the collapse of civilisation as we know it! All cyclists should be made to attach large pillows all over their bikes as they are such dangerous and heavy machines, unlike motor vehicles which are soft and cuddly and only travel at a snails pace. Besides drivers are highly trained and responsible people who never break the law or endanger anyone unlike these pshyco-cyclists who only feel they've had a good day out if they can add a few more pedestrian stickers to their bike frames. You KNOW it's all true !
I apologise, I down voted you by mistake after your opening line. But to be fair that is pretty much what the drama queens are saying.

You hear them all the time - 'that cyclist nearly hit me then it was a miracle I survived' - yet the cyclist never went closer than within 4 or 5 feet of them and were fully aware the pedestrian was there, (moving over, breaking) but either the accuser didn't see or 'chose not to see' this.

It is all about perception and nothing to do with reality for most of the "oh the horror" brigade.

Even when the facts are given to them (the 638 v the 9) the blinkers do not budge an inch.

I do not consider myself a 'cyclist' but do consider myself to be a realist and look at the facts and what I see.
Absolutely. I've lost count of the number of times I have approached a ped from behind on a cycle path, the best thing you can do is to pass slowly with plenty of space - the worst thing you can do is sound the bell as that often triggers all sorts of sudden random movements, usually directly into your path.

But as I pass slowly with a carefully planned manoeuvre with plenty of space, literally, every time I go out, someone will explode in a fury of panic and abuse as if I had nearly killed them. Errr, it is a cycle path, there will be bicycles.

I can't help thinking that it is largely complaints from these kinds of people that result in many of the cycling bans.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: I predict a bloodbath , cyclists with swords attached to their wheels mowing down helpless pedestrians Bodicea style, the collapse of civilisation as we know it! All cyclists should be made to attach large pillows all over their bikes as they are such dangerous and heavy machines, unlike motor vehicles which are soft and cuddly and only travel at a snails pace. Besides drivers are highly trained and responsible people who never break the law or endanger anyone unlike these pshyco-cyclists who only feel they've had a good day out if they can add a few more pedestrian stickers to their bike frames. You KNOW it's all true ![/p][/quote]I apologise, I down voted you by mistake after your opening line. But to be fair that is pretty much what the drama queens are saying. You hear them all the time - 'that cyclist nearly hit me then it was a miracle I survived' - yet the cyclist never went closer than within 4 or 5 feet of them and were fully aware the pedestrian was there, (moving over, breaking) but either the accuser didn't see or 'chose not to see' this. It is all about perception and nothing to do with reality for most of the "oh the horror" brigade. Even when the facts are given to them (the 638 v the 9) the blinkers do not budge an inch. I do not consider myself a 'cyclist' but do consider myself to be a realist and look at the facts and what I see.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. I've lost count of the number of times I have approached a ped from behind on a cycle path, the best thing you can do is to pass slowly with plenty of space - the worst thing you can do is sound the bell as that often triggers all sorts of sudden random movements, usually directly into your path. But as I pass slowly with a carefully planned manoeuvre with plenty of space, literally, every time I go out, someone will explode in a fury of panic and abuse as if I had nearly killed them. Errr, it is a cycle path, there will be bicycles. I can't help thinking that it is largely complaints from these kinds of people that result in many of the cycling bans. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 18

11:01am Wed 23 Apr 14

BournemouthGuy says...

Every day I see cyclists in the square and pier approach bombing along at great speed. There are so many of them that now the council and police have given up on trying to stop them and made it legal. What about the skate boarders, loads of kids do this in the square despite their being signs saying it is illegal.Next they will allow cyclists and skate boarding on all pavements. Watch this space for more accidents to pedestrians.
Every day I see cyclists in the square and pier approach bombing along at great speed. There are so many of them that now the council and police have given up on trying to stop them and made it legal. What about the skate boarders, loads of kids do this in the square despite their being signs saying it is illegal.Next they will allow cyclists and skate boarding on all pavements. Watch this space for more accidents to pedestrians. BournemouthGuy
  • Score: 3

11:03am Wed 23 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

bosco1 wrote:
So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."
Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars.

Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?
[quote][p][bold]bosco1[/bold] wrote: So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."[/p][/quote]Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars. Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

11:08am Wed 23 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Nothing against lifting the restrictions but somewhat puzzled that if its considered safe to cycle across the Square and across the pier approach why haven't seasonal restrictions prohibiting cycling along the prom been lifted ? - why else would you want to cycle across pier approach if it isn't to head for the prom. In common with most of his decisions Filer is being inconsistent in his approach and giving out mixed messages. He seems to confuse being cyclist friendly with creating randomly located cycle lanes and removing cycling restrictions from some locations but retaining them in others. . Lifting restrictions is all well and good but there really does need to be a crackdown on the minority of cyclists who ride aggressively and show little consideration for pedestrians and other road users. There seems to be a general assumption that when there is an accident involving a cycle and car/van that the car/van driver is at fault but when cyclists ignore the highway code, jump red lights, and ride at night without lights they only have themselves to blame. . I think this plan could also backfire as families with small children and elderly people may feel less safe and could abandon the town centre in favour of Castlepoint, where they do not feel at risk of being hit by a cyclist.
Totally agree with you............ I hope Bournemouth A&E are ready........
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Nothing against lifting the restrictions but somewhat puzzled that if its considered safe to cycle across the Square and across the pier approach why haven't seasonal restrictions prohibiting cycling along the prom been lifted ? - why else would you want to cycle across pier approach if it isn't to head for the prom. In common with most of his decisions Filer is being inconsistent in his approach and giving out mixed messages. He seems to confuse being cyclist friendly with creating randomly located cycle lanes and removing cycling restrictions from some locations but retaining them in others. . Lifting restrictions is all well and good but there really does need to be a crackdown on the minority of cyclists who ride aggressively and show little consideration for pedestrians and other road users. There seems to be a general assumption that when there is an accident involving a cycle and car/van that the car/van driver is at fault but when cyclists ignore the highway code, jump red lights, and ride at night without lights they only have themselves to blame. . I think this plan could also backfire as families with small children and elderly people may feel less safe and could abandon the town centre in favour of Castlepoint, where they do not feel at risk of being hit by a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you............ I hope Bournemouth A&E are ready........ suzigirl
  • Score: -3

11:13am Wed 23 Apr 14

Valerie W. says...

All this means is that the council will no longer have to receive any complaints, they are merely giving themselves permission to say that cycling is allowed in those spots and it's the public's problem.
All this means is that the council will no longer have to receive any complaints, they are merely giving themselves permission to say that cycling is allowed in those spots and it's the public's problem. Valerie W.
  • Score: 13

11:13am Wed 23 Apr 14

Wackerone says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Nothing against lifting the restrictions but somewhat puzzled that if its considered safe to cycle across the Square and across the pier approach why haven't seasonal restrictions prohibiting cycling along the prom been lifted ? - why else would you want to cycle across pier approach if it isn't to head for the prom. In common with most of his decisions Filer is being inconsistent in his approach and giving out mixed messages. He seems to confuse being cyclist friendly with creating randomly located cycle lanes and removing cycling restrictions from some locations but retaining them in others.
.
Lifting restrictions is all well and good but there really does need to be a crackdown on the minority of cyclists who ride aggressively and show little consideration for pedestrians and other road users. There seems to be a general assumption that when there is an accident involving a cycle and car/van that the car/van driver is at fault but when cyclists ignore the highway code, jump red lights, and ride at night without lights they only have themselves to blame.
.
I think this plan could also backfire as families with small children and elderly people may feel less safe and could abandon the town centre in favour of Castlepoint, where they do not feel at risk of being hit by a cyclist.
I was wondering the same point re. cycling across the square. Does this include the pedestrian areas on Richmond Hill, up to Horseshoe Common and up to the Triangle? If not, where does the Square start and finish? Has anyone on here ever tried walking in a straight line at average walking pace across the Square at busy periods? I have, and it's impossible, so how can anybody cycle across!!!!! Madness, accidents waiting to happen, not to mention the odd bit of violence that is going to occur between cyclists and pedestrians. The council need to seriously look at this again.
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Nothing against lifting the restrictions but somewhat puzzled that if its considered safe to cycle across the Square and across the pier approach why haven't seasonal restrictions prohibiting cycling along the prom been lifted ? - why else would you want to cycle across pier approach if it isn't to head for the prom. In common with most of his decisions Filer is being inconsistent in his approach and giving out mixed messages. He seems to confuse being cyclist friendly with creating randomly located cycle lanes and removing cycling restrictions from some locations but retaining them in others. . Lifting restrictions is all well and good but there really does need to be a crackdown on the minority of cyclists who ride aggressively and show little consideration for pedestrians and other road users. There seems to be a general assumption that when there is an accident involving a cycle and car/van that the car/van driver is at fault but when cyclists ignore the highway code, jump red lights, and ride at night without lights they only have themselves to blame. . I think this plan could also backfire as families with small children and elderly people may feel less safe and could abandon the town centre in favour of Castlepoint, where they do not feel at risk of being hit by a cyclist.[/p][/quote]I was wondering the same point re. cycling across the square. Does this include the pedestrian areas on Richmond Hill, up to Horseshoe Common and up to the Triangle? If not, where does the Square start and finish? Has anyone on here ever tried walking in a straight line at average walking pace across the Square at busy periods? I have, and it's impossible, so how can anybody cycle across!!!!! Madness, accidents waiting to happen, not to mention the odd bit of violence that is going to occur between cyclists and pedestrians. The council need to seriously look at this again. Wackerone
  • Score: 11

11:15am Wed 23 Apr 14

Anneaa says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
susi.m wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.
Same for peds too!
I definitely agree with this and I would also add that the figures quoted in the report above probably is the tip of the iceberg as they will be only the incidents reported. Many many more go unreported as what is the use of reporting when the cyclist just speeds up and goes?
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test and have insurance. That would make cyclists more safe and for those who have the misfortune to be hit by a racing cyclist there would be some form of compensation available. Not all cyclists are good cyclists.[/p][/quote]Same for peds too![/p][/quote]I definitely agree with this and I would also add that the figures quoted in the report above probably is the tip of the iceberg as they will be only the incidents reported. Many many more go unreported as what is the use of reporting when the cyclist just speeds up and goes? Anneaa
  • Score: 5

11:15am Wed 23 Apr 14

Bohemia says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Excellent news. I try to do a bit of cycling during the summer months for exercise, but wouldn't dare cycle on the dangerous roads and risk being killed. This is great news also for those who use their bikes as their only form of transport - they can travel in safety at last.
You do realise we are only talking about maybe 50 meters across the square and 100 meters across pier approach. Does this current small amount of walking really put anyone off riding a bike. Everywhere else on pavements and the lower gardens it remains illegal to cycle.
As a cyclist/ pedestrian/ runner/ motorist who is frustrated by the amount of cycling on pavements, I think this is a bad idea and confuses the issue further. Much better would be finding the right balance of when to prosecute / educate, and the current balance (basically non-existent) is far too lenient.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Excellent news. I try to do a bit of cycling during the summer months for exercise, but wouldn't dare cycle on the dangerous roads and risk being killed. This is great news also for those who use their bikes as their only form of transport - they can travel in safety at last.[/p][/quote]You do realise we are only talking about maybe 50 meters across the square and 100 meters across pier approach. Does this current small amount of walking really put anyone off riding a bike. Everywhere else on pavements and the lower gardens it remains illegal to cycle. As a cyclist/ pedestrian/ runner/ motorist who is frustrated by the amount of cycling on pavements, I think this is a bad idea and confuses the issue further. Much better would be finding the right balance of when to prosecute / educate, and the current balance (basically non-existent) is far too lenient. Bohemia
  • Score: 3

11:18am Wed 23 Apr 14

GarrySibbald says...

This part of the echo report made interesting reading; "Police statistics for the past five years show there were nine pedestrians hit by cyclists between January 2008 and December 2012 and none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas." In the same period, 638 cyclists were hit by vehicles" With figures like that is it any wonder that people opt to ride on the pavements!
This part of the echo report made interesting reading; "Police statistics for the past five years show there were nine pedestrians hit by cyclists between January 2008 and December 2012 and none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas." In the same period, 638 cyclists were hit by vehicles" With figures like that is it any wonder that people opt to ride on the pavements! GarrySibbald
  • Score: 8

11:24am Wed 23 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

Nothing like a good story about cyclists to up the Echo's page visit count, well that and stories about Travellers, the Council and the Turd Reef ;)

Why don't they really go for it with a story like:
"Travellers arrive on mass to Boscombe Surf Reef to stage a go slow cycle along the seafront to BBC offices to protest about the lack of traveller sites in the borough (and offer there backing for the wind farm)"

That should really get the website stats up there :)
Nothing like a good story about cyclists to up the Echo's page visit count, well that and stories about Travellers, the Council and the Turd Reef ;) Why don't they really go for it with a story like: "Travellers arrive on mass to Boscombe Surf Reef to stage a go slow cycle along the seafront to BBC offices to protest about the lack of traveller sites in the borough (and offer there backing for the wind farm)" That should really get the website stats up there :) BarrHumbug
  • Score: 17

11:26am Wed 23 Apr 14

High Treason says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
I look forward to not seeing you in the town centre then high treason
Not a chance, already do most of my shopping at out of town stores. Why would I want to spend money parking and take the risk of being hit by a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: I look forward to not seeing you in the town centre then high treason[/p][/quote]Not a chance, already do most of my shopping at out of town stores. Why would I want to spend money parking and take the risk of being hit by a cyclist. High Treason
  • Score: 4

11:40am Wed 23 Apr 14

charlie2004 says...

Went to Town Centre last week, 1st time in about a year. Won't be going back after paying £4.80 for 2 hrs parking. No wonder they are trying to pull the cyclists in as the place looks pretty deserted.
Went to Town Centre last week, 1st time in about a year. Won't be going back after paying £4.80 for 2 hrs parking. No wonder they are trying to pull the cyclists in as the place looks pretty deserted. charlie2004
  • Score: 11

11:53am Wed 23 Apr 14

TheUnfortunateTruth says...

Bournemouth council seems to only half think through some ideas... I wouldnt be surprised to see them run a trial where all pavement space is for cyclists and pedestrians have to walk in the road in order to reduce cyclist accidents

Although I can see the good intentions, many issues will arise e.g., bike theft will rocket as there will be nowhere secure/practical to lock your bike in bournemouth (there are already limited spaces). Additionally there will be a huge increase in bicycle-pedestrian collisions (although only involving a minority of bad cyclists).

Personally I completely disagree with cyclists on the beach during summer as I know several people who have been hit by cyclists, one being left with a broken collar bone. Cyclists should stick to the clifftop paths during summer and leave the prominade clear for beach users.
Bournemouth council seems to only half think through some ideas... I wouldnt be surprised to see them run a trial where all pavement space is for cyclists and pedestrians have to walk in the road in order to reduce cyclist accidents Although I can see the good intentions, many issues will arise e.g., bike theft will rocket as there will be nowhere secure/practical to lock your bike in bournemouth (there are already limited spaces). Additionally there will be a huge increase in bicycle-pedestrian collisions (although only involving a minority of bad cyclists). Personally I completely disagree with cyclists on the beach during summer as I know several people who have been hit by cyclists, one being left with a broken collar bone. Cyclists should stick to the clifftop paths during summer and leave the prominade clear for beach users. TheUnfortunateTruth
  • Score: 9

12:02pm Wed 23 Apr 14

madras says...

Sorry, but which ever way you look at it, cars, cycles and pedestrians don't mix well - it shouldn't be beyond the council to offer separate areas for each. A bit like a game of scissors, paper, stone, one always seems to be a threat to the other...
Sorry, but which ever way you look at it, cars, cycles and pedestrians don't mix well - it shouldn't be beyond the council to offer separate areas for each. A bit like a game of scissors, paper, stone, one always seems to be a threat to the other... madras
  • Score: 9

12:04pm Wed 23 Apr 14

grazzer says...

l think that this will result in LESS cyclists cycling accross the Square as once it becomes legal they will no longer get a kick out of flouting the law and it will lose its attraction.
Meanwhile,why not make it an offence for pedestrians to cross the road while using their Mobile?
l think that this will result in LESS cyclists cycling accross the Square as once it becomes legal they will no longer get a kick out of flouting the law and it will lose its attraction. Meanwhile,why not make it an offence for pedestrians to cross the road while using their Mobile? grazzer
  • Score: -5

12:05pm Wed 23 Apr 14

saynomore says...

As far as allowing cycling on the promenade look up the definition in the Oxford Dictionary "A paved public WALK, typically one along the seafront at a resort." Also perhaps we should rename pavement to the American description " SideWALK". Having said that it would not be a problem if some idiot cyclist rode at a sensible speed when mixing with pedestrians instead of thinking that it is a velodrome.
As far as allowing cycling on the promenade look up the definition in the Oxford Dictionary "A paved public WALK, typically one along the seafront at a resort." Also perhaps we should rename pavement to the American description " SideWALK". Having said that it would not be a problem if some idiot cyclist rode at a sensible speed when mixing with pedestrians instead of thinking that it is a velodrome. saynomore
  • Score: 1

12:21pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Graham Rees says...

The danger I see for pedestrians, is when a cyclist goes whizzing past me, I think 'good job I didn't see a coin on the pavement next to me, changed direction to pick it up, then bang, cyclist goes into my back'! Very dangerous!!
The danger I see for pedestrians, is when a cyclist goes whizzing past me, I think 'good job I didn't see a coin on the pavement next to me, changed direction to pick it up, then bang, cyclist goes into my back'! Very dangerous!! Graham Rees
  • Score: -4

12:21pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Local fan says...

I agree with this decision by the council - the vast majority of cyclists are careful and ride slowly when its necessary - sadly the exception gets us all a bad reputation. I hope the authorities prosecute anyone who breaks the law
I agree with this decision by the council - the vast majority of cyclists are careful and ride slowly when its necessary - sadly the exception gets us all a bad reputation. I hope the authorities prosecute anyone who breaks the law Local fan
  • Score: 5

12:23pm Wed 23 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

grazzer wrote:
l think that this will result in LESS cyclists cycling accross the Square as once it becomes legal they will no longer get a kick out of flouting the law and it will lose its attraction.
Meanwhile,why not make it an offence for pedestrians to cross the road while using their Mobile?
Or walk around with their iPod plugged in? Last week I witnessed a student almost run over in the pedestrian area of Old Christchurch Road because they could not hear a vehicle behind them during the permitted loading hours, and they walked straight across the front of it without looking! Fortunately the driver was paying attention!
[quote][p][bold]grazzer[/bold] wrote: l think that this will result in LESS cyclists cycling accross the Square as once it becomes legal they will no longer get a kick out of flouting the law and it will lose its attraction. Meanwhile,why not make it an offence for pedestrians to cross the road while using their Mobile?[/p][/quote]Or walk around with their iPod plugged in? Last week I witnessed a student almost run over in the pedestrian area of Old Christchurch Road because they could not hear a vehicle behind them during the permitted loading hours, and they walked straight across the front of it without looking! Fortunately the driver was paying attention! speedy231278
  • Score: -2

12:24pm Wed 23 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Valerie W. wrote:
All this means is that the council will no longer have to receive any complaints, they are merely giving themselves permission to say that cycling is allowed in those spots and it's the public's problem.
Funny how I said this earlier, but unlike my post, the above has been voted up, and not down.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote: All this means is that the council will no longer have to receive any complaints, they are merely giving themselves permission to say that cycling is allowed in those spots and it's the public's problem.[/p][/quote]Funny how I said this earlier, but unlike my post, the above has been voted up, and not down. speedy231278
  • Score: -12

12:25pm Wed 23 Apr 14

raspberryripple13 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
bosco1 wrote:
So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."
Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars.

Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?
The real danger lies in the few cyclists with no consideration for highway codes. MANY times I've witnessed cyclists whizzing up alongside buses I'm on, especially dangerous when the bus is actually in the act of turning. The cyclist just rushes up alongside, hoping to squeeze past, then kicks/punches the bus & shouts obscenities at the driver (& any passenger that looks their way) if they are forced to slow down or stop. Imagine that level of arrogance transferred to pedestrian areas & you'll find many accidents occurring. I think the statistics show that, even with restrictions in place, there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bosco1[/bold] wrote: So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."[/p][/quote]Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars. Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?[/p][/quote]The real danger lies in the few cyclists with no consideration for highway codes. MANY times I've witnessed cyclists whizzing up alongside buses I'm on, especially dangerous when the bus is actually in the act of turning. The cyclist just rushes up alongside, hoping to squeeze past, then kicks/punches the bus & shouts obscenities at the driver (& any passenger that looks their way) if they are forced to slow down or stop. Imagine that level of arrogance transferred to pedestrian areas & you'll find many accidents occurring. I think the statistics show that, even with restrictions in place, there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people. raspberryripple13
  • Score: -2

12:26pm Wed 23 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

So, will there be cycle lanes marked on the square, or will it be a free-for-all? If pedestrians and cyclists mix, who exactly has right of way? Some years ago a pedestrian are in a town I lived near in Sussex has a specific cycling area marked on it which worked quite well, so I would guess any sensible council would do the same. Which means we won't get any....
So, will there be cycle lanes marked on the square, or will it be a free-for-all? If pedestrians and cyclists mix, who exactly has right of way? Some years ago a pedestrian are in a town I lived near in Sussex has a specific cycling area marked on it which worked quite well, so I would guess any sensible council would do the same. Which means we won't get any.... speedy231278
  • Score: 11

12:26pm Wed 23 Apr 14

nickynoodah says...

Cant wait to see the tall slim ladies with their latest technology cycling gear you know
with sweat wicking breathable hybrid merino fabric
not before time,thanks a million council
if it gets any better than this Mr Noodhah wont be able to stand it

hey you, george, where's my blood pressure tablets gone
Cant wait to see the tall slim ladies with their latest technology cycling gear you know with sweat wicking breathable hybrid merino fabric not before time,thanks a million council if it gets any better than this Mr Noodhah wont be able to stand it hey you, george, where's my blood pressure tablets gone nickynoodah
  • Score: -2

12:27pm Wed 23 Apr 14

richt says...

charlie2004 wrote:
Went to Town Centre last week, 1st time in about a year. Won't be going back after paying £4.80 for 2 hrs parking. No wonder they are trying to pull the cyclists in as the place looks pretty deserted.
You must have used the NCP next to the Square then? There is plenty of cheaper parking, or even free on road parking if you are willing to park a bit further away!
[quote][p][bold]charlie2004[/bold] wrote: Went to Town Centre last week, 1st time in about a year. Won't be going back after paying £4.80 for 2 hrs parking. No wonder they are trying to pull the cyclists in as the place looks pretty deserted.[/p][/quote]You must have used the NCP next to the Square then? There is plenty of cheaper parking, or even free on road parking if you are willing to park a bit further away! richt
  • Score: 6

12:28pm Wed 23 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Of course, if, as the councillor above is quoted as saying, they don't want 'traffic snarling up', they could always sorts the roads out properly, sort out the local public transport, and reinstate a load of the areas that have been pedestrianised or get shut during certain periods. But there's probably no financial benefit in that....
Of course, if, as the councillor above is quoted as saying, they don't want 'traffic snarling up', they could always sorts the roads out properly, sort out the local public transport, and reinstate a load of the areas that have been pedestrianised or get shut during certain periods. But there's probably no financial benefit in that.... speedy231278
  • Score: 1

12:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

raspberryripple13 says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
The Council might introduce free "dive out of the way" courses for non bike owners.
Bike awareness courses for peds i.e. to leave to enough room for cyclists to pass and a ban on extending dog leads so we can't have dog walker on one side of the path and dog on the other which is often the case at Hengistbury Head.
As well as pedestrian awareness courses for cyclists. Poole middle/junior schools offer cycle training, but my daughters school ran 3 courses & still didn't have enough spaces for every pupil to attend...more funding needs to be focused on training cyclists. This would help to prevent accidents, with pedestrians OR motorists. Compulsory training & insurance cover are the best way forward.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: The Council might introduce free "dive out of the way" courses for non bike owners.[/p][/quote]Bike awareness courses for peds i.e. to leave to enough room for cyclists to pass and a ban on extending dog leads so we can't have dog walker on one side of the path and dog on the other which is often the case at Hengistbury Head.[/p][/quote]As well as pedestrian awareness courses for cyclists. Poole middle/junior schools offer cycle training, but my daughters school ran 3 courses & still didn't have enough spaces for every pupil to attend...more funding needs to be focused on training cyclists. This would help to prevent accidents, with pedestrians OR motorists. Compulsory training & insurance cover are the best way forward. raspberryripple13
  • Score: 1

12:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

O'Reilly says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Does this mean the July/August cycling ban on the prom will be lifted?
LOL............when was it ever enforced?
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: Does this mean the July/August cycling ban on the prom will be lifted?[/p][/quote]LOL............when was it ever enforced? O'Reilly
  • Score: 6

12:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

woby_tide says...

Top stories on the Echo website, not sure if they are related

"CYCLING restrictions are to be lifted in Bournemouth in the hope of making the town more bike-friendly."

"A WOMAN has been dragged off her bike and robbed at knifepoint in Bournemouth."
Top stories on the Echo website, not sure if they are related "CYCLING restrictions are to be lifted in Bournemouth in the hope of making the town more bike-friendly." "A WOMAN has been dragged off her bike and robbed at knifepoint in Bournemouth." woby_tide
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Bob Bournemouth says...

What a stupid and dangerous idea! It is already bad enough to walk in pedestrianised areas such as Boscombe without having to dodge cyclists - now it will be dangerous to walk anywhere!
What a stupid and dangerous idea! It is already bad enough to walk in pedestrianised areas such as Boscombe without having to dodge cyclists - now it will be dangerous to walk anywhere! Bob Bournemouth
  • Score: 5

12:54pm Wed 23 Apr 14

High Treason says...

Howdie wrote:
as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........
Fine but who pays if your child injures someone by neglect or accident. A car driver is covered by insurance, loss of earnings, long term injury, even for the NHS costs. Therefore someone injured by a cyclist will have to issue a claim in the courts. Hardly right considering the behaviour of some cyclist's.
[quote][p][bold]Howdie[/bold] wrote: as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........[/p][/quote]Fine but who pays if your child injures someone by neglect or accident. A car driver is covered by insurance, loss of earnings, long term injury, even for the NHS costs. Therefore someone injured by a cyclist will have to issue a claim in the courts. Hardly right considering the behaviour of some cyclist's. High Treason
  • Score: 3

1:08pm Wed 23 Apr 14

spooki says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.
How about the cyclists who go through red traffic lights and travel the wrong way along one way roads? I suppose it's OUR fault as motorists if we hit them? Don't like this idea AT ALL.
Now we have to worry about cyclists on pedestrian areas too? Are they still "pedestrian" if you can cycle on them?
Of course, as with anything else, the bad ones make the name for all and I do know there are sensible cyclists who are fed up of the bad ones getting press. It's a shame for those who DO follow the road rules.
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.[/p][/quote]How about the cyclists who go through red traffic lights and travel the wrong way along one way roads? I suppose it's OUR fault as motorists if we hit them? Don't like this idea AT ALL. Now we have to worry about cyclists on pedestrian areas too? Are they still "pedestrian" if you can cycle on them? Of course, as with anything else, the bad ones make the name for all and I do know there are sensible cyclists who are fed up of the bad ones getting press. It's a shame for those who DO follow the road rules. spooki
  • Score: -2

1:09pm Wed 23 Apr 14

kingstonpaul says...

Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?
Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate? kingstonpaul
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Wed 23 Apr 14

nickynoodah says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?
the way George drives you will be closer to angels than angles

hope this answered your question
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?[/p][/quote]the way George drives you will be closer to angels than angles hope this answered your question nickynoodah
  • Score: -3

1:30pm Wed 23 Apr 14

BournemouthMum says...

suzigirl wrote:
Townee wrote:
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists.......

.....
'Cyclists' - which cyclists are you talking about - or are you grouping us all together? 'Some' cyclists break the law, and some don't. 'Some' motorists drive like maniacs and some don't. 'Some' pedestrians are thugs who carry knives and attack people - shall I go on? I think it's fair to say that most cyclists are law abiding and respectful of other road users. As a motorist too I always look out for cyclists and give them plenty of room etc.

Your generalisation is ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Cyclists think they can break any law they want as apparently they never cause accidents or kill anyone so that is okay not like the nasty car drivers and motorcyclists....... .....[/p][/quote]'Cyclists' - which cyclists are you talking about - or are you grouping us all together? 'Some' cyclists break the law, and some don't. 'Some' motorists drive like maniacs and some don't. 'Some' pedestrians are thugs who carry knives and attack people - shall I go on? I think it's fair to say that most cyclists are law abiding and respectful of other road users. As a motorist too I always look out for cyclists and give them plenty of room etc. Your generalisation is ridiculous. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 20

2:28pm Wed 23 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

spooki wrote:
anotherfatslob wrote:
Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.
How about the cyclists who go through red traffic lights and travel the wrong way along one way roads? I suppose it's OUR fault as motorists if we hit them? Don't like this idea AT ALL.
Now we have to worry about cyclists on pedestrian areas too? Are they still "pedestrian" if you can cycle on them?
Of course, as with anything else, the bad ones make the name for all and I do know there are sensible cyclists who are fed up of the bad ones getting press. It's a shame for those who DO follow the road rules.
Peds cross when the lights are red and walk the wrong way up one-way streets too.
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.[/p][/quote]How about the cyclists who go through red traffic lights and travel the wrong way along one way roads? I suppose it's OUR fault as motorists if we hit them? Don't like this idea AT ALL. Now we have to worry about cyclists on pedestrian areas too? Are they still "pedestrian" if you can cycle on them? Of course, as with anything else, the bad ones make the name for all and I do know there are sensible cyclists who are fed up of the bad ones getting press. It's a shame for those who DO follow the road rules.[/p][/quote]Peds cross when the lights are red and walk the wrong way up one-way streets too. The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 3

2:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

richt wrote:
charlie2004 wrote:
Went to Town Centre last week, 1st time in about a year. Won't be going back after paying £4.80 for 2 hrs parking. No wonder they are trying to pull the cyclists in as the place looks pretty deserted.
You must have used the NCP next to the Square then? There is plenty of cheaper parking, or even free on road parking if you are willing to park a bit further away!
Richmond Gardens Multi-story. £1 for the first 2 hours.
[quote][p][bold]richt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charlie2004[/bold] wrote: Went to Town Centre last week, 1st time in about a year. Won't be going back after paying £4.80 for 2 hrs parking. No wonder they are trying to pull the cyclists in as the place looks pretty deserted.[/p][/quote]You must have used the NCP next to the Square then? There is plenty of cheaper parking, or even free on road parking if you are willing to park a bit further away![/p][/quote]Richmond Gardens Multi-story. £1 for the first 2 hours. speedy231278
  • Score: 3

2:50pm Wed 23 Apr 14

M0Z says...

This scheme is a mistake, and the justifications in the article are daft. The signage says No Cycling - not No Cyclists. Why not simply dismount and walk in a pedestrian zone – it’s never been a problem for me or made me feel unwelcome. I predict many collisions - and already feel sorry for anyone elderly with brittle bones who gets knocked over, blind people, kids etc.
This scheme is a mistake, and the justifications in the article are daft. The signage says No Cycling - not No Cyclists. Why not simply dismount and walk in a pedestrian zone – it’s never been a problem for me or made me feel unwelcome. I predict many collisions - and already feel sorry for anyone elderly with brittle bones who gets knocked over, blind people, kids etc. M0Z
  • Score: 3

2:51pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Avengerboy says...

Cue moron comments from pensioners who never go out and car drivers who are jealous.
Cue moron comments from pensioners who never go out and car drivers who are jealous. Avengerboy
  • Score: 4

2:53pm Wed 23 Apr 14

GarrySibbald says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, will there be cycle lanes marked on the square, or will it be a free-for-all? If pedestrians and cyclists mix, who exactly has right of way? Some years ago a pedestrian are in a town I lived near in Sussex has a specific cycling area marked on it which worked quite well, so I would guess any sensible council would do the same. Which means we won't get any....
You've got a point! The distinction between pavement and cycle tracks (which are often just the use of the pavement) does seem to be becoming less and less obvious and don't appear to be marked clearly as in accordance with the information given in the highway code.

https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82/overview-59-t
o-71
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, will there be cycle lanes marked on the square, or will it be a free-for-all? If pedestrians and cyclists mix, who exactly has right of way? Some years ago a pedestrian are in a town I lived near in Sussex has a specific cycling area marked on it which worked quite well, so I would guess any sensible council would do the same. Which means we won't get any....[/p][/quote]You've got a point! The distinction between pavement and cycle tracks (which are often just the use of the pavement) does seem to be becoming less and less obvious and don't appear to be marked clearly as in accordance with the information given in the highway code. https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82/overview-59-t o-71 GarrySibbald
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Watchful_Eye says...

I have to wonder if there is a Government grant involved somewhere as every crass idea by Local Government seems to involve "free money".
I have to wonder if there is a Government grant involved somewhere as every crass idea by Local Government seems to involve "free money". Watchful_Eye
  • Score: 5

3:03pm Wed 23 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Townee wrote:
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town.
As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to.
Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Should've gone to SpecSavers.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Should've gone to SpecSavers. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

3:34pm Wed 23 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

raspberryripple13 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
bosco1 wrote:
So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."
Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars.

Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?
The real danger lies in the few cyclists with no consideration for highway codes. MANY times I've witnessed cyclists whizzing up alongside buses I'm on, especially dangerous when the bus is actually in the act of turning. The cyclist just rushes up alongside, hoping to squeeze past, then kicks/punches the bus & shouts obscenities at the driver (& any passenger that looks their way) if they are forced to slow down or stop. Imagine that level of arrogance transferred to pedestrian areas & you'll find many accidents occurring. I think the statistics show that, even with restrictions in place, there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people.
If you want to believe that dear then you and a few others just carry on.

Why speak of the truth when a wildly exaggerated 'factual' anecdote is so much more comforting and self satisfying eh?

I think it has become clear that this irrational detestation by so many people of pedestrians, cyclist all the others who they consider not to pay their way (irrespective of their actual tax bracket), with the continued and astonishing 'we know we're right' making so many completely ignore all published facts that this is a pointless exchange.

Well good luck to you and your sad little angry lives.
[quote][p][bold]raspberryripple13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bosco1[/bold] wrote: So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."[/p][/quote]Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars. Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?[/p][/quote]The real danger lies in the few cyclists with no consideration for highway codes. MANY times I've witnessed cyclists whizzing up alongside buses I'm on, especially dangerous when the bus is actually in the act of turning. The cyclist just rushes up alongside, hoping to squeeze past, then kicks/punches the bus & shouts obscenities at the driver (& any passenger that looks their way) if they are forced to slow down or stop. Imagine that level of arrogance transferred to pedestrian areas & you'll find many accidents occurring. I think the statistics show that, even with restrictions in place, there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people.[/p][/quote]If you want to believe that dear then you and a few others just carry on. Why speak of the truth when a wildly exaggerated 'factual' anecdote is so much more comforting and self satisfying eh? I think it has become clear that this irrational detestation by so many people of pedestrians, cyclist all the others who they consider not to pay their way (irrespective of their actual tax bracket), with the continued and astonishing 'we know we're right' making so many completely ignore all published facts that this is a pointless exchange. Well good luck to you and your sad little angry lives. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 7

3:34pm Wed 23 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

spooki wrote:
anotherfatslob wrote: Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.
How about the cyclists who go through red traffic lights and travel the wrong way along one way roads? I suppose it's OUR fault as motorists if we hit them? Don't like this idea AT ALL. Now we have to worry about cyclists on pedestrian areas too? Are they still "pedestrian" if you can cycle on them? Of course, as with anything else, the bad ones make the name for all and I do know there are sensible cyclists who are fed up of the bad ones getting press. It's a shame for those who DO follow the road rules.
That's Spooki - I was just thinking the same thing!
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Now let's make the "good" people more bikre friendly,the ones driving motor vehicles and killing and maiming.[/p][/quote]How about the cyclists who go through red traffic lights and travel the wrong way along one way roads? I suppose it's OUR fault as motorists if we hit them? Don't like this idea AT ALL. Now we have to worry about cyclists on pedestrian areas too? Are they still "pedestrian" if you can cycle on them? Of course, as with anything else, the bad ones make the name for all and I do know there are sensible cyclists who are fed up of the bad ones getting press. It's a shame for those who DO follow the road rules.[/p][/quote]That's Spooki - I was just thinking the same thing! suzigirl
  • Score: -10

3:39pm Wed 23 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Avengerboy wrote:
Cue moron comments from pensioners who never go out and car drivers who are jealous.
Jealous of what in particular - I am a car driver and a motorcyclist and I am definitely not jealous of some idiot cyclists who are intent on either injuring themselves or PENSIONERS by not obeying the rules of the road (or in most cases rules of the pavement!).
[quote][p][bold]Avengerboy[/bold] wrote: Cue moron comments from pensioners who never go out and car drivers who are jealous.[/p][/quote]Jealous of what in particular - I am a car driver and a motorcyclist and I am definitely not jealous of some idiot cyclists who are intent on either injuring themselves or PENSIONERS by not obeying the rules of the road (or in most cases rules of the pavement!). suzigirl
  • Score: -8

3:41pm Wed 23 Apr 14

beachcomber1 says...

cyclists already cycle through the two areas mentioned with impunity, so what's the difference?
cyclists already cycle through the two areas mentioned with impunity, so what's the difference? beachcomber1
  • Score: 2

3:44pm Wed 23 Apr 14

beachcomber1 says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision
quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision[/p][/quote]quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe. beachcomber1
  • Score: 7

3:46pm Wed 23 Apr 14

askquestion says...

this latest idea should go down well with all the visitors to bournemouth ! so many coach companies bring hundreds of people to this town. so now they will face cyclists zooming about like fools through the square ( or round ! ). cyclists should carry mandatory insurance in the same way as all other road users,

so many go through red lights with impunity., knock car mirrors flying . we never hear that any of them get charged for any road/pavement offence.
i was astonished to hear a police officer last year at a local meeting tell the hall that he wouldnt force children off pavements ! when questioned further, he suggested that when ( not if ) a pedestrian gets hit by a bike, they would have to go to the police station and report it. give a description of the cyclist. so there you are laying on a pavement with a broken leg. the cyclist long gone. a description ? a bloke wearing jeans, and a hat ????

well done bournemouth, another stupid " green " idea
this latest idea should go down well with all the visitors to bournemouth ! so many coach companies bring hundreds of people to this town. so now they will face cyclists zooming about like fools through the square ( or round ! ). cyclists should carry mandatory insurance in the same way as all other road users, so many go through red lights with impunity., knock car mirrors flying . we never hear that any of them get charged for any road/pavement offence. i was astonished to hear a police officer last year at a local meeting tell the hall that he wouldnt force children off pavements ! when questioned further, he suggested that when ( not if ) a pedestrian gets hit by a bike, they would have to go to the police station and report it. give a description of the cyclist. so there you are laying on a pavement with a broken leg. the cyclist long gone. a description ? a bloke wearing jeans, and a hat ???? well done bournemouth, another stupid " green " idea askquestion
  • Score: -8

4:05pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Sheldon Cooper says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision
quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.
This is exactly what others have tried to point out to you.

You poo poo the stats and exclaim it is like comparing pedestrians crossing motorways, HOW is it? Pedestrians don't cross motorways (unless they have mental issues) but pedestrians do share the same space as cyclists in huge numbers every single day.

So how exactly are the two comparable?
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision[/p][/quote]quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.[/p][/quote]This is exactly what others have tried to point out to you. You poo poo the stats and exclaim it is like comparing pedestrians crossing motorways, HOW is it? Pedestrians don't cross motorways (unless they have mental issues) but pedestrians do share the same space as cyclists in huge numbers every single day. So how exactly are the two comparable? Sheldon Cooper
  • Score: 3

4:16pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Sheldon Cooper says...

raspberryripple13 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
bosco1 wrote:
So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."
Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars.

Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?
The real danger lies in the few cyclists with no consideration for highway codes. MANY times I've witnessed cyclists whizzing up alongside buses I'm on, especially dangerous when the bus is actually in the act of turning. The cyclist just rushes up alongside, hoping to squeeze past, then kicks/punches the bus & shouts obscenities at the driver (& any passenger that looks their way) if they are forced to slow down or stop. Imagine that level of arrogance transferred to pedestrian areas & you'll find many accidents occurring. I think the statistics show that, even with restrictions in place, there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people.
Oh and here's another one.

Fair and objective?

You state 'I think the statistics show.......'there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people....' (sic)

So, completely ignore the 638 figure quoted to try and simplify and highlight the reality of the situation - to help even those with a simple, warped perception?

It is clear to all that you simply wish to bolster your own prejudice by claiming 'well look there are 9 times in 5 years where I was right'. Patting yourself on the back.

When a educated or even a somewhat rational person thinks about the thousands of interactions on a weekly, if not daily basis, between a bike and a pedestrian and then consider 9 logged incidents in 5 years do you not see how weak and pathetic your argument is?

A logged incident on average about once in every 6 months? With all those thousands and thousands of interactions/sharing the same space?

Honest to god.
[quote][p][bold]raspberryripple13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bosco1[/bold] wrote: So many thumbs up for this new scheme,!!!! ? yet everyone yesturday including myself was up in arms over the "THUG CYCLIST" in Boscombe.!! Myself think the square should remain as a pedestrian area it should be a place to walk around safely. How long will it be before the Echo Headlines reads "Another injured in Bournemouth Square.......by a cyclist."[/p][/quote]Based on a figure of 9 in 5 year,s statistically the first should be in about 6 months but in that time we can expect to see about 27 cyclist hit by cars. Good to know where the real danger lies though eh......?[/p][/quote]The real danger lies in the few cyclists with no consideration for highway codes. MANY times I've witnessed cyclists whizzing up alongside buses I'm on, especially dangerous when the bus is actually in the act of turning. The cyclist just rushes up alongside, hoping to squeeze past, then kicks/punches the bus & shouts obscenities at the driver (& any passenger that looks their way) if they are forced to slow down or stop. Imagine that level of arrogance transferred to pedestrian areas & you'll find many accidents occurring. I think the statistics show that, even with restrictions in place, there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people.[/p][/quote]Oh and here's another one. Fair and objective? You state 'I think the statistics show.......'there's 9 counts of cyclists showing disreguard for any law & other people....' (sic) So, completely ignore the 638 figure quoted to try and simplify and highlight the reality of the situation - to help even those with a simple, warped perception? It is clear to all that you simply wish to bolster your own prejudice by claiming 'well look there are 9 times in 5 years where I was right'. Patting yourself on the back. When a educated or even a somewhat rational person thinks about the thousands of interactions on a weekly, if not daily basis, between a bike and a pedestrian and then consider 9 logged incidents in 5 years do you not see how weak and pathetic your argument is? A logged incident on average about once in every 6 months? With all those thousands and thousands of interactions/sharing the same space? Honest to god. Sheldon Cooper
  • Score: 5

4:20pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Its another case of ITS TOO HARD TO POLICE SO LETS MAKE LEGAL.
PATHETIC

they'll be selling crack in Tesco soon with that defeatist attitude.
Its another case of ITS TOO HARD TO POLICE SO LETS MAKE LEGAL. PATHETIC they'll be selling crack in Tesco soon with that defeatist attitude. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -8

4:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

beachcomber1 says...

Sheldon Cooper wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision
quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.
This is exactly what others have tried to point out to you.

You poo poo the stats and exclaim it is like comparing pedestrians crossing motorways, HOW is it? Pedestrians don't cross motorways (unless they have mental issues) but pedestrians do share the same space as cyclists in huge numbers every single day.

So how exactly are the two comparable?
so you therefore tacitly admit that illegal cycling is so widepread that the cyclist miles ridden on pavements is comparable to cyclist miles ridden on the road? that is the only basis which makes a comparision valid.
[quote][p][bold]Sheldon Cooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision[/p][/quote]quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.[/p][/quote]This is exactly what others have tried to point out to you. You poo poo the stats and exclaim it is like comparing pedestrians crossing motorways, HOW is it? Pedestrians don't cross motorways (unless they have mental issues) but pedestrians do share the same space as cyclists in huge numbers every single day. So how exactly are the two comparable?[/p][/quote]so you therefore tacitly admit that illegal cycling is so widepread that the cyclist miles ridden on pavements is comparable to cyclist miles ridden on the road? that is the only basis which makes a comparision valid. beachcomber1
  • Score: -5

4:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

GarrySibbald says...

askquestion wrote:
this latest idea should go down well with all the visitors to bournemouth ! so many coach companies bring hundreds of people to this town. so now they will face cyclists zooming about like fools through the square ( or round ! ). cyclists should carry mandatory insurance in the same way as all other road users,

so many go through red lights with impunity., knock car mirrors flying . we never hear that any of them get charged for any road/pavement offence.
i was astonished to hear a police officer last year at a local meeting tell the hall that he wouldnt force children off pavements ! when questioned further, he suggested that when ( not if ) a pedestrian gets hit by a bike, they would have to go to the police station and report it. give a description of the cyclist. so there you are laying on a pavement with a broken leg. the cyclist long gone. a description ? a bloke wearing jeans, and a hat ????

well done bournemouth, another stupid " green " idea
The comment "cyclists should carry mandatory insurance in the same way as all other road users" is often mentioned by the anti-cycle brigade, but it is poorly thought through argument. As is comparing cyclists "with all other road users". For starters, many cyclists (and probably most of the ones that are moaned about on these forums) are children or youths, who are too young to drive a car and too young to be able to insure themselves.
[quote][p][bold]askquestion[/bold] wrote: this latest idea should go down well with all the visitors to bournemouth ! so many coach companies bring hundreds of people to this town. so now they will face cyclists zooming about like fools through the square ( or round ! ). cyclists should carry mandatory insurance in the same way as all other road users, so many go through red lights with impunity., knock car mirrors flying . we never hear that any of them get charged for any road/pavement offence. i was astonished to hear a police officer last year at a local meeting tell the hall that he wouldnt force children off pavements ! when questioned further, he suggested that when ( not if ) a pedestrian gets hit by a bike, they would have to go to the police station and report it. give a description of the cyclist. so there you are laying on a pavement with a broken leg. the cyclist long gone. a description ? a bloke wearing jeans, and a hat ???? well done bournemouth, another stupid " green " idea[/p][/quote]The comment "cyclists should carry mandatory insurance in the same way as all other road users" is often mentioned by the anti-cycle brigade, but it is poorly thought through argument. As is comparing cyclists "with all other road users". For starters, many cyclists (and probably most of the ones that are moaned about on these forums) are children or youths, who are too young to drive a car and too young to be able to insure themselves. GarrySibbald
  • Score: 9

5:01pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Sheldon Cooper says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
Sheldon Cooper wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision
quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.
This is exactly what others have tried to point out to you.

You poo poo the stats and exclaim it is like comparing pedestrians crossing motorways, HOW is it? Pedestrians don't cross motorways (unless they have mental issues) but pedestrians do share the same space as cyclists in huge numbers every single day.

So how exactly are the two comparable?
so you therefore tacitly admit that illegal cycling is so widepread that the cyclist miles ridden on pavements is comparable to cyclist miles ridden on the road? that is the only basis which makes a comparision valid.
?????????????????
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sheldon Cooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Given what happened to the elderly gentleman in boscombe this week ,this is the last thing Bournemouth council want to be sanctioning especially in high volume pedestrian areas such as the square and pier approach ,the reason why the statistics are so low reference collisions in pedestrian areas is because cycles are banned from them foolish decision[/p][/quote]quite. this ridiculous misuse of statistics is quite insane. it's like saying very few pedestrians are killed trying to cross motorways, hence crossing motorways is safe.[/p][/quote]This is exactly what others have tried to point out to you. You poo poo the stats and exclaim it is like comparing pedestrians crossing motorways, HOW is it? Pedestrians don't cross motorways (unless they have mental issues) but pedestrians do share the same space as cyclists in huge numbers every single day. So how exactly are the two comparable?[/p][/quote]so you therefore tacitly admit that illegal cycling is so widepread that the cyclist miles ridden on pavements is comparable to cyclist miles ridden on the road? that is the only basis which makes a comparision valid.[/p][/quote]????????????????? Sheldon Cooper
  • Score: 4

5:12pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Sheldon Cooper says...

I can only assume there are huge numbers who are physically and mentally frightened of bikes/cyclists.

Some sort of mass fear.

I honestly cannot think of another explanation for the bigotry (for want of a better phrase), lies and self deluded hatred as to what so many people are routinely trotting out as 'the truth'.

If you read the comments above we take our lives and our property in our hands every time they step out of the door , yet the supporting facts prove the complete opposite.

As does my own experience and I have to say I have never been knocked over, not even nearly, my car has never been hit, I have never been abused whilst out as a driver or as a pedestrian.

And me in my forties and often out and about.

These in fear are to be pitied perhaps? All very odd.
I can only assume there are huge numbers who are physically and mentally frightened of bikes/cyclists. Some sort of mass fear. I honestly cannot think of another explanation for the bigotry (for want of a better phrase), lies and self deluded hatred as to what so many people are routinely trotting out as 'the truth'. If you read the comments above we take our lives and our property in our hands every time they step out of the door , yet the supporting facts prove the complete opposite. As does my own experience and I have to say I have never been knocked over, not even nearly, my car has never been hit, I have never been abused whilst out as a driver or as a pedestrian. And me in my forties and often out and about. These in fear are to be pitied perhaps? All very odd. Sheldon Cooper
  • Score: 9

5:25pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Azphreal says...

I notice the pro-cyclists are out in force today so wonder how many thumbs down i will get for this 'none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas' Do they class pavements as pedestrian areas? As someone who has been hit by a moron cycling on the pavement (and before the anticar lot start i dont drive either) and have almost had my daughter knocked out of her wheelchair by an ADULT who thought that around 20mph is a safe speed to cycle on a pavement i think this is a terrible idea.
I notice the pro-cyclists are out in force today so wonder how many thumbs down i will get for this 'none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas' Do they class pavements as pedestrian areas? As someone who has been hit by a moron cycling on the pavement (and before the anticar lot start i dont drive either) and have almost had my daughter knocked out of her wheelchair by an ADULT who thought that around 20mph is a safe speed to cycle on a pavement i think this is a terrible idea. Azphreal
  • Score: -7

5:35pm Wed 23 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

Sheldon Cooper wrote:
I can only assume there are huge numbers who are physically and mentally frightened of bikes/cyclists.

Some sort of mass fear.

I honestly cannot think of another explanation for the bigotry (for want of a better phrase), lies and self deluded hatred as to what so many people are routinely trotting out as 'the truth'.

If you read the comments above we take our lives and our property in our hands every time they step out of the door , yet the supporting facts prove the complete opposite.

As does my own experience and I have to say I have never been knocked over, not even nearly, my car has never been hit, I have never been abused whilst out as a driver or as a pedestrian.

And me in my forties and often out and about.

These in fear are to be pitied perhaps? All very odd.
I completely agree with you.

Comment after comment of hyperbole, diatribe and baseless nonsense.

Anyone would think that this small relaxation in this law is going to result in Bournemouth Square becoming akin to the streets of Hanoi with thousands of (albeit mopeds) criss-crossing, leaving helpless pedestrians stranded.

The fact of the matter is when the square is quiet, cyclists will go past largely unnoticed and when it get's to the height of summer cyclists will end up dismounting anyway just because it'll be impossible to ride across the square anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Sheldon Cooper[/bold] wrote: I can only assume there are huge numbers who are physically and mentally frightened of bikes/cyclists. Some sort of mass fear. I honestly cannot think of another explanation for the bigotry (for want of a better phrase), lies and self deluded hatred as to what so many people are routinely trotting out as 'the truth'. If you read the comments above we take our lives and our property in our hands every time they step out of the door , yet the supporting facts prove the complete opposite. As does my own experience and I have to say I have never been knocked over, not even nearly, my car has never been hit, I have never been abused whilst out as a driver or as a pedestrian. And me in my forties and often out and about. These in fear are to be pitied perhaps? All very odd.[/p][/quote]I completely agree with you. Comment after comment of hyperbole, diatribe and baseless nonsense. Anyone would think that this small relaxation in this law is going to result in Bournemouth Square becoming akin to the streets of Hanoi with thousands of (albeit mopeds) criss-crossing, leaving helpless pedestrians stranded. The fact of the matter is when the square is quiet, cyclists will go past largely unnoticed and when it get's to the height of summer cyclists will end up dismounting anyway just because it'll be impossible to ride across the square anyway. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 9

5:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

Azphreal wrote:
I notice the pro-cyclists are out in force today so wonder how many thumbs down i will get for this 'none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas' Do they class pavements as pedestrian areas? As someone who has been hit by a moron cycling on the pavement (and before the anticar lot start i dont drive either) and have almost had my daughter knocked out of her wheelchair by an ADULT who thought that around 20mph is a safe speed to cycle on a pavement i think this is a terrible idea.
Sorry but no.

The OAP in question was assaulted by another man, he was not struck by a bike.

"..AN elderly man sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a cyclist in Boscombe today.

The incident, in which a 77-year-old Bournemouth pensioner was pushed to the floor by a male cyclist, happened outside the George Fry electrical store on the corner of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road just after 9am..."

This is clearly a one off incident carried out by someone who would more than likely carry out this type of attack out regardless of whether he happened to be on his bike or not.

Anyone attacking a 77 year old man (for any reason) and especially for something as trivial as being told not to ride on the pavement has serious anger issues. (at the very least)

The vast majority of cyclists are not in the habit of shoving pensioners to the floor and the pro-cyclists who are out in force as you put it would I imagine be more than happy to agree with me as would most anti-cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote: I notice the pro-cyclists are out in force today so wonder how many thumbs down i will get for this 'none of these incidents occurred in pedestrian areas' Do they class pavements as pedestrian areas? As someone who has been hit by a moron cycling on the pavement (and before the anticar lot start i dont drive either) and have almost had my daughter knocked out of her wheelchair by an ADULT who thought that around 20mph is a safe speed to cycle on a pavement i think this is a terrible idea.[/p][/quote]Sorry but no. The OAP in question was assaulted by another man, he was not struck by a bike. "..AN elderly man sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a cyclist in Boscombe today. The incident, in which a 77-year-old Bournemouth pensioner was pushed to the floor by a male cyclist, happened outside the George Fry electrical store on the corner of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road just after 9am..." This is clearly a one off incident carried out by someone who would more than likely carry out this type of attack out regardless of whether he happened to be on his bike or not. Anyone attacking a 77 year old man (for any reason) and especially for something as trivial as being told not to ride on the pavement has serious anger issues. (at the very least) The vast majority of cyclists are not in the habit of shoving pensioners to the floor and the pro-cyclists who are out in force as you put it would I imagine be more than happy to agree with me as would most anti-cyclists. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 10

6:47pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Top_Gear says...

Townee wrote:
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town.
As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to.
Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Care to publish the statistics behind your findings? I'd be very interested to see the data.

Oh.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Care to publish the statistics behind your findings? I'd be very interested to see the data. Oh. Top_Gear
  • Score: 6

6:48pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Self-Righteous Mother says...

The sensible thing would to be allow cycling at non-peak times, however, I can't see any sensible cyclist trying to cycle through in the middle of the day or during the Christmas market. In the same way that sensible drivers wouldn't overtake a cyclist when they weren't able to give them a safe amount of room.
I must say, that as a pedestrian it can be a little unnerving when a cyclist passes closely at speed, but this happens rarely. As a cyclist, when a car, lorry or bus comes close -often within 50cm, it is more than a little unnerving.
Finally, how often do cyclists shout and swear at pedestrians to get out of the way? Being called a f******* s********c******** because I held someone up for a minute or so is not a great start to my day. The madness is , is when they are stopped due to a queue of cars in front of them, the same drivers don't start shouting at the car in front -they just accept it.
The sensible thing would to be allow cycling at non-peak times, however, I can't see any sensible cyclist trying to cycle through in the middle of the day or during the Christmas market. In the same way that sensible drivers wouldn't overtake a cyclist when they weren't able to give them a safe amount of room. I must say, that as a pedestrian it can be a little unnerving when a cyclist passes closely at speed, but this happens rarely. As a cyclist, when a car, lorry or bus comes close -often within 50cm, it is more than a little unnerving. Finally, how often do cyclists shout and swear at pedestrians to get out of the way? Being called a f******* s********c******** because I held someone up for a minute or so is not a great start to my day. The madness is , is when they are stopped due to a queue of cars in front of them, the same drivers don't start shouting at the car in front -they just accept it. Self-Righteous Mother
  • Score: 7

7:09pm Wed 23 Apr 14

QPUtd says...

I never cycle through those areas, but I am in favour of the proposal as having a no-cycling rule and not enforcing it is more unsafe for pedestrians than legalising what is already happening.

People already cycle across the pier approach (and to a lesser extent the square), and the no-cycling rule is not enforced: keeping the rules as they are will not therefore mean no-one cycling in these areas.

However, changing the rules will mean that pedestrians will get used to people cycling in those areas meaning they are less likely to be involved in a colllision
I never cycle through those areas, but I am in favour of the proposal as having a no-cycling rule and not enforcing it is more unsafe for pedestrians than legalising what is already happening. People already cycle across the pier approach (and to a lesser extent the square), and the no-cycling rule is not enforced: keeping the rules as they are will not therefore mean no-one cycling in these areas. However, changing the rules will mean that pedestrians will get used to people cycling in those areas meaning they are less likely to be involved in a colllision QPUtd
  • Score: 2

7:17pm Wed 23 Apr 14

LMaufe says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Townee wrote:
Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town.
As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to.
Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.
Should've gone to SpecSavers.
Training and having insurance are no guarantee of good behaviour.

For example, in the UK in 2004, 145 people were killed by drivers in 23,714 hit-and-run incidents.

Many drivers ignore the law - using mobiles while driving, failing to stop at crossings, failing to indicate, exceeding the speed limit - transgressions which potentially cause far more harm when done in a car than on a bicycle.

And an estimated 30% of motorists are not insured
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it's about time this council made it law that you have to have a bike to go into town. No bike go away, the council seem to be bending over backwards to force people who walk out of town. As stated before cyclists need training and insurance then they need to follow the Highway Code the same as car drivers have to. Driving around town I believe that 90% of cyclists don't abide by the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Should've gone to SpecSavers.[/p][/quote]Training and having insurance are no guarantee of good behaviour. For example, in the UK in 2004, 145 people were killed by drivers in 23,714 hit-and-run incidents. Many drivers ignore the law - using mobiles while driving, failing to stop at crossings, failing to indicate, exceeding the speed limit - transgressions which potentially cause far more harm when done in a car than on a bicycle. And an estimated 30% of motorists are not insured LMaufe
  • Score: 12

7:39pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Top_Gear says...

BournemouthMatt wrote:
Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads.

I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.
How is it appalling exactly?

The left-hand lane is now used solely for left-turning traffic, to join the Wessex Way.
Do you think a cyclist wants to be turning left, on to a dual-carriageway? No.
Do you think it's easy for a slower/less-confiden
t cyclist to assert their presence and move in to the right-hand lane during rush hour when there is often speeding traffic approaching the junction to the roundabout? No
Therefore a cycle lane assists them in doing this.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMatt[/bold] wrote: Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads. I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]How is it appalling exactly? The left-hand lane is now used solely for left-turning traffic, to join the Wessex Way. Do you think a cyclist wants to be turning left, on to a dual-carriageway? No. Do you think it's easy for a slower/less-confiden t cyclist to assert their presence and move in to the right-hand lane during rush hour when there is often speeding traffic approaching the junction to the roundabout? No Therefore a cycle lane assists them in doing this. Top_Gear
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

leotuttle says...

A good decision in principle. Lets hope common sense rules that cyclist cycle at an appropriate speed. Dismount where necessary. would like to see a better cycling campaign to encourage sensible cycling.
A good decision in principle. Lets hope common sense rules that cyclist cycle at an appropriate speed. Dismount where necessary. would like to see a better cycling campaign to encourage sensible cycling. leotuttle
  • Score: 10

8:07pm Wed 23 Apr 14

mableone says...

I despair at our council, this has to be the daftest decision yet. We are just moving into the holiday season, the number of people in the square and pier area will increase significantly and with it the danger. A tumble for elderly folk can be a broken hip and possibly worse and for children it is fraught with danger. It may be that the police records on cycle caused collisions are not accurate, not all such incidents may be reported.
It has to be accepted that some cyclists move along at a fast speed with abandon and believe that they own the footpaths pedestrian areas and the like, and if challenged come forth with vile abuse or worse, remember the incident in Charminster Road last year.
If there are increased risks to pedestrians from collisions with cyclists then, as a vehicle, it should be insured. Incidentally this should also apply to mobility scooters a number of which I have seen on the roadway, which I believe most are not designed for. It is time the police took action here too.
However, as far as cycles are concerned, away from pedestrians and on to the cycle lanes please.
I despair at our council, this has to be the daftest decision yet. We are just moving into the holiday season, the number of people in the square and pier area will increase significantly and with it the danger. A tumble for elderly folk can be a broken hip and possibly worse and for children it is fraught with danger. It may be that the police records on cycle caused collisions are not accurate, not all such incidents may be reported. It has to be accepted that some cyclists move along at a fast speed with abandon and believe that they own the footpaths pedestrian areas and the like, and if challenged come forth with vile abuse or worse, remember the incident in Charminster Road last year. If there are increased risks to pedestrians from collisions with cyclists then, as a vehicle, it should be insured. Incidentally this should also apply to mobility scooters a number of which I have seen on the roadway, which I believe most are not designed for. It is time the police took action here too. However, as far as cycles are concerned, away from pedestrians and on to the cycle lanes please. mableone
  • Score: -10

8:18pm Wed 23 Apr 14

thisloginprocessisdaft says...

A good idea, for casual cyclists and pedestrians there won't be any issues. I would suggest a cycle lane though.

I really feel sorry for those of you who are so against cycling, it's a great way to keep fit, nice way to get to and from work. Just as with drivers, they aren't all idiots..
A good idea, for casual cyclists and pedestrians there won't be any issues. I would suggest a cycle lane though. I really feel sorry for those of you who are so against cycling, it's a great way to keep fit, nice way to get to and from work. Just as with drivers, they aren't all idiots.. thisloginprocessisdaft
  • Score: 11

8:46pm Wed 23 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

mableone wrote:
I despair at our council, this has to be the daftest decision yet. We are just moving into the holiday season, the number of people in the square and pier area will increase significantly and with it the danger. A tumble for elderly folk can be a broken hip and possibly worse and for children it is fraught with danger. It may be that the police records on cycle caused collisions are not accurate, not all such incidents may be reported.
It has to be accepted that some cyclists move along at a fast speed with abandon and believe that they own the footpaths pedestrian areas and the like, and if challenged come forth with vile abuse or worse, remember the incident in Charminster Road last year.
If there are increased risks to pedestrians from collisions with cyclists then, as a vehicle, it should be insured. Incidentally this should also apply to mobility scooters a number of which I have seen on the roadway, which I believe most are not designed for. It is time the police took action here too.
However, as far as cycles are concerned, away from pedestrians and on to the cycle lanes please.
Cyclists can only go as fast as the path is clear, we've all seen the square and the gardens in the height of summer, there isn't enough room to walk at pace without treading on the heels of the person in front of you let alone ride a bike, if there is no room to cycle then they can't speed can they.

This area won't become 'fraught with danger' or a 'no go zone' it will become a heaving tourist town, with people jostling for space, thus negating any reason to be afraid of speeding cyclists.

Believing and stressing about the sort of hype these stories cause you are more likely to get a stress related stomach ulcer than you are run over by a bike.
[quote][p][bold]mableone[/bold] wrote: I despair at our council, this has to be the daftest decision yet. We are just moving into the holiday season, the number of people in the square and pier area will increase significantly and with it the danger. A tumble for elderly folk can be a broken hip and possibly worse and for children it is fraught with danger. It may be that the police records on cycle caused collisions are not accurate, not all such incidents may be reported. It has to be accepted that some cyclists move along at a fast speed with abandon and believe that they own the footpaths pedestrian areas and the like, and if challenged come forth with vile abuse or worse, remember the incident in Charminster Road last year. If there are increased risks to pedestrians from collisions with cyclists then, as a vehicle, it should be insured. Incidentally this should also apply to mobility scooters a number of which I have seen on the roadway, which I believe most are not designed for. It is time the police took action here too. However, as far as cycles are concerned, away from pedestrians and on to the cycle lanes please.[/p][/quote]Cyclists can only go as fast as the path is clear, we've all seen the square and the gardens in the height of summer, there isn't enough room to walk at pace without treading on the heels of the person in front of you let alone ride a bike, if there is no room to cycle then they can't speed can they. This area won't become 'fraught with danger' or a 'no go zone' it will become a heaving tourist town, with people jostling for space, thus negating any reason to be afraid of speeding cyclists. Believing and stressing about the sort of hype these stories cause you are more likely to get a stress related stomach ulcer than you are run over by a bike. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 12

8:53pm Wed 23 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Nothing like a good story about cyclists to up the Echo's page visit count, well that and stories about Travellers, the Council and the Turd Reef ;)

Why don't they really go for it with a story like:
"Travellers arrive on mass to Boscombe Surf Reef to stage a go slow cycle along the seafront to BBC offices to protest about the lack of traveller sites in the borough (and offer there backing for the wind farm)"

That should really get the website stats up there :)
I always thought there should have been a line like "rubble from iMax to be used to repair surf reef". That would have amounted to a denial of service attack on the website :)
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Nothing like a good story about cyclists to up the Echo's page visit count, well that and stories about Travellers, the Council and the Turd Reef ;) Why don't they really go for it with a story like: "Travellers arrive on mass to Boscombe Surf Reef to stage a go slow cycle along the seafront to BBC offices to protest about the lack of traveller sites in the borough (and offer there backing for the wind farm)" That should really get the website stats up there :)[/p][/quote]I always thought there should have been a line like "rubble from iMax to be used to repair surf reef". That would have amounted to a denial of service attack on the website :) breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

9:53pm Wed 23 Apr 14

thisloginprocessisdaft says...

Top_Gear wrote:
BournemouthMatt wrote:
Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads.

I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.
How is it appalling exactly?

The left-hand lane is now used solely for left-turning traffic, to join the Wessex Way.
Do you think a cyclist wants to be turning left, on to a dual-carriageway? No.
Do you think it's easy for a slower/less-confiden

t cyclist to assert their presence and move in to the right-hand lane during rush hour when there is often speeding traffic approaching the junction to the roundabout? No
Therefore a cycle lane assists them in doing this.
The lane for turning left cuts through the cycle lane, Most of the time I've cycled down there drivers don't even bother with that, they just go through the entire cycle lane.

It could have been done better, the road is wide enough all the way down from cemetery junction for a kerb to be put in between the road and pavement. At the end, stick in traffic lights before the roundabout, cycle box to the front and they can get off before cars go.

There are loads of ways it can be safer for everyone, we all want to get somewhere, it just needs to be safer.
[quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMatt[/bold] wrote: Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads. I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]How is it appalling exactly? The left-hand lane is now used solely for left-turning traffic, to join the Wessex Way. Do you think a cyclist wants to be turning left, on to a dual-carriageway? No. Do you think it's easy for a slower/less-confiden t cyclist to assert their presence and move in to the right-hand lane during rush hour when there is often speeding traffic approaching the junction to the roundabout? No Therefore a cycle lane assists them in doing this.[/p][/quote]The lane for turning left cuts through the cycle lane, Most of the time I've cycled down there drivers don't even bother with that, they just go through the entire cycle lane. It could have been done better, the road is wide enough all the way down from cemetery junction for a kerb to be put in between the road and pavement. At the end, stick in traffic lights before the roundabout, cycle box to the front and they can get off before cars go. There are loads of ways it can be safer for everyone, we all want to get somewhere, it just needs to be safer. thisloginprocessisdaft
  • Score: 3

10:10pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Duncs2014 says...

Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes. Duncs2014
  • Score: 5

10:43pm Wed 23 Apr 14

winton50 says...

Love it - 132 comments

you lot really are predictable

All the ohec have to do is post a bit of cycle clickbait and you jump foaming at the mouth
Love it - 132 comments you lot really are predictable All the ohec have to do is post a bit of cycle clickbait and you jump foaming at the mouth winton50
  • Score: 4

11:20pm Wed 23 Apr 14

whataboutthat says...

Oh no....keep pedalling Mark...
Oh no....keep pedalling Mark... whataboutthat
  • Score: -1

6:52am Thu 24 Apr 14

MrsT.Jojo says...

We need dedicated bike lanes especially in areas where parents take their children. I am appaled at all the fat kids that are too old to be in strollers being pushed along beach. Get them riding their bikes for goodness sake. Families that do physical exercise together are healthier. There aren't many places for them to do it safely.
We need dedicated bike lanes especially in areas where parents take their children. I am appaled at all the fat kids that are too old to be in strollers being pushed along beach. Get them riding their bikes for goodness sake. Families that do physical exercise together are healthier. There aren't many places for them to do it safely. MrsT.Jojo
  • Score: 7

9:56am Thu 24 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

breamoreboy wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Nothing like a good story about cyclists to up the Echo's page visit count, well that and stories about Travellers, the Council and the Turd Reef ;)

Why don't they really go for it with a story like:
"Travellers arrive on mass to Boscombe Surf Reef to stage a go slow cycle along the seafront to BBC offices to protest about the lack of traveller sites in the borough (and offer there backing for the wind farm)"

That should really get the website stats up there :)
I always thought there should have been a line like "rubble from iMax to be used to repair surf reef". That would have amounted to a denial of service attack on the website :)
How could I forget the IMAX, schoolboy error on my part for which I can only apologise, but I can rectify that by adding the twin sails bridge into the headline :D
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Nothing like a good story about cyclists to up the Echo's page visit count, well that and stories about Travellers, the Council and the Turd Reef ;) Why don't they really go for it with a story like: "Travellers arrive on mass to Boscombe Surf Reef to stage a go slow cycle along the seafront to BBC offices to protest about the lack of traveller sites in the borough (and offer there backing for the wind farm)" That should really get the website stats up there :)[/p][/quote]I always thought there should have been a line like "rubble from iMax to be used to repair surf reef". That would have amounted to a denial of service attack on the website :)[/p][/quote]How could I forget the IMAX, schoolboy error on my part for which I can only apologise, but I can rectify that by adding the twin sails bridge into the headline :D BarrHumbug
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Thu 24 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
[quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!) speedy231278
  • Score: -2

1:08pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Dorset Logic says...

Froth, howl moan, road tax, red lights, howl, moan , whine and cry.
I think that covers it.
Froth, howl moan, road tax, red lights, howl, moan , whine and cry. I think that covers it. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Dorset Logic says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?
Sadly, what is often overlooked is that those who enjoy cycling and stick to the rules are having to try to let you guys know that, that is the way they want and like to cycle. We are currently living in generation ban times. We can't speak for those who act like fools on a bicycle, we can't stop them doing it, no more than you. We don't want our pleasure to be restricted by a loud minority either. Do you think that the people who cycle on pavements or go to fast on shared cycleways / paths are likely to comment here?

I'm at a loss as to why a certain segment of the population just want to spit nonsense or ban things. What happens in this world always, is that those in the middle ground of decent behaviour get tarnished by one end of the spectrum, and stopped doing what they like by the other end. BOTH of which are actually in the minority. BOTH of which seem incapable of being gracious or looking to their own faults first.
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?[/p][/quote]Sadly, what is often overlooked is that those who enjoy cycling and stick to the rules are having to try to let you guys know that, that is the way they want and like to cycle. We are currently living in generation ban times. We can't speak for those who act like fools on a bicycle, we can't stop them doing it, no more than you. We don't want our pleasure to be restricted by a loud minority either. Do you think that the people who cycle on pavements or go to fast on shared cycleways / paths are likely to comment here? I'm at a loss as to why a certain segment of the population just want to spit nonsense or ban things. What happens in this world always, is that those in the middle ground of decent behaviour get tarnished by one end of the spectrum, and stopped doing what they like by the other end. BOTH of which are actually in the minority. BOTH of which seem incapable of being gracious or looking to their own faults first. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 6

1:34pm Thu 24 Apr 14

GarrySibbald says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage.

Off topic but;
I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage. Off topic but; I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either GarrySibbald
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Thu 24 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads?

That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads? That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

1:38pm Thu 24 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

GarrySibbald wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage.

Off topic but;
I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either
Correct about the Emissions Free Vehicles, you wouldn't believe the number of times this point has been made every time a cyclist related news story is posted on here. It's been talked to death but they still don't get it.
[quote][p][bold]GarrySibbald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage. Off topic but; I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either[/p][/quote]Correct about the Emissions Free Vehicles, you wouldn't believe the number of times this point has been made every time a cyclist related news story is posted on here. It's been talked to death but they still don't get it. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 4

1:46pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
GarrySibbald wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage.

Off topic but;
I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either
Correct about the Emissions Free Vehicles, you wouldn't believe the number of times this point has been made every time a cyclist related news story is posted on here. It's been talked to death but they still don't get it.
There are around 3 million vehicles on the road that are exempt VED yet the trolls on here don't seem to be jumping up and down complaining about these freeloaders using the road network.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GarrySibbald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage. Off topic but; I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either[/p][/quote]Correct about the Emissions Free Vehicles, you wouldn't believe the number of times this point has been made every time a cyclist related news story is posted on here. It's been talked to death but they still don't get it.[/p][/quote]There are around 3 million vehicles on the road that are exempt VED yet the trolls on here don't seem to be jumping up and down complaining about these freeloaders using the road network. Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

3:10pm Thu 24 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
GarrySibbald wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage.

Off topic but;
I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either
Correct about the Emissions Free Vehicles, you wouldn't believe the number of times this point has been made every time a cyclist related news story is posted on here. It's been talked to death but they still don't get it.
There are around 3 million vehicles on the road that are exempt VED yet the trolls on here don't seem to be jumping up and down complaining about these freeloaders using the road network.
They're not driving them on the pavement.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GarrySibbald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]Is the money comparison factually correct? I suspect that it's not more than the council spends on pothole repairs and the money for many of the cycling initiatives is from the Government so not out of the same road repairs pot. On a positive note, the more people on bikes the less road damage. Off topic but; I can't wait to see the response when the penny drops that its not just cyclists that escape Vehicle Excise Duty and that some motorists don't pay VED either because they're vehicles are zero rated for low emissions ( if they're electric they aren't paying fuel tax either) even though they cause the same wear and tear to the roads as any other car. Considering that cycles must cause near to zero damage it seems quite reasonable that they are not expected to pay VED either[/p][/quote]Correct about the Emissions Free Vehicles, you wouldn't believe the number of times this point has been made every time a cyclist related news story is posted on here. It's been talked to death but they still don't get it.[/p][/quote]There are around 3 million vehicles on the road that are exempt VED yet the trolls on here don't seem to be jumping up and down complaining about these freeloaders using the road network.[/p][/quote]They're not driving them on the pavement. speedy231278
  • Score: -5

3:13pm Thu 24 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads?

That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.
No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads? That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate. speedy231278
  • Score: -6

4:33pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

speedy231278 wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads?

That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.
No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.
"Massively disproportionate" Really?

Figures from the DfT showed that in 2010/11 just under £5.7 billion was spent on local roads and £3.75 billion was spent on national roads.(sic)
And from the BBC - The government plans to spend £28bn on Britain's roads by 2020-21, with £10bn of that going on repairs.(sic)

How much do you think loshing up a bit of paint at the side of a road to make a cycle lane actually costs.

The majority if vehicle taxation is discretionary. By that I mean, you chose the rate of VED, fuel consumption and insurance band when you chose the vehicle.
You choose the journeys you make, how far you live from where you work and where you go at the weekends.
True, some of it is unavoidable but it doesn't look good commuting to London in a 4x4 and then complaining about your tax expenditure.

The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars.
(Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists).
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads? That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.[/p][/quote]"Massively disproportionate" Really? Figures from the DfT showed that in 2010/11 just under £5.7 billion was spent on local roads and £3.75 billion was spent on national roads.(sic) And from the BBC - The government plans to spend £28bn on Britain's roads by 2020-21, with £10bn of that going on repairs.(sic) How much do you think loshing up a bit of paint at the side of a road to make a cycle lane actually costs. The majority if vehicle taxation is discretionary. By that I mean, you chose the rate of VED, fuel consumption and insurance band when you chose the vehicle. You choose the journeys you make, how far you live from where you work and where you go at the weekends. True, some of it is unavoidable but it doesn't look good commuting to London in a 4x4 and then complaining about your tax expenditure. The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars. (Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists). Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

6:57pm Thu 24 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

High Treason wrote:
Howdie wrote:
as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........
Fine but who pays if your child injures someone by neglect or accident. A car driver is covered by insurance, loss of earnings, long term injury, even for the NHS costs. Therefore someone injured by a cyclist will have to issue a claim in the courts. Hardly right considering the behaviour of some cyclist's.
Yes every time I go out I fear being hit by a 6 year old on a bike. Imagine the horror. Much better to be hit by a car.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howdie[/bold] wrote: as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........[/p][/quote]Fine but who pays if your child injures someone by neglect or accident. A car driver is covered by insurance, loss of earnings, long term injury, even for the NHS costs. Therefore someone injured by a cyclist will have to issue a claim in the courts. Hardly right considering the behaviour of some cyclist's.[/p][/quote]Yes every time I go out I fear being hit by a 6 year old on a bike. Imagine the horror. Much better to be hit by a car. FNS-man
  • Score: 7

9:34pm Thu 24 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

FNS-man wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Howdie wrote:
as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........
Fine but who pays if your child injures someone by neglect or accident. A car driver is covered by insurance, loss of earnings, long term injury, even for the NHS costs. Therefore someone injured by a cyclist will have to issue a claim in the courts. Hardly right considering the behaviour of some cyclist's.
Yes every time I go out I fear being hit by a 6 year old on a bike. Imagine the horror. Much better to be hit by a car.
Not enough compensation if you only get hit by a car, so I prefer a bus or better still a fully laden, maximum size (44 ton?) HGV.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howdie[/bold] wrote: as a cyclist with a 6 year old child do I risk death riding on the road with her or teach her to be thoughtful of pedesiatians and to slow down or stop but risk a fine for riding on the pavement? I know what I prefer.....all about teaching from the cradle........[/p][/quote]Fine but who pays if your child injures someone by neglect or accident. A car driver is covered by insurance, loss of earnings, long term injury, even for the NHS costs. Therefore someone injured by a cyclist will have to issue a claim in the courts. Hardly right considering the behaviour of some cyclist's.[/p][/quote]Yes every time I go out I fear being hit by a 6 year old on a bike. Imagine the horror. Much better to be hit by a car.[/p][/quote]Not enough compensation if you only get hit by a car, so I prefer a bus or better still a fully laden, maximum size (44 ton?) HGV. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

12:01am Fri 25 Apr 14

sprintervanman says...

So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.
So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be. sprintervanman
  • Score: 5

12:59am Fri 25 Apr 14

Wageslave says...

M0Z wrote:
This scheme is a mistake, and the justifications in the article are daft. The signage says No Cycling - not No Cyclists. Why not simply dismount and walk in a pedestrian zone – it’s never been a problem for me or made me feel unwelcome. I predict many collisions - and already feel sorry for anyone elderly with brittle bones who gets knocked over, blind people, kids etc.
Pedestrians need to be aware of bikes, too many just wander aimlessly or diagonally across the prom making themselves very hard to avoid.
[quote][p][bold]M0Z[/bold] wrote: This scheme is a mistake, and the justifications in the article are daft. The signage says No Cycling - not No Cyclists. Why not simply dismount and walk in a pedestrian zone – it’s never been a problem for me or made me feel unwelcome. I predict many collisions - and already feel sorry for anyone elderly with brittle bones who gets knocked over, blind people, kids etc.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians need to be aware of bikes, too many just wander aimlessly or diagonally across the prom making themselves very hard to avoid. Wageslave
  • Score: 6

8:34am Fri 25 Apr 14

The Timelord says...

150+ comments - plenty of hand-bag waving here!
[]
On topic isn't this just another way of cost saving?
If it's not illegal to ride across the Square or Pier Approach won't this save money having to police it and the time administering the fine collection, etc for such?
150+ comments - plenty of hand-bag waving here! [] On topic isn't this just another way of cost saving? If it's not illegal to ride across the Square or Pier Approach won't this save money having to police it and the time administering the fine collection, etc for such? The Timelord
  • Score: 2

9:08am Fri 25 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

speedy231278 wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads?

That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.
No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.
So you think cycle ownership and car ownership are mutually exclusive then?
I'd suggest that the majority of cyclists also own a car.

BOOOOM.... That'll be that argument out of the water as well.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads? That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.[/p][/quote]So you think cycle ownership and car ownership are mutually exclusive then? I'd suggest that the majority of cyclists also own a car. BOOOOM.... That'll be that argument out of the water as well. Franks Tank
  • Score: 4

10:23am Fri 25 Apr 14

bikeguru says...

Well done to Bournemouth council for taking the common sense approach here.
Only in the UK would this even be an issue. All other countries that i've cycled in not only allow cyclists to share space in the towns and cities with pedestrians they cater very well for them.

the argument against funding for cycling doesn't stand up . heart disease is the biggest killer in this country. this puts massive financial strain on the NHS. pollution from cars adds to this.
by encouraging more people to cycle you get multiple benefits.

one point is that if i walk next to my bike through Bournemouth square i take up twice the space than if i sit on the thing and pedal slowly.

one other point i find strange is why are car drivers so against cyclists? for every cyclist out there there is ONE LESS CAR . which means, the car driver is one more car length up in the traffic queue. also they the car driver has a better chance of finding a parking space.

the idea of making a block ban on anything is a narrow minded way to do things. if you did that across the board we would need to ban cars from the road because of the high numbers of people breaking the law and killing people on a daily basis. we don't block ban other things , we punish the people that speed or drive without due care and let the decent considerate people go about their business of getting from A to B.
so instead of attacking the majority of decent cyclists because of a small minority of inconsiderate cyclist, we should be embracing this wonderful means of transport.
Hug a Cyclist today !
Well done to Bournemouth council for taking the common sense approach here. Only in the UK would this even be an issue. All other countries that i've cycled in not only allow cyclists to share space in the towns and cities with pedestrians they cater very well for them. the argument against funding for cycling doesn't stand up . heart disease is the biggest killer in this country. this puts massive financial strain on the NHS. pollution from cars adds to this. by encouraging more people to cycle you get multiple benefits. one point is that if i walk next to my bike through Bournemouth square i take up twice the space than if i sit on the thing and pedal slowly. one other point i find strange is why are car drivers so against cyclists? for every cyclist out there there is ONE LESS CAR . which means, the car driver is one more car length up in the traffic queue. also they the car driver has a better chance of finding a parking space. the idea of making a block ban on anything is a narrow minded way to do things. if you did that across the board we would need to ban cars from the road because of the high numbers of people breaking the law and killing people on a daily basis. we don't block ban other things , we punish the people that speed or drive without due care and let the decent considerate people go about their business of getting from A to B. so instead of attacking the majority of decent cyclists because of a small minority of inconsiderate cyclist, we should be embracing this wonderful means of transport. Hug a Cyclist today ! bikeguru
  • Score: 3

12:15pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Phixer says...

MrsT.Jojo wrote:
We need dedicated bike lanes especially in areas where parents take their children. I am appaled at all the fat kids that are too old to be in strollers being pushed along beach. Get them riding their bikes for goodness sake. Families that do physical exercise together are healthier. There aren't many places for them to do it safely.
In Europe, the cyclists and pedestrians mix very well on pavements without the dedicated cyclist and pedestrian lanes. That way there is no fighting about who should be where but both parties accept the rights of the other in what is otherwise called a 'civilised society'.

The dedicated lanes on the pavements, so favoured by our public serpents as a way of spending my money, have caused the friction we now have on our pavements.
[quote][p][bold]MrsT.Jojo[/bold] wrote: We need dedicated bike lanes especially in areas where parents take their children. I am appaled at all the fat kids that are too old to be in strollers being pushed along beach. Get them riding their bikes for goodness sake. Families that do physical exercise together are healthier. There aren't many places for them to do it safely.[/p][/quote]In Europe, the cyclists and pedestrians mix very well on pavements without the dedicated cyclist and pedestrian lanes. That way there is no fighting about who should be where but both parties accept the rights of the other in what is otherwise called a 'civilised society'. The dedicated lanes on the pavements, so favoured by our public serpents as a way of spending my money, have caused the friction we now have on our pavements. Phixer
  • Score: 4

12:20pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Understated says...

i would still struggle with cycling, the general consensus seems to be that cyclists must use the road and not the pavements as it is a risk of injury to all people who use the pavement, i agree, with some roads many children and dog walkers will be at risk if people cycle. however on the other hand, is it safe to be using the roads? cycle lanes aside of course

some roads, even the christchurch road stretch between pokesdown and iford roundabout, the road is often treacherous with parked cars. to cycle between a parked car with buses and other vehicles trying to squeeze past on the otherside is worrying.

its because of this and the awkward transition of the cycle lane from being along the side of the pavement over iford bridge to crossing over a lane of traffic into the cycle lane in the middle of the road for the sake of going straight on at jumpers roundabout, that i have to walk and not cycle. a 10-15 min cycle becomes a 30 minute walk. i fear if i have to cross the road to get to the middle, one person just wont see me indicate, ive seen some drivers change lanes to go up the grove and go along the cycle lane before the car lanes have even split at the roundabout approach.

its put me off cycling, along with too many close calls when i was cycling to work in muscliffe along castle lane. cycling at bournemouth square or the promenade isnt going to make the roads safer for cyclists either. the roads are so cramped as it is. we dont need to cycle on the road, we should be allowed to use the pavements more often and just put a cycle path on the pavement. how many accidents happen between pedestrians and cyclists when theres a cycle path for them on the pavements? far more risk when put on the road with more dangerous vehicles like buses and vans. take the cycle lanes off from the road, let there be more space for the drivers, put cyclists on their own lane on the pavement.
i would still struggle with cycling, the general consensus seems to be that cyclists must use the road and not the pavements as it is a risk of injury to all people who use the pavement, i agree, with some roads many children and dog walkers will be at risk if people cycle. however on the other hand, is it safe to be using the roads? cycle lanes aside of course some roads, even the christchurch road stretch between pokesdown and iford roundabout, the road is often treacherous with parked cars. to cycle between a parked car with buses and other vehicles trying to squeeze past on the otherside is worrying. its because of this and the awkward transition of the cycle lane from being along the side of the pavement over iford bridge to crossing over a lane of traffic into the cycle lane in the middle of the road for the sake of going straight on at jumpers roundabout, that i have to walk and not cycle. a 10-15 min cycle becomes a 30 minute walk. i fear if i have to cross the road to get to the middle, one person just wont see me indicate, ive seen some drivers change lanes to go up the grove and go along the cycle lane before the car lanes have even split at the roundabout approach. its put me off cycling, along with too many close calls when i was cycling to work in muscliffe along castle lane. cycling at bournemouth square or the promenade isnt going to make the roads safer for cyclists either. the roads are so cramped as it is. we dont need to cycle on the road, we should be allowed to use the pavements more often and just put a cycle path on the pavement. how many accidents happen between pedestrians and cyclists when theres a cycle path for them on the pavements? far more risk when put on the road with more dangerous vehicles like buses and vans. take the cycle lanes off from the road, let there be more space for the drivers, put cyclists on their own lane on the pavement. Understated
  • Score: 3

4:14pm Fri 25 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

sprintervanman wrote:
So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.
Shove off and good riddings.
[quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.[/p][/quote]Shove off and good riddings. pete woodley
  • Score: -6

4:15pm Fri 25 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

sprintervanman wrote:
So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.
Shove off and good riddings.
[quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.[/p][/quote]Shove off and good riddings. pete woodley
  • Score: -7

4:34pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Tom_BH2 says...

thisloginprocessisda
ft
wrote:
Top_Gear wrote:
BournemouthMatt wrote: Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads. I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.
How is it appalling exactly? The left-hand lane is now used solely for left-turning traffic, to join the Wessex Way. Do you think a cyclist wants to be turning left, on to a dual-carriageway? No. Do you think it's easy for a slower/less-confiden t cyclist to assert their presence and move in to the right-hand lane during rush hour when there is often speeding traffic approaching the junction to the roundabout? No Therefore a cycle lane assists them in doing this.
The lane for turning left cuts through the cycle lane, Most of the time I've cycled down there drivers don't even bother with that, they just go through the entire cycle lane. It could have been done better, the road is wide enough all the way down from cemetery junction for a kerb to be put in between the road and pavement. At the end, stick in traffic lights before the roundabout, cycle box to the front and they can get off before cars go. There are loads of ways it can be safer for everyone, we all want to get somewhere, it just needs to be safer.
Traffic lights are not the answer. Think about a green sequence; where a dozen cars head off left on to the Wessex Way - But wait up, there's an absolutely tiny sliproad there to navigate. This exit frequently causes traffic and queues often back up to the rounabout itself without the introduction of a traffic light system.
A kerb seperating those cycling and those driving only fuels the divide between motorists and cyclist. The council should be working to prevent this type of division. Would you also like a kerb running the entire length of the prom as well?
We're all just road users trying to get somewhere, with as little stress as possible. Can't we all just have a bit of patience and get along?
[quote][p][bold]thisloginprocessisda ft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMatt[/bold] wrote: Token gestures like this will not lower the number of cycling incidents on our roads. I am both a cyclist and a motorist and see both bad cycling and bad driving on Bournemouth's roads however the council do not help matters with their attempts at cycle lanes. The new Wimborne Road junction at the Richmond Hill roundabout is appalling, and is an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]How is it appalling exactly? The left-hand lane is now used solely for left-turning traffic, to join the Wessex Way. Do you think a cyclist wants to be turning left, on to a dual-carriageway? No. Do you think it's easy for a slower/less-confiden t cyclist to assert their presence and move in to the right-hand lane during rush hour when there is often speeding traffic approaching the junction to the roundabout? No Therefore a cycle lane assists them in doing this.[/p][/quote]The lane for turning left cuts through the cycle lane, Most of the time I've cycled down there drivers don't even bother with that, they just go through the entire cycle lane. It could have been done better, the road is wide enough all the way down from cemetery junction for a kerb to be put in between the road and pavement. At the end, stick in traffic lights before the roundabout, cycle box to the front and they can get off before cars go. There are loads of ways it can be safer for everyone, we all want to get somewhere, it just needs to be safer.[/p][/quote]Traffic lights are not the answer. Think about a green sequence; where a dozen cars head off left on to the Wessex Way - But wait up, there's an absolutely tiny sliproad there to navigate. This exit frequently causes traffic and queues often back up to the rounabout itself without the introduction of a traffic light system. A kerb seperating those cycling and those driving only fuels the divide between motorists and cyclist. The council should be working to prevent this type of division. Would you also like a kerb running the entire length of the prom as well? We're all just road users trying to get somewhere, with as little stress as possible. Can't we all just have a bit of patience and get along? Tom_BH2
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Fri 25 Apr 14

sprintervanman says...

pete woodley wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.
Shove off and good riddings.
think the word you were trying to spell was was riddance.Nice try you you got the first three letters in the right order that puts you on par with my two year old...sweet dreams pete woodley
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.[/p][/quote]Shove off and good riddings.[/p][/quote]think the word you were trying to spell was was riddance.Nice try you you got the first three letters in the right order that puts you on par with my two year old...sweet dreams pete woodley sprintervanman
  • Score: 3

11:49pm Fri 25 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
Then let it f'g go!!!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]Then let it f'g go!!! scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

12:07am Sat 26 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
kingstonpaul wrote:
Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?
Sadly, what is often overlooked is that those who enjoy cycling and stick to the rules are having to try to let you guys know that, that is the way they want and like to cycle. We are currently living in generation ban times. We can't speak for those who act like fools on a bicycle, we can't stop them doing it, no more than you. We don't want our pleasure to be restricted by a loud minority either. Do you think that the people who cycle on pavements or go to fast on shared cycleways / paths are likely to comment here?

I'm at a loss as to why a certain segment of the population just want to spit nonsense or ban things. What happens in this world always, is that those in the middle ground of decent behaviour get tarnished by one end of the spectrum, and stopped doing what they like by the other end. BOTH of which are actually in the minority. BOTH of which seem incapable of being gracious or looking to their own faults first.
It's funny where the calmest and fairest comments come from, in cycling it's the cyclists, the dog stories its the owners, speeding stories it's the 'we're not that bothered about speeding when you look at the facts', the nicest come from those who are or but also who are not be part of the group concerned but can step back and look at the big picture and assess the facts.

Those that can't are the ones shouting ban this, fine them for that, kill those.

In my opinion your comment is spot on and clearly you are from the former not the latter.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: Without reading through the 90+ contributions already to this discussion, are there any new angles? Or is it the usual tribal 'cyclists a force for good' vs. 'cyclists are a menace' quality of debate?[/p][/quote]Sadly, what is often overlooked is that those who enjoy cycling and stick to the rules are having to try to let you guys know that, that is the way they want and like to cycle. We are currently living in generation ban times. We can't speak for those who act like fools on a bicycle, we can't stop them doing it, no more than you. We don't want our pleasure to be restricted by a loud minority either. Do you think that the people who cycle on pavements or go to fast on shared cycleways / paths are likely to comment here? I'm at a loss as to why a certain segment of the population just want to spit nonsense or ban things. What happens in this world always, is that those in the middle ground of decent behaviour get tarnished by one end of the spectrum, and stopped doing what they like by the other end. BOTH of which are actually in the minority. BOTH of which seem incapable of being gracious or looking to their own faults first.[/p][/quote]It's funny where the calmest and fairest comments come from, in cycling it's the cyclists, the dog stories its the owners, speeding stories it's the 'we're not that bothered about speeding when you look at the facts', the nicest come from those who are or but also who are not be part of the group concerned but can step back and look at the big picture and assess the facts. Those that can't are the ones shouting ban this, fine them for that, kill those. In my opinion your comment is spot on and clearly you are from the former not the latter. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

12:19am Sat 26 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Franks Tank wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads?

That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.
No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.
"Massively disproportionate" Really?

Figures from the DfT showed that in 2010/11 just under £5.7 billion was spent on local roads and £3.75 billion was spent on national roads.(sic)
And from the BBC - The government plans to spend £28bn on Britain's roads by 2020-21, with £10bn of that going on repairs.(sic)

How much do you think loshing up a bit of paint at the side of a road to make a cycle lane actually costs.

The majority if vehicle taxation is discretionary. By that I mean, you chose the rate of VED, fuel consumption and insurance band when you chose the vehicle.
You choose the journeys you make, how far you live from where you work and where you go at the weekends.
True, some of it is unavoidable but it doesn't look good commuting to London in a 4x4 and then complaining about your tax expenditure.

The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars.
(Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists).
As said, all this has been said, explained, repeated, dumbed down and still the entrenchment.

We should just leave them to it. Let those like Speedy (sounds law abiding) keep driving until they drive off the end of the world (well it is flat isn't it?)
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads? That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.[/p][/quote]"Massively disproportionate" Really? Figures from the DfT showed that in 2010/11 just under £5.7 billion was spent on local roads and £3.75 billion was spent on national roads.(sic) And from the BBC - The government plans to spend £28bn on Britain's roads by 2020-21, with £10bn of that going on repairs.(sic) How much do you think loshing up a bit of paint at the side of a road to make a cycle lane actually costs. The majority if vehicle taxation is discretionary. By that I mean, you chose the rate of VED, fuel consumption and insurance band when you chose the vehicle. You choose the journeys you make, how far you live from where you work and where you go at the weekends. True, some of it is unavoidable but it doesn't look good commuting to London in a 4x4 and then complaining about your tax expenditure. The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars. (Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists).[/p][/quote]As said, all this has been said, explained, repeated, dumbed down and still the entrenchment. We should just leave them to it. Let those like Speedy (sounds law abiding) keep driving until they drive off the end of the world (well it is flat isn't it?) scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

12:22am Sat 26 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Franks Tank wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Duncs2014 wrote:
Great idea.
Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy.
It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.
And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)
So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads?

That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.
No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.
"Massively disproportionate" Really?

Figures from the DfT showed that in 2010/11 just under £5.7 billion was spent on local roads and £3.75 billion was spent on national roads.(sic)
And from the BBC - The government plans to spend £28bn on Britain's roads by 2020-21, with £10bn of that going on repairs.(sic)

How much do you think loshing up a bit of paint at the side of a road to make a cycle lane actually costs.

The majority if vehicle taxation is discretionary. By that I mean, you chose the rate of VED, fuel consumption and insurance band when you chose the vehicle.
You choose the journeys you make, how far you live from where you work and where you go at the weekends.
True, some of it is unavoidable but it doesn't look good commuting to London in a 4x4 and then complaining about your tax expenditure.

The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars.
(Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists).
There should be a comment of the month award:

The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars.
(Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists).
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Duncs2014[/bold] wrote: Great idea. Its about time Bournemouth had a rethink on its cycling policy. It currently appears to spend more on painting "No cycling" on the roads than creating cycling safe lanes.[/p][/quote]And that's more than it spends fixing potholes for the motorists who have paid their VED and massive VAT on fuel. (and yes, I know neither go directly to fund roads!)[/p][/quote]So by that logic (even though you have already admitted that the two payments are not linked to road repairs anyway) you are saying that those motorists who have fuel efficient cars and pay little or no VED due to low emissions and also have a high MPG due to their car being ultra efficient have less right to use the roads? That's a rather bigoted attitude to road usage and exactly why the term 'road tax' and the perceived link between 'Road Tax' and Road Repair or Road ownership needs to be eradicated.[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying the act of cycling brings zero revenue to the treasury after the initial purchase of the cycle and occasional replacement of the necessary gear, whereas motorists get fleeced for vast quantities of money on a very regular basis. Some of this will filter back from the treasury to the local councils. Therefore, it seems the spend on cycling 'improvements' versus those for other road vehicles is massively disproportionate.[/p][/quote]"Massively disproportionate" Really? Figures from the DfT showed that in 2010/11 just under £5.7 billion was spent on local roads and £3.75 billion was spent on national roads.(sic) And from the BBC - The government plans to spend £28bn on Britain's roads by 2020-21, with £10bn of that going on repairs.(sic) How much do you think loshing up a bit of paint at the side of a road to make a cycle lane actually costs. The majority if vehicle taxation is discretionary. By that I mean, you chose the rate of VED, fuel consumption and insurance band when you chose the vehicle. You choose the journeys you make, how far you live from where you work and where you go at the weekends. True, some of it is unavoidable but it doesn't look good commuting to London in a 4x4 and then complaining about your tax expenditure. The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars. (Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists).[/p][/quote]There should be a comment of the month award: The act of walking also brings zero revenue to the treasury. Maybe we should tear up all the pavements to make the roads wider for all those lovely tax paying cars. (Wait a minute - I think I'm on to something here as it would also eradicate pavement cyclists). scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

11:42am Sun 27 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

sprintervanman wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.
Shove off and good riddings.
think the word you were trying to spell was was riddance.Nice try you you got the first three letters in the right order that puts you on par with my two year old...sweet dreams pete woodley
Surely i got the first 4 letters right, silly boy.Feel sorry for a two year old with a father like you.
[quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.[/p][/quote]Shove off and good riddings.[/p][/quote]think the word you were trying to spell was was riddance.Nice try you you got the first three letters in the right order that puts you on par with my two year old...sweet dreams pete woodley[/p][/quote]Surely i got the first 4 letters right, silly boy.Feel sorry for a two year old with a father like you. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Mon 28 Apr 14

SympatheticSam says...

pete woodley wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.
Shove off and good riddings.
think the word you were trying to spell was was riddance.Nice try you you got the first three letters in the right order that puts you on par with my two year old...sweet dreams pete woodley
Surely i got the first 4 letters right, silly boy.Feel sorry for a two year old with a father like you.
You can talk....well, you're trying. Your spelling and punctuation is just as bad. I feel sorry for anyone who knows you. Cretin.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: So glad move day has arrived for myself and my young Family (youngish oldest Son is Bordering Teenland) The big planned move to France will commence tomorrow, my early retirement,well am nearly 50.Why am i so glad, well to get away from the sickening British hatred of anything on two wheels be it human powered or motorised.Yep two wheels mounts to freedom and we cant have that on British roads because the tin box rules as we are jammed up and feel hatred to those who pass us in a traffic gridlocked road systemTwo things i look forward to is buying a Bicycle and enjoying it in a Country that enjoys it as well without hatred and the Dear Wife enjoying her small Scooter without feeling pressured for into the curb for doing 30 in a 30 limit because the thought of being behind a ped is unthinkable in UK drivers eyes.Good night,take care all you cyclists and be strong and safe as you can be.[/p][/quote]Shove off and good riddings.[/p][/quote]think the word you were trying to spell was was riddance.Nice try you you got the first three letters in the right order that puts you on par with my two year old...sweet dreams pete woodley[/p][/quote]Surely i got the first 4 letters right, silly boy.Feel sorry for a two year old with a father like you.[/p][/quote]You can talk....well, you're trying. Your spelling and punctuation is just as bad. I feel sorry for anyone who knows you. Cretin. SympatheticSam
  • Score: 1

10:33pm Wed 14 May 14

A V Lowe says...

It would help considerably if any measures like this are delivered with a clear plan to manage the situation by eliminating the hazards or failing that managing the risks.

First, make it very clear that pedestrian traffic has clear priority over all (yes ALL - including those delivery trucks rolling through with no escort on foot to watch the blind spots for pedestrians - especially small ones). One of the most basic signs missing from the many used on our streets is one that firmly says Pedestrian Priority.

Second recognise that cycles are slow human scale vehicles but do need a radius to make turns and sighting distance to ensure they can stop or alter course. Sending cyclists past doorways and blind corners where pedestrians or other cyclists can suddenly move out directly into their path, is bad design because it fails to eliminate the most basic of hazards.

Risk management can be as simple as designing places where traffic flows cross, is such a way that they merge rather than meet abruptly, and making that signage absolutely clear.

Anyone with a basic understanding of law knows that the mechanisms for civil liability remain the same for both those using cycles and motor vehicles, but even back in 1903, with the first Motor Car Act, the Government recognised the far greater damage that a motor vehicle could cause, both directly, and by its presence, and so, for most motor vehicles, the law requires that civil liability to be backed by an independently underwritten insurance policy*. Many cyclists belong to cycling clubs with similar arrangements, whilst some are covered by household insurance which covers personal liability as a cyclist as well as when a pedestrian, and for most of the sums involved the settlements are often made directly through the small claims court. *You can drive a motor vehicle and carry your own liability for a claim, but the conditions by which this is permitted are very closely defined, and certainly not applicable to an individual driver.

Amazingly the direct interaction which is possible between people on foot and on cycles, compared to that with those sealed inside a car or other motor vehicle delivers a wonderful level of self regulation, largely through eye contact, with the ears also playing a key role, much as they have for several million years as the basic safety equipment we have used for survival against the dangers posed by monster reptiles or motor cars. Over 20 years ago the Transport Research Laboratory recorded over long periods, the activity in pedestrian areas with cycle use, and captures just one minor incident where a young child on a bike had a minor altercation with a pedestrian. They concluded that there was no problem in mixing cyclists and pedestrians, although did note the caveat that features which introduced conflict - such as bringing riders at speed into shared use areas invited the behaviour likely to generate fear of collisions.

I don't think that most of the Bournemouth locations fall in to that category.
It would help considerably if any measures like this are delivered with a clear plan to manage the situation by eliminating the hazards or failing that managing the risks. First, make it very clear that pedestrian traffic has clear priority over all (yes ALL - including those delivery trucks rolling through with no escort on foot to watch the blind spots for pedestrians - especially small ones). One of the most basic signs missing from the many used on our streets is one that firmly says Pedestrian Priority. Second recognise that cycles are slow human scale vehicles but do need a radius to make turns and sighting distance to ensure they can stop or alter course. Sending cyclists past doorways and blind corners where pedestrians or other cyclists can suddenly move out directly into their path, is bad design because it fails to eliminate the most basic of hazards. Risk management can be as simple as designing places where traffic flows cross, is such a way that they merge rather than meet abruptly, and making that signage absolutely clear. Anyone with a basic understanding of law knows that the mechanisms for civil liability remain the same for both those using cycles and motor vehicles, but even back in 1903, with the first Motor Car Act, the Government recognised the far greater damage that a motor vehicle could cause, both directly, and by its presence, and so, for most motor vehicles, the law requires that civil liability to be backed by an independently underwritten insurance policy*. Many cyclists belong to cycling clubs with similar arrangements, whilst some are covered by household insurance which covers personal liability as a cyclist as well as when a pedestrian, and for most of the sums involved the settlements are often made directly through the small claims court. *You can drive a motor vehicle and carry your own liability for a claim, but the conditions by which this is permitted are very closely defined, and certainly not applicable to an individual driver. Amazingly the direct interaction which is possible between people on foot and on cycles, compared to that with those sealed inside a car or other motor vehicle delivers a wonderful level of self regulation, largely through eye contact, with the ears also playing a key role, much as they have for several million years as the basic safety equipment we have used for survival against the dangers posed by monster reptiles or motor cars. Over 20 years ago the Transport Research Laboratory recorded over long periods, the activity in pedestrian areas with cycle use, and captures just one minor incident where a young child on a bike had a minor altercation with a pedestrian. They concluded that there was no problem in mixing cyclists and pedestrians, although did note the caveat that features which introduced conflict - such as bringing riders at speed into shared use areas invited the behaviour likely to generate fear of collisions. I don't think that most of the Bournemouth locations fall in to that category. A V Lowe
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree