Traffic misery ahead as two months of roadworks planned for Castle Lane West

Bournemouth Echo: The junction of Castle Lane East and East Way The junction of Castle Lane East and East Way

MOTORISTS are facing traffic misery when major works get under way on one of Bournemouth’s busiest roads.

Work on a £650,000 scheme to improve cycling, walking and bus travel at Castle Lane West is due to begin on Monday and will last until the end of August.

East Way at its junction with Castle Lane West will be completely closed to traffic for more than a month from July 25 until August 30.

Bournemouth council chiefs said the work was necessary to make travel easier, safer and more attractive.

But local councillor Anne Rey disagrees and says the roadworks will be a “nightmare” for local residents.

“I am concerned about this because I don’t think the changes they are making are worth the money and the disruption,” she said. “The traffic is already bad around here – it is going to be horrendous.”

Roughly 30,000 motorists use the road every day, with a quarter of the children in Bournemouth attending schools in and around Castle Lane West.

New continental-style cycle lanes, which separate cyclists from drivers, will be introduced as part of the scheme.

The lanes are raised above the road – either at the same level as the pavement or slightly lower – to improve safety and the perception of danger.

Other work will include widening of pavements and cycle lanes, a new traffic light junction, improvements to current crossings and road surfacing.

Councillor Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “These works form part of Bournemouth Borough Council’s plans to improve sustainable travel options when travelling to work, school and for leisure purposes.

“We want to ensure that all pedestrians and cyclists feel confident travelling in and around this area, as well as encouraging others to travel more sustainably and lead a healthier lifestyle.

“Once complete, these works will help reduce congestion in the long-term and enhance the overall environment.”

Traffic travelling along Castle Lane West will be diverted via Charminster Road to access East Way from the south while the junction is closed.

Ian Kalra, head of transportation services, said: “We are preparing for a future with more people, more jobs and more commuters by making these changes now. “We are aware that there may be some disruption during the works. However, various traffic measures will be put in place to keep disruption to a minimum for local residents, businesses and the travelling public.”

Residents will still be able to access their properties during the improvements and bus services and refuse collections will not be affected.

The first phase of works are expected to be completed by August 2014.

Comments (141)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:33am Wed 25 Jun 14

alasdair1967 says...

I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them alasdair1967
  • Score: 61

6:39am Wed 25 Jun 14

mmmmmmm says...

even useless cycle lanes?

**** off.
even useless cycle lanes? **** off. mmmmmmm
  • Score: -39

6:43am Wed 25 Jun 14

mmmmmmm says...

Funny how drivers seem to know what cyclists should be doing ,better than cyclists do.
Motorers this road will be a nightmare for you as you deserve it,suck it up,or ride a bike!
Funny how drivers seem to know what cyclists should be doing ,better than cyclists do. Motorers this road will be a nightmare for you as you deserve it,suck it up,or ride a bike! mmmmmmm
  • Score: -70

6:46am Wed 25 Jun 14

alasdair1967 says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
even useless cycle lanes?

**** off.
What does my first sentence say ?
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: even useless cycle lanes? **** off.[/p][/quote]What does my first sentence say ? alasdair1967
  • Score: 23

6:54am Wed 25 Jun 14

mmmmmmm says...

is it prejudiced stupid nonsense?
is it prejudiced stupid nonsense? mmmmmmm
  • Score: -27

6:57am Wed 25 Jun 14

Baysider says...

100 anti cycling or anti council comments by lunchtime...job done Echo.
100 anti cycling or anti council comments by lunchtime...job done Echo. Baysider
  • Score: 33

7:09am Wed 25 Jun 14

tbpoole says...

Baysider wrote:
100 anti cycling or anti council comments by lunchtime...job done Echo.
That's right......and substitute 'misery' with 'chaos' in the next article!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: 100 anti cycling or anti council comments by lunchtime...job done Echo.[/p][/quote]That's right......and substitute 'misery' with 'chaos' in the next article! tbpoole
  • Score: 17

7:14am Wed 25 Jun 14

winton50 says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules winton50
  • Score: -3

7:17am Wed 25 Jun 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 54

7:20am Wed 25 Jun 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
I suggest the idiots who design these cycle lanes have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they are allowed to design them!
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules[/p][/quote]I suggest the idiots who design these cycle lanes have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they are allowed to design them! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 60

7:25am Wed 25 Jun 14

retry69 says...

winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
Why Columbia Road ?
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules[/p][/quote]Why Columbia Road ? retry69
  • Score: -5

7:29am Wed 25 Jun 14

Baysider says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services![/p][/quote]Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't. Baysider
  • Score: 2

7:37am Wed 25 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun
Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 7

7:48am Wed 25 Jun 14

davecook says...

Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars. davecook
  • Score: 23

7:56am Wed 25 Jun 14

Cordite says...

davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Yep
When they start to maintain them and stop the horsey people parking on them.
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]Yep When they start to maintain them and stop the horsey people parking on them. Cordite
  • Score: 22

8:00am Wed 25 Jun 14

mmmmmmm says...

Just a thought,but if people didn't drive like **** then there wouldn't be any need to keep cars away from bikes.
Just a thought,but if people didn't drive like **** then there wouldn't be any need to keep cars away from bikes. mmmmmmm
  • Score: 10

8:08am Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
Completely agree with you Winton50, for those who want to understand the needs and requirements of cyclists please read: http://www.copenhage
nize.com/2014/03/whe
re-do-you-want-to-go
.html?m=1 - before making comments about where we should and shouldn't be allowed to ride.
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules[/p][/quote]Completely agree with you Winton50, for those who want to understand the needs and requirements of cyclists please read: http://www.copenhage nize.com/2014/03/whe re-do-you-want-to-go .html?m=1 - before making comments about where we should and shouldn't be allowed to ride. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

8:19am Wed 25 Jun 14

retry69 says...

There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian
s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about
There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about retry69
  • Score: -4

8:21am Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
A good rule of thumb for you: If the road isn't wide enough to overtake a single cyclist, or indeed two cyclists in single file (a longer overtaking procedure) then the road is not wide enough to overtake 2 cyclists riding abreast.

Highway Code states:
Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

Assume 2 cyclists are as wide as a car, If you can't overtake giving a cars width then you can't overtake full stop regardless of single file or abreast riding.
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]A good rule of thumb for you: If the road isn't wide enough to overtake a single cyclist, or indeed two cyclists in single file (a longer overtaking procedure) then the road is not wide enough to overtake 2 cyclists riding abreast. Highway Code states: Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. Assume 2 cyclists are as wide as a car, If you can't overtake giving a cars width then you can't overtake full stop regardless of single file or abreast riding. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 24

8:36am Wed 25 Jun 14

mmmmmmm says...

If you can't drive well,blame cyclists.
If you can't drive well,blame cyclists. mmmmmmm
  • Score: -9

8:46am Wed 25 Jun 14

trishgoddard says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
If you can't drive well,blame cyclists.
Great.... mother in law lives along castle lane west... I guess ill have to find another way. Grrrr
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: If you can't drive well,blame cyclists.[/p][/quote]Great.... mother in law lives along castle lane west... I guess ill have to find another way. Grrrr trishgoddard
  • Score: 2

8:50am Wed 25 Jun 14

mmmmmmm says...

Feeling angry?

Take it out on bike riders.
Feeling angry? Take it out on bike riders. mmmmmmm
  • Score: -2

8:50am Wed 25 Jun 14

Ralph Horris says...

You never hear bus drivers moaning. They just get on with it like adults.
You never hear bus drivers moaning. They just get on with it like adults. Ralph Horris
  • Score: 10

8:54am Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

I cycle to work and back every day. It's a 13+ mile round trip. I cycle on the road and dual carriageways. Why? Because it's perfectly legal and I'm well within my right to do so. I get to work quicker than if I would drive. I can filter many many cars which gives me great delight and satisfaction and a sense of enormous smugness. I also have had a driving licence for many years. Now and again I'll give a cycle lane a chance and instantly regret it. They're next to useless..full of the debris that cars spit to the side of the road, smashed glass that late night revellers have chosen to use as their recycling bin, branches, trees and hedges not cut back, dawdling, headphone wearing, oblivious pedestrians that are wide enough to take up the whole lane. Even the Twin Sails cycle path is like riding on cobbles in some sections. But to be fair, the state of the British road in built up areas fares no better. But I will continue to use the road because cycle lanes aren't mandatory and because I can
I cycle to work and back every day. It's a 13+ mile round trip. I cycle on the road and dual carriageways. Why? Because it's perfectly legal and I'm well within my right to do so. I get to work quicker than if I would drive. I can filter many many cars which gives me great delight and satisfaction and a sense of enormous smugness. I also have had a driving licence for many years. Now and again I'll give a cycle lane a chance and instantly regret it. They're next to useless..full of the debris that cars spit to the side of the road, smashed glass that late night revellers have chosen to use as their recycling bin, branches, trees and hedges not cut back, dawdling, headphone wearing, oblivious pedestrians that are wide enough to take up the whole lane. Even the Twin Sails cycle path is like riding on cobbles in some sections. But to be fair, the state of the British road in built up areas fares no better. But I will continue to use the road because cycle lanes aren't mandatory and because I can budgetvelo
  • Score: 26

8:59am Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
If even you think they're useless then why would you prefer me to use them?!?
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]If even you think they're useless then why would you prefer me to use them?!? budgetvelo
  • Score: 8

9:02am Wed 25 Jun 14

Townee says...

As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.
Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.
As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me. Townee
  • Score: 7

9:04am Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

Townee wrote:
As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.
Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.
Everyone pays to use the roads. Even pedestrians. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. Not emissions tax which is what you mistakenly refer to as 'car tax'
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.[/p][/quote]Everyone pays to use the roads. Even pedestrians. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. Not emissions tax which is what you mistakenly refer to as 'car tax' budgetvelo
  • Score: 12

9:06am Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

budgetvelo wrote:
Townee wrote:
As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.
Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.
Everyone pays to use the roads. Even pedestrians. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. Not emissions tax which is what you mistakenly refer to as 'car tax'
And you're right about the red lights. I have seen cyclists just blaze on through and as a respectful road user it does infuriate me but I've also seen 10 times that number in shoddy driving
[quote][p][bold]budgetvelo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.[/p][/quote]Everyone pays to use the roads. Even pedestrians. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. Not emissions tax which is what you mistakenly refer to as 'car tax'[/p][/quote]And you're right about the red lights. I have seen cyclists just blaze on through and as a respectful road user it does infuriate me but I've also seen 10 times that number in shoddy driving budgetvelo
  • Score: 23

9:13am Wed 25 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............ suzigirl
  • Score: 10

9:15am Wed 25 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
Just a thought,but if people didn't drive like **** then there wouldn't be any need to keep cars away from bikes.
Stop talking rubbish - oh the poor cyclists never break any rules on the road!
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: Just a thought,but if people didn't drive like **** then there wouldn't be any need to keep cars away from bikes.[/p][/quote]Stop talking rubbish - oh the poor cyclists never break any rules on the road! suzigirl
  • Score: 10

9:18am Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

suzigirl wrote:
davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............
Is that the same traffic where I filtered about 75 cars and the same towards the studland ferry?
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............[/p][/quote]Is that the same traffic where I filtered about 75 cars and the same towards the studland ferry? budgetvelo
  • Score: 0

9:27am Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

Townee wrote:
As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.
Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.
When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't.

Yes we do, the fact you don't understand taxation isn't my problem.

No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride.

Try £1000 for a bike, with a £30 service every 6 months. More expensive and better serviced than some cars on the road.

Where you like when you like without a care for anyone else.You don't have to stop at a red light.

I don't ride where I like, I don't ride through red lights because it's both illegal and dangerous.

You don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.

I have to have lights, so my bike is both safe and legal.

Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.

No slating, but your comment was made uo of generalisations and incorrect statements.
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.[/p][/quote]When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. Yes we do, the fact you don't understand taxation isn't my problem. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride. Try £1000 for a bike, with a £30 service every 6 months. More expensive and better serviced than some cars on the road. Where you like when you like without a care for anyone else.You don't have to stop at a red light. I don't ride where I like, I don't ride through red lights because it's both illegal and dangerous. You don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. I have to have lights, so my bike is both safe and legal. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me. No slating, but your comment was made uo of generalisations and incorrect statements. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 14

9:32am Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

Echo can you amend your app to recognise paragraph spacing please!
Echo can you amend your app to recognise paragraph spacing please! boardsandphotos
  • Score: 6

9:33am Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Townee wrote:
As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.
Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.
When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't.

Yes we do, the fact you don't understand taxation isn't my problem.

No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride.

Try £1000 for a bike, with a £30 service every 6 months. More expensive and better serviced than some cars on the road.

Where you like when you like without a care for anyone else.You don't have to stop at a red light.

I don't ride where I like, I don't ride through red lights because it's both illegal and dangerous.

You don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.

I have to have lights, so my bike is both safe and legal.

Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.

No slating, but your comment was made uo of generalisations and incorrect statements.
Chapeau!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.[/p][/quote]When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. Yes we do, the fact you don't understand taxation isn't my problem. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride. Try £1000 for a bike, with a £30 service every 6 months. More expensive and better serviced than some cars on the road. Where you like when you like without a care for anyone else.You don't have to stop at a red light. I don't ride where I like, I don't ride through red lights because it's both illegal and dangerous. You don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. I have to have lights, so my bike is both safe and legal. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me. No slating, but your comment was made uo of generalisations and incorrect statements.[/p][/quote]Chapeau! budgetvelo
  • Score: 6

9:44am Wed 25 Jun 14

madras says...

Castle Lane is a nightmare. Full stop.

As I driver I hate it. Particularly the 'boy racers' who rev their little toys up and down it

As a pedestrian it has about as much appeal as walking along the hard shoulder of the M3 - but at least they have pavement

I used to cycle along it years ago - now, I wouldn't want to. The safest 'cycle lane' is a separated route, not some splashes of paint on the road surface. This shows how poor the 'planning' has been as this could have been achieved at time they made it a multi-lane road. Not after the event
Castle Lane is a nightmare. Full stop. As I driver I hate it. Particularly the 'boy racers' who rev their little toys up and down it As a pedestrian it has about as much appeal as walking along the hard shoulder of the M3 - but at least they have pavement I used to cycle along it years ago - now, I wouldn't want to. The safest 'cycle lane' is a separated route, not some splashes of paint on the road surface. This shows how poor the 'planning' has been as this could have been achieved at time they made it a multi-lane road. Not after the event madras
  • Score: 18

9:51am Wed 25 Jun 14

Ash_69 says...

Back to the article –

It states “Roughly 30,000 motorists use the road every day, with a quarter of the children in Bournemouth attending schools in and around Castle Lane West.”

And how many of the car journeys are for the schools themselves? Perhaps that is why the closures are coinciding with the school holidays. Starting a week after they have broken up and finishing a week before they go back. The roads are generally quieter then and it does make good sense to have the minimum of impacts.

It also sounds like that proper segregated cycle ways are being installed. Is this a first for the area? If (and a big IF) done well then it can actually ease traffic flow by encouraging more to use the cycleway and mean less cars on the roads, making those who have to make a journey for other reasons have less to contend with. Far better than seeing each person on a bike into a car and sitting in front of you in that queue of traffic.
Back to the article – It states “Roughly 30,000 motorists use the road every day, with a quarter of the children in Bournemouth attending schools in and around Castle Lane West.” And how many of the car journeys are for the schools themselves? Perhaps that is why the closures are coinciding with the school holidays. Starting a week after they have broken up and finishing a week before they go back. The roads are generally quieter then and it does make good sense to have the minimum of impacts. It also sounds like that proper segregated cycle ways are being installed. Is this a first for the area? If (and a big IF) done well then it can actually ease traffic flow by encouraging more to use the cycleway and mean less cars on the roads, making those who have to make a journey for other reasons have less to contend with. Far better than seeing each person on a bike into a car and sitting in front of you in that queue of traffic. Ash_69
  • Score: 13

10:26am Wed 25 Jun 14

Petelucas says...

Typical that our incompetent County Council chooses to do this at the peak holiday time of the year. Why no postpone it till October??? Have they NO common sense ??
Typical that our incompetent County Council chooses to do this at the peak holiday time of the year. Why no postpone it till October??? Have they NO common sense ?? Petelucas
  • Score: -3

10:37am Wed 25 Jun 14

snowy123 says...

Petelucas wrote:
Typical that our incompetent County Council chooses to do this at the peak holiday time of the year. Why no postpone it till October??? Have they NO common sense ??
No mention either by the Echo, of the major roadworks in Kinson which are starting at the same time ! This involves putting a roundabout in for the new Tesco. I can see absolute gridlock between Cooper Dean and Bearcross for the whole of the summer.

If they have any sense tourists will avoid Bournemouth like the plague over the next couple of months !!!
[quote][p][bold]Petelucas[/bold] wrote: Typical that our incompetent County Council chooses to do this at the peak holiday time of the year. Why no postpone it till October??? Have they NO common sense ??[/p][/quote]No mention either by the Echo, of the major roadworks in Kinson which are starting at the same time ! This involves putting a roundabout in for the new Tesco. I can see absolute gridlock between Cooper Dean and Bearcross for the whole of the summer. If they have any sense tourists will avoid Bournemouth like the plague over the next couple of months !!! snowy123
  • Score: 9

10:43am Wed 25 Jun 14

SUZIE001 says...

Oh what a great idea, right it time for all the extra holidaymakers coming down. Why do it now for goodness sake. This is going to cause horrendous problems!! Some people are so thick!
Oh what a great idea, right it time for all the extra holidaymakers coming down. Why do it now for goodness sake. This is going to cause horrendous problems!! Some people are so thick! SUZIE001
  • Score: -5

11:00am Wed 25 Jun 14

BmthNewshound says...

The Council has provided numbers showing how many motorists use the road everyday but not how many cyclists. With a cost of £650,000 I would have hoped (but doubt) that the Council has researched how many cyclists currently use this route and have some idea as to how many additional bike journeys these changes will generate.
.
The town is increasingly being littered with short sections of cycle lane which don't actually serve much purpose. I'd go as far to say that no cycle lane is better than short sections which force cyclists to constantly merge back into the main carriageway. I also don't see the point of cycle lanes which are blocked by parked cars as along Glenferness Aveneue where cyclists have to swerve in and out of the cycle lane.
.
The Council has provided numbers showing how many motorists use the road everyday but not how many cyclists. With a cost of £650,000 I would have hoped (but doubt) that the Council has researched how many cyclists currently use this route and have some idea as to how many additional bike journeys these changes will generate. . The town is increasingly being littered with short sections of cycle lane which don't actually serve much purpose. I'd go as far to say that no cycle lane is better than short sections which force cyclists to constantly merge back into the main carriageway. I also don't see the point of cycle lanes which are blocked by parked cars as along Glenferness Aveneue where cyclists have to swerve in and out of the cycle lane. . BmthNewshound
  • Score: 19

11:23am Wed 25 Jun 14

TheDistrict says...

One understands the neccesity for cycle lanes and bus lanes to help maintain a flow of traffic for all road users, and Castle Lane West has enough open ground to do this.

My question is why does it have to be done on a major through road, used by many workers to Castlepoint, Hospital and beyond. Drives to the number of schools in that area, etc. In addition, as the road works are until the end of August, this is going to take in a large part of the school summer holidays, adding to more traffic travelling within the town, and beyond again.

Would it not be better to do this sort of work either at night, reopening the road during the day or at least peak times. Or, at another time of the year. Oh no, sorry, council workings and contractors will not work in bad weather.
One understands the neccesity for cycle lanes and bus lanes to help maintain a flow of traffic for all road users, and Castle Lane West has enough open ground to do this. My question is why does it have to be done on a major through road, used by many workers to Castlepoint, Hospital and beyond. Drives to the number of schools in that area, etc. In addition, as the road works are until the end of August, this is going to take in a large part of the school summer holidays, adding to more traffic travelling within the town, and beyond again. Would it not be better to do this sort of work either at night, reopening the road during the day or at least peak times. Or, at another time of the year. Oh no, sorry, council workings and contractors will not work in bad weather. TheDistrict
  • Score: -2

11:29am Wed 25 Jun 14

GeorgeW64 says...

Waste of time and money, why don't the council just spend a few quid on a few tins of paint and paint a cycle lane on, and while you're at it put a cycle lane on the promenade with bumps to stop the idiots using it as a race track.
Waste of time and money, why don't the council just spend a few quid on a few tins of paint and paint a cycle lane on, and while you're at it put a cycle lane on the promenade with bumps to stop the idiots using it as a race track. GeorgeW64
  • Score: 0

11:33am Wed 25 Jun 14

starwars1978 says...

Think of the impact this will have on Castlepoint! Getting from the East Village to the main park is already tricky, at busy times :(
Think of the impact this will have on Castlepoint! Getting from the East Village to the main park is already tricky, at busy times :( starwars1978
  • Score: 1

11:36am Wed 25 Jun 14

muscliffman says...

The horrendous inconvenience and disruption for the average Castle Lane West motorist will not be for just a ridiculous two months of road works, it will be permanent. Because that is the whole idea of this anti-car 'Three Towns Travel' scheme, it is the reason they are doing it.

For sure the majority of residents and users of this part of Castle Lane West do NOT want any of this and have long observed that the existing pavement cycle lanes here for years are very rarely used - even at school times. No doubt at all most people can think of far more deserving and life improving local subjects to spend this huge sum of OUR public money upon.

I note that 'Council speak' idiot comments aplenty are coming from the usual culprits about all this, although I admit 'continental' cycle lanes is a new trendy term - how very unwelcome 'green' and EU this all sounds. The Town Hall either cannot grasp or simply refuses to understand that most of us don't want any of this nonsense anywhere on the highways of our town - we will just have to wait to get our message across to the fools behind it next year.
The horrendous inconvenience and disruption for the average Castle Lane West motorist will not be for just a ridiculous two months of road works, it will be permanent. Because that is the whole idea of this anti-car 'Three Towns Travel' scheme, it is the reason they are doing it. For sure the majority of residents and users of this part of Castle Lane West do NOT want any of this and have long observed that the existing pavement cycle lanes here for years are very rarely used - even at school times. No doubt at all most people can think of far more deserving and life improving local subjects to spend this huge sum of OUR public money upon. I note that 'Council speak' idiot comments aplenty are coming from the usual culprits about all this, although I admit 'continental' cycle lanes is a new trendy term - how very unwelcome 'green' and EU this all sounds. The Town Hall either cannot grasp or simply refuses to understand that most of us don't want any of this nonsense anywhere on the highways of our town - we will just have to wait to get our message across to the fools behind it next year. muscliffman
  • Score: 7

11:57am Wed 25 Jun 14

vitodaz says...

suzigirl wrote:
davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............
Definitely agree with you, why waste all this money on cycle lanes that the cyclists dont even bother to use. I have seen on several occasions on the A351 these lanes not even being used and cyclist still use the road. With so many awful roads on the Isle of Purbeck, why should it be put to use on something that is barely ever used, instead of cheap skating by putting chippings down on our roads that damage our cars and lasts about a few weeks or a month if you're lucky to then have to redo it properly? It's come to the day where people are charged the earth to use a car by the government, yet they dont put the money to good use by maintaining our roads.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............[/p][/quote]Definitely agree with you, why waste all this money on cycle lanes that the cyclists dont even bother to use. I have seen on several occasions on the A351 these lanes not even being used and cyclist still use the road. With so many awful roads on the Isle of Purbeck, why should it be put to use on something that is barely ever used, instead of cheap skating by putting chippings down on our roads that damage our cars and lasts about a few weeks or a month if you're lucky to then have to redo it properly? It's come to the day where people are charged the earth to use a car by the government, yet they dont put the money to good use by maintaining our roads. vitodaz
  • Score: 5

11:59am Wed 25 Jun 14

PokesdownMark says...

Are the council going to alter junction priorities along the diversion route? The story doesn't really make the diversion routes clear. But if they are diverting all the westbound traffic left into East Way to try and then turn right onto Charminster Rd.... well that is going to be a disaster! There will be queues back to Cooper Dean.
The East Way junction with Charminster Rd, operating in that mode, could well cost more than the planned improvement in terms of KSI?!
Are the council going to alter junction priorities along the diversion route? The story doesn't really make the diversion routes clear. But if they are diverting all the westbound traffic left into East Way to try and then turn right onto Charminster Rd.... well that is going to be a disaster! There will be queues back to Cooper Dean. The East Way junction with Charminster Rd, operating in that mode, could well cost more than the planned improvement in terms of KSI?! PokesdownMark
  • Score: 5

12:07pm Wed 25 Jun 14

ekimnoslen says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
I suggest the idiots who design these cycle lanes have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they are allowed to design them!
It would better if all cyclists were obliged to take a proficiency test they could then be trained in the. Best method of:-
A) jumping traffic lights on red
B) illegally riding on footpaths
C) traveling at speed across pedestrian crossings
D) best words to use to abuse other road users, thanks to whose tolerance and driving skill many cyclists are still alive.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules[/p][/quote]I suggest the idiots who design these cycle lanes have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they are allowed to design them![/p][/quote]It would better if all cyclists were obliged to take a proficiency test they could then be trained in the. Best method of:- A) jumping traffic lights on red B) illegally riding on footpaths C) traveling at speed across pedestrian crossings D) best words to use to abuse other road users, thanks to whose tolerance and driving skill many cyclists are still alive. ekimnoslen
  • Score: -4

12:09pm Wed 25 Jun 14

hadvar says...

Cool, reading this thread, not even cyclists like cycle lanes. So, the 'Bournemouth Council Chiefs' can stop urinating away our money on 'improvement schemes' that dont improve anything, and no-one wants. Seems perfectly logical to me.....
Cool, reading this thread, not even cyclists like cycle lanes. So, the 'Bournemouth Council Chiefs' can stop urinating away our money on 'improvement schemes' that dont improve anything, and no-one wants. Seems perfectly logical to me..... hadvar
  • Score: 10

12:11pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Ink123 says...

That's a great idea start major road works through summer holidays when it's at it's busiest duhhhh
That's a great idea start major road works through summer holidays when it's at it's busiest duhhhh Ink123
  • Score: 1

12:12pm Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

vitodaz wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............
Definitely agree with you, why waste all this money on cycle lanes that the cyclists dont even bother to use. I have seen on several occasions on the A351 these lanes not even being used and cyclist still use the road. With so many awful roads on the Isle of Purbeck, why should it be put to use on something that is barely ever used, instead of cheap skating by putting chippings down on our roads that damage our cars and lasts about a few weeks or a month if you're lucky to then have to redo it properly? It's come to the day where people are charged the earth to use a car by the government, yet they dont put the money to good use by maintaining our roads.
Because they're rubbish!!!! Use one one day. You'll see. Why should I have to use one if I'm not legally obliged to? Take the Holten Heath cycle path for instance. Yes it's wide. But it ends after half a mile. Just ends completely and I will have to cycle on the road. Just learn to share the road. It's not difficult.
[quote][p][bold]vitodaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............[/p][/quote]Definitely agree with you, why waste all this money on cycle lanes that the cyclists dont even bother to use. I have seen on several occasions on the A351 these lanes not even being used and cyclist still use the road. With so many awful roads on the Isle of Purbeck, why should it be put to use on something that is barely ever used, instead of cheap skating by putting chippings down on our roads that damage our cars and lasts about a few weeks or a month if you're lucky to then have to redo it properly? It's come to the day where people are charged the earth to use a car by the government, yet they dont put the money to good use by maintaining our roads.[/p][/quote]Because they're rubbish!!!! Use one one day. You'll see. Why should I have to use one if I'm not legally obliged to? Take the Holten Heath cycle path for instance. Yes it's wide. But it ends after half a mile. Just ends completely and I will have to cycle on the road. Just learn to share the road. It's not difficult. budgetvelo
  • Score: 10

12:13pm Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

hadvar wrote:
Cool, reading this thread, not even cyclists like cycle lanes. So, the 'Bournemouth Council Chiefs' can stop urinating away our money on 'improvement schemes' that dont improve anything, and no-one wants. Seems perfectly logical to me.....
I would rather see improvement to the road surfaces so I'm not bouncing around, and weaving wheel trap drains and potholes than use a cycle lane/path.
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Cool, reading this thread, not even cyclists like cycle lanes. So, the 'Bournemouth Council Chiefs' can stop urinating away our money on 'improvement schemes' that dont improve anything, and no-one wants. Seems perfectly logical to me.....[/p][/quote]I would rather see improvement to the road surfaces so I'm not bouncing around, and weaving wheel trap drains and potholes than use a cycle lane/path. budgetvelo
  • Score: 8

12:20pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Concerned.about.it says...

Good timing actually ! as all the schools in the area will be closed for Summer holidays, so traffic will be less during the road work period. In longer term hopefully less traffic and safer cyclists, win win !
Good timing actually ! as all the schools in the area will be closed for Summer holidays, so traffic will be less during the road work period. In longer term hopefully less traffic and safer cyclists, win win ! Concerned.about.it
  • Score: 13

12:30pm Wed 25 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

There will only be "safer cyclists" if they use the cycle paths but from the comments cyclists don't like them so the local government should stop wasting money on them. Cyclists and car drivers/motorcylists can co-exist if they ALL obey the rules of the road!
There will only be "safer cyclists" if they use the cycle paths but from the comments cyclists don't like them so the local government should stop wasting money on them. Cyclists and car drivers/motorcylists can co-exist if they ALL obey the rules of the road! suzigirl
  • Score: 6

12:36pm Wed 25 Jun 14

rozmister says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun
Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun[/p][/quote]Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up. rozmister
  • Score: 9

12:42pm Wed 25 Jun 14

AFCBLUKE says...

Everyone has their own opinion on this. However would it not be common sense to complete this work during school holidays dur to there being 4-5 schools all on this road or close by. Stupid fools!
Everyone has their own opinion on this. However would it not be common sense to complete this work during school holidays dur to there being 4-5 schools all on this road or close by. Stupid fools! AFCBLUKE
  • Score: -3

1:04pm Wed 25 Jun 14

sciac2001 says...

davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
All cyclists?
I don't ever recall riding along the A351 2 abreast. I could swear that I was on my own.
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]All cyclists? I don't ever recall riding along the A351 2 abreast. I could swear that I was on my own. sciac2001
  • Score: 6

1:10pm Wed 25 Jun 14

sciac2001 says...

suzigirl wrote:
There will only be "safer cyclists" if they use the cycle paths but from the comments cyclists don't like them so the local government should stop wasting money on them. Cyclists and car drivers/motorcylists can co-exist if they ALL obey the rules of the road!
No need for special cycle lanes. Just allocate an area on the roads with cheap paint where cyclists have absolute priority within it. This will educate aggressive drivers that if they hit a cyclist then it is they who will get done, no question, no dispute. Cycling will increase to the be fit of health, environment and pockets!
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: There will only be "safer cyclists" if they use the cycle paths but from the comments cyclists don't like them so the local government should stop wasting money on them. Cyclists and car drivers/motorcylists can co-exist if they ALL obey the rules of the road![/p][/quote]No need for special cycle lanes. Just allocate an area on the roads with cheap paint where cyclists have absolute priority within it. This will educate aggressive drivers that if they hit a cyclist then it is they who will get done, no question, no dispute. Cycling will increase to the be fit of health, environment and pockets! sciac2001
  • Score: 5

1:13pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way. JediJimbob
  • Score: 1

1:15pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Cordite says...

budgetvelo wrote:
vitodaz wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
davecook wrote:
Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.
Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............
Definitely agree with you, why waste all this money on cycle lanes that the cyclists dont even bother to use. I have seen on several occasions on the A351 these lanes not even being used and cyclist still use the road. With so many awful roads on the Isle of Purbeck, why should it be put to use on something that is barely ever used, instead of cheap skating by putting chippings down on our roads that damage our cars and lasts about a few weeks or a month if you're lucky to then have to redo it properly? It's come to the day where people are charged the earth to use a car by the government, yet they dont put the money to good use by maintaining our roads.
Because they're rubbish!!!! Use one one day. You'll see. Why should I have to use one if I'm not legally obliged to? Take the Holten Heath cycle path for instance. Yes it's wide. But it ends after half a mile. Just ends completely and I will have to cycle on the road. Just learn to share the road. It's not difficult.
Totally agree budget.
Its quicker for me to cycle this stretch than drive and sit in the jams and I USE the cycleway.
Again they are provided but NEVER maintained. The gardening club employed by the council can make the grass look pretty on roundabouts, but are incapable of cutting hedges. And will those horsey people stop parking on it by the Bakers Arms, and Traffic Census people whilst I am at it!
[quote][p][bold]budgetvelo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vitodaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: Will the police force cyclists to use the cycle lanes, or will it be like the new lane along the main A351 to Wareham where a fortune has been spent installing a new cycle lane, and cyclists still choose to ride 2 abreast in the road holding up buses, vans, and cars.[/p][/quote]Exactly - a cyclist was holding up all the traffic at Sandford on the road on Sunday weaving all over the place when there is a perfectly good cycle lane just built and costing thousands of pounds. I indicated to him politely to use the cycle lane when passing him on the motorbike! Total waste of money............[/p][/quote]Definitely agree with you, why waste all this money on cycle lanes that the cyclists dont even bother to use. I have seen on several occasions on the A351 these lanes not even being used and cyclist still use the road. With so many awful roads on the Isle of Purbeck, why should it be put to use on something that is barely ever used, instead of cheap skating by putting chippings down on our roads that damage our cars and lasts about a few weeks or a month if you're lucky to then have to redo it properly? It's come to the day where people are charged the earth to use a car by the government, yet they dont put the money to good use by maintaining our roads.[/p][/quote]Because they're rubbish!!!! Use one one day. You'll see. Why should I have to use one if I'm not legally obliged to? Take the Holten Heath cycle path for instance. Yes it's wide. But it ends after half a mile. Just ends completely and I will have to cycle on the road. Just learn to share the road. It's not difficult.[/p][/quote]Totally agree budget. Its quicker for me to cycle this stretch than drive and sit in the jams and I USE the cycleway. Again they are provided but NEVER maintained. The gardening club employed by the council can make the grass look pretty on roundabouts, but are incapable of cutting hedges. And will those horsey people stop parking on it by the Bakers Arms, and Traffic Census people whilst I am at it! Cordite
  • Score: 4

1:15pm Wed 25 Jun 14

sciac2001 says...

JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too? sciac2001
  • Score: 6

1:19pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Berfdorset says...

I'm pushing for a Bylaw in Dorset that if there's a cycle way the cycle's Have to use it . They keep moaning about motor's not giving them room , so get on the cycle way and be safe ..
I'm pushing for a Bylaw in Dorset that if there's a cycle way the cycle's Have to use it . They keep moaning about motor's not giving them room , so get on the cycle way and be safe .. Berfdorset
  • Score: -4

1:21pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected!
[quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too?[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected! JediJimbob
  • Score: 2

1:25pm Wed 25 Jun 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.
There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services![/p][/quote]Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.[/p][/quote]There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there. fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 2

1:27pm Wed 25 Jun 14

sciac2001 says...

JediJimbob wrote:
sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected!
Good point and I will take it on the chin.
I thought that VED is based on emissions.. if so cycling should remain free.
Supposing that it is introduced for cyclists. Would'nt we then have every right to insist that all roads are made safe for our use? Quite an expensive exercise judging by the anti-cycling state of Britain's roadways.
Insurance for cyclists? More dosh for the scamming Insurers! Surely there are existing laws that allow one person to sue another independently of insurance? If someone causes injury to another then this should cover it methinks!
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too?[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected![/p][/quote]Good point and I will take it on the chin. I thought that VED is based on emissions.. if so cycling should remain free. Supposing that it is introduced for cyclists. Would'nt we then have every right to insist that all roads are made safe for our use? Quite an expensive exercise judging by the anti-cycling state of Britain's roadways. Insurance for cyclists? More dosh for the scamming Insurers! Surely there are existing laws that allow one person to sue another independently of insurance? If someone causes injury to another then this should cover it methinks! sciac2001
  • Score: 6

1:31pm Wed 25 Jun 14

sciac2001 says...

Berfdorset wrote:
I'm pushing for a Bylaw in Dorset that if there's a cycle way the cycle's Have to use it . They keep moaning about motor's not giving them room , so get on the cycle way and be safe ..
Obviously you have never used existing cycle ways. Apart from the dreadful state that they are in, why should cyclists have to stop at every t Junction where the cycle paths meet a side road? Defeats the object of cycling to work to arrive quicker and avoid the jams.
[quote][p][bold]Berfdorset[/bold] wrote: I'm pushing for a Bylaw in Dorset that if there's a cycle way the cycle's Have to use it . They keep moaning about motor's not giving them room , so get on the cycle way and be safe ..[/p][/quote]Obviously you have never used existing cycle ways. Apart from the dreadful state that they are in, why should cyclists have to stop at every t Junction where the cycle paths meet a side road? Defeats the object of cycling to work to arrive quicker and avoid the jams. sciac2001
  • Score: 7

1:37pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected!
Good point and I will take it on the chin.
I thought that VED is based on emissions.. if so cycling should remain free.
Supposing that it is introduced for cyclists. Would'nt we then have every right to insist that all roads are made safe for our use? Quite an expensive exercise judging by the anti-cycling state of Britain's roadways.
Insurance for cyclists? More dosh for the scamming Insurers! Surely there are existing laws that allow one person to sue another independently of insurance? If someone causes injury to another then this should cover it methinks!
VED is based on emissions for cars that were registered after 2001. Before 2001 it is calculated on purely engine size but originally (even if the money goes elsewhere now) the VED was to assist in the upkeep of the roads and that is the responsibility of everyone who uses the road.

I would counter and say that most roads are safe for cyclists use "IF" motorists and cyclists actually obeyed the law and the highway code. It is only made unsafe through arrogance and incompetence which are purely human faults.

As for the insurance there are arguments for both sides however I don't feel that it is fair for a cyclist to cause an accident and then expect the motorist to pay themselves to initiate independent legal proceedings which can take months to recover their losses. How would a cyclist feel if he was told he had to sue a driver to replace an expensive bike and that it would take months for them to receive their money? I dislike insurance companies but they do speed the whole process up to minimise the trauma and disruption to life.
[quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too?[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected![/p][/quote]Good point and I will take it on the chin. I thought that VED is based on emissions.. if so cycling should remain free. Supposing that it is introduced for cyclists. Would'nt we then have every right to insist that all roads are made safe for our use? Quite an expensive exercise judging by the anti-cycling state of Britain's roadways. Insurance for cyclists? More dosh for the scamming Insurers! Surely there are existing laws that allow one person to sue another independently of insurance? If someone causes injury to another then this should cover it methinks![/p][/quote]VED is based on emissions for cars that were registered after 2001. Before 2001 it is calculated on purely engine size but originally (even if the money goes elsewhere now) the VED was to assist in the upkeep of the roads and that is the responsibility of everyone who uses the road. I would counter and say that most roads are safe for cyclists use "IF" motorists and cyclists actually obeyed the law and the highway code. It is only made unsafe through arrogance and incompetence which are purely human faults. As for the insurance there are arguments for both sides however I don't feel that it is fair for a cyclist to cause an accident and then expect the motorist to pay themselves to initiate independent legal proceedings which can take months to recover their losses. How would a cyclist feel if he was told he had to sue a driver to replace an expensive bike and that it would take months for them to receive their money? I dislike insurance companies but they do speed the whole process up to minimise the trauma and disruption to life. JediJimbob
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Repo says...

JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you? Repo
  • Score: 16

1:41pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

sciac2001 wrote:
Berfdorset wrote:
I'm pushing for a Bylaw in Dorset that if there's a cycle way the cycle's Have to use it . They keep moaning about motor's not giving them room , so get on the cycle way and be safe ..
Obviously you have never used existing cycle ways. Apart from the dreadful state that they are in, why should cyclists have to stop at every t Junction where the cycle paths meet a side road? Defeats the object of cycling to work to arrive quicker and avoid the jams.
Is it this same inconvenience that stops cyclists from looking over their shoulder to ensure it is safe to pull out when on the road and getting past a parked vehicle?

I'm pretty sure that was in the cycling proficiency test and yes it does sometimes mean the cyclist has to stop and wait until it is safe but alas I hardly ever see cyclists doing it nowadays. Most simply swerve out and to hell with the consequences
[quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Berfdorset[/bold] wrote: I'm pushing for a Bylaw in Dorset that if there's a cycle way the cycle's Have to use it . They keep moaning about motor's not giving them room , so get on the cycle way and be safe ..[/p][/quote]Obviously you have never used existing cycle ways. Apart from the dreadful state that they are in, why should cyclists have to stop at every t Junction where the cycle paths meet a side road? Defeats the object of cycling to work to arrive quicker and avoid the jams.[/p][/quote]Is it this same inconvenience that stops cyclists from looking over their shoulder to ensure it is safe to pull out when on the road and getting past a parked vehicle? I'm pretty sure that was in the cycling proficiency test and yes it does sometimes mean the cyclist has to stop and wait until it is safe but alas I hardly ever see cyclists doing it nowadays. Most simply swerve out and to hell with the consequences JediJimbob
  • Score: 1

1:44pm Wed 25 Jun 14

sciac2001 says...

JediJimbob wrote:
sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected!
Good point and I will take it on the chin.
I thought that VED is based on emissions.. if so cycling should remain free.
Supposing that it is introduced for cyclists. Would'nt we then have every right to insist that all roads are made safe for our use? Quite an expensive exercise judging by the anti-cycling state of Britain's roadways.
Insurance for cyclists? More dosh for the scamming Insurers! Surely there are existing laws that allow one person to sue another independently of insurance? If someone causes injury to another then this should cover it methinks!
VED is based on emissions for cars that were registered after 2001. Before 2001 it is calculated on purely engine size but originally (even if the money goes elsewhere now) the VED was to assist in the upkeep of the roads and that is the responsibility of everyone who uses the road.

I would counter and say that most roads are safe for cyclists use "IF" motorists and cyclists actually obeyed the law and the highway code. It is only made unsafe through arrogance and incompetence which are purely human faults.

As for the insurance there are arguments for both sides however I don't feel that it is fair for a cyclist to cause an accident and then expect the motorist to pay themselves to initiate independent legal proceedings which can take months to recover their losses. How would a cyclist feel if he was told he had to sue a driver to replace an expensive bike and that it would take months for them to receive their money? I dislike insurance companies but they do speed the whole process up to minimise the trauma and disruption to life.
I agree that both sets need to be respectful of the others, but impatience on the part of a vehicle driver will cause much more damage than impatience from a cyclist. Bicycles will always delay vehicles, pure physics. Patience is not a commodity much in evidence today. It is therefore the cyclist that will need more protection than the vehicles. For that, we need road legislation from understanding authorities.
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too?[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I have ever seen somebody in a pram on the road (apart from crossing it) but if you have then I stand corrected![/p][/quote]Good point and I will take it on the chin. I thought that VED is based on emissions.. if so cycling should remain free. Supposing that it is introduced for cyclists. Would'nt we then have every right to insist that all roads are made safe for our use? Quite an expensive exercise judging by the anti-cycling state of Britain's roadways. Insurance for cyclists? More dosh for the scamming Insurers! Surely there are existing laws that allow one person to sue another independently of insurance? If someone causes injury to another then this should cover it methinks![/p][/quote]VED is based on emissions for cars that were registered after 2001. Before 2001 it is calculated on purely engine size but originally (even if the money goes elsewhere now) the VED was to assist in the upkeep of the roads and that is the responsibility of everyone who uses the road. I would counter and say that most roads are safe for cyclists use "IF" motorists and cyclists actually obeyed the law and the highway code. It is only made unsafe through arrogance and incompetence which are purely human faults. As for the insurance there are arguments for both sides however I don't feel that it is fair for a cyclist to cause an accident and then expect the motorist to pay themselves to initiate independent legal proceedings which can take months to recover their losses. How would a cyclist feel if he was told he had to sue a driver to replace an expensive bike and that it would take months for them to receive their money? I dislike insurance companies but they do speed the whole process up to minimise the trauma and disruption to life.[/p][/quote]I agree that both sets need to be respectful of the others, but impatience on the part of a vehicle driver will cause much more damage than impatience from a cyclist. Bicycles will always delay vehicles, pure physics. Patience is not a commodity much in evidence today. It is therefore the cyclist that will need more protection than the vehicles. For that, we need road legislation from understanding authorities. sciac2001
  • Score: 6

1:48pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
[quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair. JediJimbob
  • Score: -5

1:54pm Wed 25 Jun 14

uvox44 says...

the supreme irony of motorists moaning about being held up by cyclists then racing past to join the next queue of vehicles! too funny! but as hey never let logical thinking get in the way of good old fashioned prejudice! And what makes your lives so important that a few seconds delay gets you all fuming ? If you didn't let yourselves get so worked up in the first place then your journey would be pleasant and you wouldn't mind if it took a bit longer- here comes the chorus again- but hey never let logical thinking get in the way of good old fashioned prejudice! And finally (maybe) we all pay for the roads whether or not we use them - how unfair is that?!! But much better to say that cylists don't pay "road tax" (whatever that is) - but then they don't damage the road surface or pollute the air either (global warming ringing any bells anyone? ) and , all together now, but why let logical thinking get in the way of good old fashioned prejudiced!
the supreme irony of motorists moaning about being held up by cyclists then racing past to join the next queue of vehicles! too funny! but as hey never let logical thinking get in the way of good old fashioned prejudice! And what makes your lives so important that a few seconds delay gets you all fuming ? If you didn't let yourselves get so worked up in the first place then your journey would be pleasant and you wouldn't mind if it took a bit longer- here comes the chorus again- but hey never let logical thinking get in the way of good old fashioned prejudice! And finally (maybe) we all pay for the roads whether or not we use them - how unfair is that?!! But much better to say that cylists don't pay "road tax" (whatever that is) - but then they don't damage the road surface or pollute the air either (global warming ringing any bells anyone? ) and , all together now, but why let logical thinking get in the way of good old fashioned prejudiced! uvox44
  • Score: 7

2:08pm Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

JediJimbob wrote:
Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window!
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.[/p][/quote]You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window! boardsandphotos
  • Score: 6

2:16pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Wintonian says...

AFCBLUKE wrote:
Everyone has their own opinion on this. However would it not be common sense to complete this work during school holidays dur to there being 4-5 schools all on this road or close by. Stupid fools!
The report says the work starts on 25 July and ends in late August......
[quote][p][bold]AFCBLUKE[/bold] wrote: Everyone has their own opinion on this. However would it not be common sense to complete this work during school holidays dur to there being 4-5 schools all on this road or close by. Stupid fools![/p][/quote]The report says the work starts on 25 July and ends in late August...... Wintonian
  • Score: 4

2:32pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window!
I am aware of the fact some cars don't pay anything for the RFL / VED either but as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because that is the current system does not mean it is correct or fair.

I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!) but my point simply is that ANYBODY who uses the roads should pay for it's upkeep and it SHOULD come from the little disc (which they are soon to do away with)

Maintenance of the roads should not be paid for by pedestrians or from a centrally allocated government pot. Maintenance of the roads should be covered by those who use the roads whether they emit emissions or not.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.[/p][/quote]You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window![/p][/quote]I am aware of the fact some cars don't pay anything for the RFL / VED either but as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because that is the current system does not mean it is correct or fair. I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!) but my point simply is that ANYBODY who uses the roads should pay for it's upkeep and it SHOULD come from the little disc (which they are soon to do away with) Maintenance of the roads should not be paid for by pedestrians or from a centrally allocated government pot. Maintenance of the roads should be covered by those who use the roads whether they emit emissions or not. JediJimbob
  • Score: -11

2:36pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Repo says...

JediJimbob wrote:
Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
Come on then, play devils advocate, and tell us all your grand idea for a fairer "road tax" system? i'd love to hear it.
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.[/p][/quote]Come on then, play devils advocate, and tell us all your grand idea for a fairer "road tax" system? i'd love to hear it. Repo
  • Score: 3

2:44pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Repo says...

JediJimbob wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window!
I am aware of the fact some cars don't pay anything for the RFL / VED either but as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because that is the current system does not mean it is correct or fair.

I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!) but my point simply is that ANYBODY who uses the roads should pay for it's upkeep and it SHOULD come from the little disc (which they are soon to do away with)

Maintenance of the roads should not be paid for by pedestrians or from a centrally allocated government pot. Maintenance of the roads should be covered by those who use the roads whether they emit emissions or not.
I would suggest that there are very few people in the UK who do not benefit from the road system either directly or indirectly. Almost all goods and services that people require are delivered by road. Even if you do not own a vehicle you are still benefiting from the road system. Maybe we should all contribute to road maintenance - oh hang on a minute, we do!
[quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.[/p][/quote]You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window![/p][/quote]I am aware of the fact some cars don't pay anything for the RFL / VED either but as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because that is the current system does not mean it is correct or fair. I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!) but my point simply is that ANYBODY who uses the roads should pay for it's upkeep and it SHOULD come from the little disc (which they are soon to do away with) Maintenance of the roads should not be paid for by pedestrians or from a centrally allocated government pot. Maintenance of the roads should be covered by those who use the roads whether they emit emissions or not.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that there are very few people in the UK who do not benefit from the road system either directly or indirectly. Almost all goods and services that people require are delivered by road. Even if you do not own a vehicle you are still benefiting from the road system. Maybe we should all contribute to road maintenance - oh hang on a minute, we do! Repo
  • Score: 8

2:47pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JediJimbob says...

Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
Come on then, play devils advocate, and tell us all your grand idea for a fairer "road tax" system? i'd love to hear it.
I refer you to my response to boardsandphotos above which states:

"I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!)"

I accept that in life there is no such thing as perfect solution or full equality. One mans meat is another mans poison etc... I just think there has to be a better solution (and one that would take a mind greater than mine to instigate)
[quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.[/p][/quote]Come on then, play devils advocate, and tell us all your grand idea for a fairer "road tax" system? i'd love to hear it.[/p][/quote]I refer you to my response to boardsandphotos above which states: "I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!)" I accept that in life there is no such thing as perfect solution or full equality. One mans meat is another mans poison etc... I just think there has to be a better solution (and one that would take a mind greater than mine to instigate) JediJimbob
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements!
Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements! suzigirl
  • Score: 3

3:57pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Miss_Lizzie says...

Ink123 wrote:
That's a great idea start major road works through summer holidays when it's at it's busiest duhhhh
I think the point is this road is busy with people driving obese kids to school. So doing the work in summer makes perfect sense as does improving the safety for cyclists and pedestrians near large schools.

More pupils may feel it's safe to walk or cycle to school thus reducing the traffic for all of you angry motorists and reducing the level of obesity in our young people.

Where work has been done in Kings Park and Littledown Valley you can go and observe the hundreds of young people walking and cycling to school. They are joined by an ever increasing number of adults walking and cycling to work.
Cycle lanes that are painted in the gutter do not work they are not safe to cycle on, proper cycle paths do work.
[quote][p][bold]Ink123[/bold] wrote: That's a great idea start major road works through summer holidays when it's at it's busiest duhhhh[/p][/quote]I think the point is this road is busy with people driving obese kids to school. So doing the work in summer makes perfect sense as does improving the safety for cyclists and pedestrians near large schools. More pupils may feel it's safe to walk or cycle to school thus reducing the traffic for all of you angry motorists and reducing the level of obesity in our young people. Where work has been done in Kings Park and Littledown Valley you can go and observe the hundreds of young people walking and cycling to school. They are joined by an ever increasing number of adults walking and cycling to work. Cycle lanes that are painted in the gutter do not work they are not safe to cycle on, proper cycle paths do work. Miss_Lizzie
  • Score: 10

4:09pm Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

suzigirl wrote:
Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements!
What a stupid, ill thought out comment. What a good way to discourage cycling and make more people take to their cars thus increasing the volume of traffic on our already overburdened road network..clever
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements![/p][/quote]What a stupid, ill thought out comment. What a good way to discourage cycling and make more people take to their cars thus increasing the volume of traffic on our already overburdened road network..clever budgetvelo
  • Score: -1

4:20pm Wed 25 Jun 14

cunone says...

I find it very disappointing to see the small minded bike riders and car drivers always moaning about how good they are and how awful other road users are. I ride a bike and love it, I drive a car and love it.
None of us ever get it right all the time be it in a car or on a bike. So come on folks grow up there are a lot more issues in the world to get het up about. Anyway with the middle east issues we soon will not be able to afford petrol so every road will be a cycle route
I find it very disappointing to see the small minded bike riders and car drivers always moaning about how good they are and how awful other road users are. I ride a bike and love it, I drive a car and love it. None of us ever get it right all the time be it in a car or on a bike. So come on folks grow up there are a lot more issues in the world to get het up about. Anyway with the middle east issues we soon will not be able to afford petrol so every road will be a cycle route cunone
  • Score: 12

4:44pm Wed 25 Jun 14

spooki says...

winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
CYCLISTS should be made to pass a test! Tell you what, next time a cyclist goes through a red traffic light or goes the wrong way up a one way road, I'll knock them off and point out their error shall I?
Yet more roadworks! Closing a part of Castle Lane is ridiculous. Whoever thought if the idea should be made to use the diversions daily to see the chaos it's caused.
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules[/p][/quote]CYCLISTS should be made to pass a test! Tell you what, next time a cyclist goes through a red traffic light or goes the wrong way up a one way road, I'll knock them off and point out their error shall I? Yet more roadworks! Closing a part of Castle Lane is ridiculous. Whoever thought if the idea should be made to use the diversions daily to see the chaos it's caused. spooki
  • Score: -14

4:48pm Wed 25 Jun 14

spooki says...

Oh and here's a thought, I've just driven along Castle Lane past this,junction and I had to allow passing room to two cyclists, quite rightly and fairly allowing for wobbles. When I pull back in where one would normally drive, the two cyclists squeeze alongside the cars waiting at the lights with their handlebars knocking along the car.
What exactly is the point of me, a driver, following the rules when cyclists so as they wish?
Oh and here's a thought, I've just driven along Castle Lane past this,junction and I had to allow passing room to two cyclists, quite rightly and fairly allowing for wobbles. When I pull back in where one would normally drive, the two cyclists squeeze alongside the cars waiting at the lights with their handlebars knocking along the car. What exactly is the point of me, a driver, following the rules when cyclists so as they wish? spooki
  • Score: -13

4:49pm Wed 25 Jun 14

budgetvelo says...

spooki wrote:
winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are
provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them
Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not.

See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road.
Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people.

I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules
CYCLISTS should be made to pass a test! Tell you what, next time a cyclist goes through a red traffic light or goes the wrong way up a one way road, I'll knock them off and point out their error shall I?
Yet more roadworks! Closing a part of Castle Lane is ridiculous. Whoever thought if the idea should be made to use the diversions daily to see the chaos it's caused.
Shall we do the same with cars then?...
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I appreciate some of the cycle lanes in the area are ridiculous and are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard,however where cycle lanes are provided it should be mandatory for all cyclists to use them[/p][/quote]Ha ha very good. I think it should be mandatory for you to drive down Columbia road for every trip whether it's going to your destination or not. See how that works? Cycle lanes in this area are haphazard at best, stop suddenly with no warning and can be more dangerous than riding on the road. Shared pathways with pedestrians are constantly complained about by cyclists and pedestrians alike and walkers (especially dog owners) seem unable to actually share with other people. I think it should be mandatory that all car drivers have to pass a cycling proficiency test and do at least 100 hours riding a bike around our hazardous roads before they get a licence. See we can all make unworkable rules[/p][/quote]CYCLISTS should be made to pass a test! Tell you what, next time a cyclist goes through a red traffic light or goes the wrong way up a one way road, I'll knock them off and point out their error shall I? Yet more roadworks! Closing a part of Castle Lane is ridiculous. Whoever thought if the idea should be made to use the diversions daily to see the chaos it's caused.[/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with cars then?... budgetvelo
  • Score: 2

5:06pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Baysider says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.
There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.
Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env
ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei
sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services![/p][/quote]Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.[/p][/quote]There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.[/p][/quote]Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh? Baysider
  • Score: 5

5:10pm Wed 25 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Townee wrote:
As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement.
Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.
Why should cyclists pay to use roads? The amount of wear and tear on a road caused by a person on a cycle is nothing in comparison to that caused by a car, which again compares very favourably to that caused by a lorry. I cycle very carefully thank you. I have pointed out in the past that I will cycle on pavements but if and only if it is safe for everybody including myself. I cannot and will not be held responsible for other idiots who use pedal power. Legally you do have to stop at red lights. A pratt I saw some weeks back at the Stoney Lane lights in Christchurch went through on red and almost got hit, flaming well needs shooting. So please don't tar me with the same brush as the brain dead cyclists, and I won't tar the good or even average car drivers with the same brush as the ones who appear to be Pinball Wizards. Is this a reasonable deal?
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: As a car driver I would be very happy if the council spent the same amount of money on the roads as they do on cycle ways. The only money they seem to spend is to fill holes (they get most of that money from the government) and making roads smaller. When a cyclist pays to use the roads then I will say yes that is fair but they don't. No fee to use the road, no insurance, no test just save a few pounds and buy a bike and you can ride where you like when you like without a care for anyone else. You don't have to stop at a red light, you don't have to have lights and people will move out of your way when you ride on the pavement. Now I wait for the cyclists to slate me.[/p][/quote]Why should cyclists pay to use roads? The amount of wear and tear on a road caused by a person on a cycle is nothing in comparison to that caused by a car, which again compares very favourably to that caused by a lorry. I cycle very carefully thank you. I have pointed out in the past that I will cycle on pavements but if and only if it is safe for everybody including myself. I cannot and will not be held responsible for other idiots who use pedal power. Legally you do have to stop at red lights. A pratt I saw some weeks back at the Stoney Lane lights in Christchurch went through on red and almost got hit, flaming well needs shooting. So please don't tar me with the same brush as the brain dead cyclists, and I won't tar the good or even average car drivers with the same brush as the ones who appear to be Pinball Wizards. Is this a reasonable deal? breamoreboy
  • Score: 6

5:20pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Bonjovigirl says...

I live in East way and they should sort out the lack of parking at David English first as so dangerous when they park all over the grass verges , they drive the wrong way down the hill, just stupid and nothing gets done !Even though there are speed humps in East way they don't stop them speeding, concidering how many schools are around here they need to sort this out and also we need street lights in alley at back of East Way more than cycle routes !
I live in East way and they should sort out the lack of parking at David English first as so dangerous when they park all over the grass verges , they drive the wrong way down the hill, just stupid and nothing gets done !Even though there are speed humps in East way they don't stop them speeding, concidering how many schools are around here they need to sort this out and also we need street lights in alley at back of East Way more than cycle routes ! Bonjovigirl
  • Score: 1

5:48pm Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Repo wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?
As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic.

Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.
You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window!
I am aware of the fact some cars don't pay anything for the RFL / VED either but as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because that is the current system does not mean it is correct or fair.

I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!) but my point simply is that ANYBODY who uses the roads should pay for it's upkeep and it SHOULD come from the little disc (which they are soon to do away with)

Maintenance of the roads should not be paid for by pedestrians or from a centrally allocated government pot. Maintenance of the roads should be covered by those who use the roads whether they emit emissions or not.
I would suggest that there are very few people in the UK who do not benefit from the road system either directly or indirectly. Almost all goods and services that people require are delivered by road. Even if you do not own a vehicle you are still benefiting from the road system. Maybe we should all contribute to road maintenance - oh hang on a minute, we do!
Exactly and to quote Winston Churchill:

“It will be only a step from this for motorists to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created.”

Churchill’s opposition to the Road Fund was largely financial but not exclusively so. Fearing motorists would lay claim to roads by dint of paying for a small portion of their repair. (which stopped in 1937)

This is why Motorists do NOT pay for the roads, this is why Motorists do NOT own the roads, they are paid for from central coffers, a pot we ALL contribute to one way or another.
[quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]As the government don't want my 'road tax' for my cycle i would like to send it to you personally to spend it all on whatever you wish. Now based on the current tax bands for emissions how much do I owe you?[/p][/quote]As I said at the top for those that read everything, I am playing devils advocate here and was entering into an open and fair debate. I feel your comment was churlish and purile and didn't make any point other than give you an opportunity to be sarcastic. Just because the government doesn't want your money at the moment, it doesn't mean they are right or the system is fair.[/p][/quote]You are aware that some cars pay no Tax at all right? My dad had a Mini Cooper D Turbo and worked in field sales, on the road all day every day, 1000's of milez a year, he paid £30 a year to tax his car. So quite what amount you feel an emissions free cycle that is good for the environmemt and causes next to no damage to the roads is beyond me? As has been said before we ALL pay for the upkeep of the roads, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver. It doesn't come from that little disc in your car window![/p][/quote]I am aware of the fact some cars don't pay anything for the RFL / VED either but as I mentioned in my previous comment, just because that is the current system does not mean it is correct or fair. I'm not saying I have a magic wand or a better solution (If I did I would be running for office!) but my point simply is that ANYBODY who uses the roads should pay for it's upkeep and it SHOULD come from the little disc (which they are soon to do away with) Maintenance of the roads should not be paid for by pedestrians or from a centrally allocated government pot. Maintenance of the roads should be covered by those who use the roads whether they emit emissions or not.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that there are very few people in the UK who do not benefit from the road system either directly or indirectly. Almost all goods and services that people require are delivered by road. Even if you do not own a vehicle you are still benefiting from the road system. Maybe we should all contribute to road maintenance - oh hang on a minute, we do![/p][/quote]Exactly and to quote Winston Churchill: “It will be only a step from this for motorists to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created.” Churchill’s opposition to the Road Fund was largely financial but not exclusively so. Fearing motorists would lay claim to roads by dint of paying for a small portion of their repair. (which stopped in 1937) This is why Motorists do NOT pay for the roads, this is why Motorists do NOT own the roads, they are paid for from central coffers, a pot we ALL contribute to one way or another. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 15

6:16pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Shady81 says...

If buses are being diverted then it's going to cause delays. There putting cycle lanes in where there is already cycle lanes makes no sense ?!
If buses are being diverted then it's going to cause delays. There putting cycle lanes in where there is already cycle lanes makes no sense ?! Shady81
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

6:52pm Wed 25 Jun 14

winton50 says...

retry69 wrote:
There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian

s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about
I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all.

If I could understand what you were on about.

Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about[/p][/quote]I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all. If I could understand what you were on about. Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument? winton50
  • Score: 1

6:56pm Wed 25 Jun 14

winton50 says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
The Council has provided numbers showing how many motorists use the road everyday but not how many cyclists. With a cost of £650,000 I would have hoped (but doubt) that the Council has researched how many cyclists currently use this route and have some idea as to how many additional bike journeys these changes will generate.
.
The town is increasingly being littered with short sections of cycle lane which don't actually serve much purpose. I'd go as far to say that no cycle lane is better than short sections which force cyclists to constantly merge back into the main carriageway. I also don't see the point of cycle lanes which are blocked by parked cars as along Glenferness Aveneue where cyclists have to swerve in and out of the cycle lane.
.
Well said. I cycle Glenferness every day and get shouted at (albeit occasionally) for not using the 'cycle path' at the bridge. The fact that the path disappears without warning at the most dangerous part of the road seems to pass some people by!
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: The Council has provided numbers showing how many motorists use the road everyday but not how many cyclists. With a cost of £650,000 I would have hoped (but doubt) that the Council has researched how many cyclists currently use this route and have some idea as to how many additional bike journeys these changes will generate. . The town is increasingly being littered with short sections of cycle lane which don't actually serve much purpose. I'd go as far to say that no cycle lane is better than short sections which force cyclists to constantly merge back into the main carriageway. I also don't see the point of cycle lanes which are blocked by parked cars as along Glenferness Aveneue where cyclists have to swerve in and out of the cycle lane. .[/p][/quote]Well said. I cycle Glenferness every day and get shouted at (albeit occasionally) for not using the 'cycle path' at the bridge. The fact that the path disappears without warning at the most dangerous part of the road seems to pass some people by! winton50
  • Score: 12

7:04pm Wed 25 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
Yeah, you're a prime example of what Winston Churchill was on about.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]Yeah, you're a prime example of what Winston Churchill was on about. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 5

7:39pm Wed 25 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
Yeah, you're a prime example of what Winston Churchill was on about.
Great insurance ad makes me laugh
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]Yeah, you're a prime example of what Winston Churchill was on about.[/p][/quote]Great insurance ad makes me laugh kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Wed 25 Jun 14

retry69 says...

winton50 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian


s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about
I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all.

If I could understand what you were on about.

Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?
Why mention Columbia Road ? Simple question nothing rude or offensive unlike yours .that ok .........,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,..".,, and punctuation that's a bonus
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about[/p][/quote]I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all. If I could understand what you were on about. Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?[/p][/quote]Why mention Columbia Road ? Simple question nothing rude or offensive unlike yours .that ok .........,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,..".,, and punctuation that's a bonus retry69
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Wed 25 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

winton50 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian


s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about
I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all.

If I could understand what you were on about.

Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?
Steady that may be raciest
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about[/p][/quote]I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all. If I could understand what you were on about. Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?[/p][/quote]Steady that may be raciest kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Wed 25 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

retry69 wrote:
winton50 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian



s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about
I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all.

If I could understand what you were on about.

Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?
Why mention Columbia Road ? Simple question nothing rude or offensive unlike yours .that ok .........,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,..".,, and punctuation that's a bonus
Handbags
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about[/p][/quote]I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all. If I could understand what you were on about. Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?[/p][/quote]Why mention Columbia Road ? Simple question nothing rude or offensive unlike yours .that ok .........,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,..".,, and punctuation that's a bonus[/p][/quote]Handbags kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Wed 25 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

hadvar wrote:
Cool, reading this thread, not even cyclists like cycle lanes. So, the 'Bournemouth Council Chiefs' can stop urinating away our money on 'improvement schemes' that dont improve anything, and no-one wants. Seems perfectly logical to me.....
Even as a 12mph cyclist I don't much like them as they zigzag all over the place. For someone on a racing bike who can easily get up to 30 or 40mph they're completely useless. Either spend the money on relatively straight cycle lanes or don't bother at all, the half way house benefits nobody.
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Cool, reading this thread, not even cyclists like cycle lanes. So, the 'Bournemouth Council Chiefs' can stop urinating away our money on 'improvement schemes' that dont improve anything, and no-one wants. Seems perfectly logical to me.....[/p][/quote]Even as a 12mph cyclist I don't much like them as they zigzag all over the place. For someone on a racing bike who can easily get up to 30 or 40mph they're completely useless. Either spend the money on relatively straight cycle lanes or don't bother at all, the half way house benefits nobody. breamoreboy
  • Score: 7

8:19pm Wed 25 Jun 14

retry69 says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
winton50 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian



s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about
I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all.

If I could understand what you were on about.

Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?
Steady that may be raciest
No I'm local :)
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: There probably won't be a response from Winton50 as to why Columbia Road was mentioned but that link between Kinson Road and Ensbury Park is one of the very few that can be classed as a community link as both roads and pavements are shared by motorists,pedestrian s and cyclists nobody is left out so there can be no arguments between those particular modes of getting about[/p][/quote]I don't mind responding to one of the local trolls at all. If I could understand what you were on about. Can I suggest punctuation and a good book about constructing an argument?[/p][/quote]Steady that may be raciest[/p][/quote]No I'm local :) retry69
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Wed 25 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
sciac2001 "Is a pram a vehicle too?". I don't think it matters as I haven't seen a pram in years. Pushchairs, now that's a different matter entirely.
[quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too?[/p][/quote]sciac2001 "Is a pram a vehicle too?". I don't think it matters as I haven't seen a pram in years. Pushchairs, now that's a different matter entirely. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

9:17pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Ragwin says...

Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations. Ragwin
  • Score: 3

9:21pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

Ragwin wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.
If you believe that you'll believe anything.
That sort of statistic was being banded around years ago when petrol was 30p per gallon, they said then that car use would reduce significantly by the year 2000 and here we are 14 years later with more cars than ever on the roads.
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.[/p][/quote]If you believe that you'll believe anything. That sort of statistic was being banded around years ago when petrol was 30p per gallon, they said then that car use would reduce significantly by the year 2000 and here we are 14 years later with more cars than ever on the roads. Hessenford
  • Score: -1

9:26pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
Yeah, you're a prime example of what Winston Churchill was on about.
And your a prime example of a nut job.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]Yeah, you're a prime example of what Winston Churchill was on about.[/p][/quote]And your a prime example of a nut job. Hessenford
  • Score: -4

9:27pm Wed 25 Jun 14

WHYNOT says...

waste of time and money
waste of time and money WHYNOT
  • Score: -1

9:31pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Ragwin says...

Hessenford wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.
If you believe that you'll believe anything.
That sort of statistic was being banded around years ago when petrol was 30p per gallon, they said then that car use would reduce significantly by the year 2000 and here we are 14 years later with more cars than ever on the roads.
Crude oil production has barely changed since 2000.

There are 40 years of oil left. 10 years of that is unusable for light crude. Another 10 years of supply will be kept by those countries that have it for their own use. This leaves 20 years of supply. 10 years into this supply it will become evident that the price is rising dramatically and governments will restrict it's use to industry (mainly farming) only.

Ignore if you want, it makes no difference to what will happen.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.[/p][/quote]If you believe that you'll believe anything. That sort of statistic was being banded around years ago when petrol was 30p per gallon, they said then that car use would reduce significantly by the year 2000 and here we are 14 years later with more cars than ever on the roads.[/p][/quote]Crude oil production has barely changed since 2000. There are 40 years of oil left. 10 years of that is unusable for light crude. Another 10 years of supply will be kept by those countries that have it for their own use. This leaves 20 years of supply. 10 years into this supply it will become evident that the price is rising dramatically and governments will restrict it's use to industry (mainly farming) only. Ignore if you want, it makes no difference to what will happen. Ragwin
  • Score: 1

9:46pm Wed 25 Jun 14

glendower2909 says...

Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.
There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.
Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env

ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei

sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?
Hmm

Having passed the town hall today I would say that most of the cars parked appeared to be private cars.

I do hope that if these private cars are being regularly used by council employee as part of their job that they have the appropriate business uses on their insurance policy.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services![/p][/quote]Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.[/p][/quote]There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.[/p][/quote]Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?[/p][/quote]Hmm Having passed the town hall today I would say that most of the cars parked appeared to be private cars. I do hope that if these private cars are being regularly used by council employee as part of their job that they have the appropriate business uses on their insurance policy. glendower2909
  • Score: -3

9:56pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Ralph Horris says...

Castle Lane isn't closing, you just won't be able to access East Way from that end and you will have to drive up to the Broadway pub roundabout, turn left into Charminster Rd and come into East Way from the Charminster Rd end. Should you wish to do so. It won 't be compulsory.
Castle Lane isn't closing, you just won't be able to access East Way from that end and you will have to drive up to the Broadway pub roundabout, turn left into Charminster Rd and come into East Way from the Charminster Rd end. Should you wish to do so. It won 't be compulsory. Ralph Horris
  • Score: 2

10:01pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

Ragwin wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.
If you believe that you'll believe anything.
That sort of statistic was being banded around years ago when petrol was 30p per gallon, they said then that car use would reduce significantly by the year 2000 and here we are 14 years later with more cars than ever on the roads.
Crude oil production has barely changed since 2000.

There are 40 years of oil left. 10 years of that is unusable for light crude. Another 10 years of supply will be kept by those countries that have it for their own use. This leaves 20 years of supply. 10 years into this supply it will become evident that the price is rising dramatically and governments will restrict it's use to industry (mainly farming) only.

Ignore if you want, it makes no difference to what will happen.
I wont be here in 40 years so I don't really give a monkeys, cars will still be on our roads whether they be powered by petrol, diesel, donkey dung, cooking oil or electric power.
In 2010 fuel taxes raised over £27 billion for the government, vehicle excise duty raised just over £5 billion.
Out of those billions only £8billion was re invested on the roads which left £24 billion for the government to do what they like with.
Do you really believe any government when they say that they want to reduce car usage, no government want to lose this much revenue.
If motoring did drop significantly where would they recoup this massive drop in taxes, as cycling is supposed to be increasing vastly then I would say that they will be the next generation of people to be fleeced by successive governments, at the moment they pay nothing to use the highway, if car use drops massively they will be picking up the bill, sadly I wont be around by then to have a good gloat.
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.[/p][/quote]If you believe that you'll believe anything. That sort of statistic was being banded around years ago when petrol was 30p per gallon, they said then that car use would reduce significantly by the year 2000 and here we are 14 years later with more cars than ever on the roads.[/p][/quote]Crude oil production has barely changed since 2000. There are 40 years of oil left. 10 years of that is unusable for light crude. Another 10 years of supply will be kept by those countries that have it for their own use. This leaves 20 years of supply. 10 years into this supply it will become evident that the price is rising dramatically and governments will restrict it's use to industry (mainly farming) only. Ignore if you want, it makes no difference to what will happen.[/p][/quote]I wont be here in 40 years so I don't really give a monkeys, cars will still be on our roads whether they be powered by petrol, diesel, donkey dung, cooking oil or electric power. In 2010 fuel taxes raised over £27 billion for the government, vehicle excise duty raised just over £5 billion. Out of those billions only £8billion was re invested on the roads which left £24 billion for the government to do what they like with. Do you really believe any government when they say that they want to reduce car usage, no government want to lose this much revenue. If motoring did drop significantly where would they recoup this massive drop in taxes, as cycling is supposed to be increasing vastly then I would say that they will be the next generation of people to be fleeced by successive governments, at the moment they pay nothing to use the highway, if car use drops massively they will be picking up the bill, sadly I wont be around by then to have a good gloat. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

10:33pm Wed 25 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

I agree alternative forms of energy are likely to grow,

But have to draw issue with 'at the moment they pay nothing to use the highway, ".

Most cyclists will either have a car they pay for a partner who has a car they pay for. Plus roads are paid for in the main out of general taxation.

Why won't people accept this??

(Our house of two runs two cars and the bikes rarely get a look in so I am hardly biased in favour of cyclists I just understand things like 'facts' and reality')
I agree alternative forms of energy are likely to grow, But have to draw issue with 'at the moment they pay nothing to use the highway, ". Most cyclists will either have a car they pay for a partner who has a car they pay for. Plus roads are paid for in the main out of general taxation. Why won't people accept this?? (Our house of two runs two cars and the bikes rarely get a look in so I am hardly biased in favour of cyclists I just understand things like 'facts' and reality') scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

10:40pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Baysider says...

glendower2909 wrote:
Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.
There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.
Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env


ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei


sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?
Hmm

Having passed the town hall today I would say that most of the cars parked appeared to be private cars.

I do hope that if these private cars are being regularly used by council employee as part of their job that they have the appropriate business uses on their insurance policy.
If you mean the spaces at the front then they are not officers cars anyway since that area is reserved for members and visitors. And of course officers have to have extra insurance for business use on their own car! Which is checked annually and of course at their own expense before you venture off down that dead end.
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services![/p][/quote]Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.[/p][/quote]There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.[/p][/quote]Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?[/p][/quote]Hmm Having passed the town hall today I would say that most of the cars parked appeared to be private cars. I do hope that if these private cars are being regularly used by council employee as part of their job that they have the appropriate business uses on their insurance policy.[/p][/quote]If you mean the spaces at the front then they are not officers cars anyway since that area is reserved for members and visitors. And of course officers have to have extra insurance for business use on their own car! Which is checked annually and of course at their own expense before you venture off down that dead end. Baysider
  • Score: 1

11:17pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Baysider says...

Baysider wrote:
glendower2909 wrote:
Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
Baysider wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in ....
It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services!
Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.
There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.
Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env



ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei



sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?
Hmm

Having passed the town hall today I would say that most of the cars parked appeared to be private cars.

I do hope that if these private cars are being regularly used by council employee as part of their job that they have the appropriate business uses on their insurance policy.
If you mean the spaces at the front then they are not officers cars anyway since that area is reserved for members and visitors. And of course officers have to have extra insurance for business use on their own car! Which is checked annually and of course at their own expense before you venture off down that dead end.
Ha, ha. Some of you lot do make me giggle with your thumbs down. Sorry to burst your bubbles with some actual facts rather than just preconceptions and prejudices. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: I suspect the end result will be more congestion and higher polution levels. Unfortunately public transport and / or cycling is not a viable alternative for most people. It wwould take me 90 mins to get to work by bus and yes many years ago I did cycle the route but its not much fun in the wind and rain. Perhaps if the Council is keen for us to use "sustainable" transport they should trial it first at the Town Hall by closing the staff car park to encourage them to bus or cycle in .... It also amazes me how much money the Council can get hold of for such schemes ..... apparently always safely ringfenced from being used to improve essential services![/p][/quote]Hey Jobbie. I've already addressed your latest bleating about council staff and car parking at the Town Hall elsewhere but in case you missed it: the only staff provided with parking are those whose jobs are dependent on them having access to it to carry out their duties. Perhaps you think it would be a good use of officer time waiting for a bus with bags of OT equipment for example and then do the same for the next appointment but I don't.[/p][/quote]There are approximately 300 parking spaces at the Town Hall car parks, I doubt very much that there are 300 Council Staff who need to use their cars on a daily basis to carry out their duties. I bet many of them do not need to park there.[/p][/quote]Oh dear wrong again Jobbie. Firstly there are less than 200 spaces available at the Town Hall for officers so you are out by some way. Secondly, there are officers from planning/housing/env ironmental health/trading standards/building control/highways/lei sure/legal services/benefits who all need access to a car either daily or very regularly or indeed at very short notice in order to do the job they are paid for. I haven't even mentioned yet the 100's of carers, social workers, OT staff in social services alone who need to use a vehicle on a daily basis. Do you really want EHO's turning up to investigate food poisonong outbreaks on the bus or do you want them there asap? Why don't you just give this particular hobby horse a rest for a bit eh?[/p][/quote]Hmm Having passed the town hall today I would say that most of the cars parked appeared to be private cars. I do hope that if these private cars are being regularly used by council employee as part of their job that they have the appropriate business uses on their insurance policy.[/p][/quote]If you mean the spaces at the front then they are not officers cars anyway since that area is reserved for members and visitors. And of course officers have to have extra insurance for business use on their own car! Which is checked annually and of course at their own expense before you venture off down that dead end.[/p][/quote]Ha, ha. Some of you lot do make me giggle with your thumbs down. Sorry to burst your bubbles with some actual facts rather than just preconceptions and prejudices. ;-) Baysider
  • Score: -2

3:44am Thu 26 Jun 14

simong says...

I hope the council don't plead poverty when future council tax rises are discussed. If they have enough money to waste on more ridiculous cycle lanes then I can only assume they are awash with money.
I hope the council don't plead poverty when future council tax rises are discussed. If they have enough money to waste on more ridiculous cycle lanes then I can only assume they are awash with money. simong
  • Score: -5

7:04am Thu 26 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

rozmister wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun
Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.
Thanks for the tip
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun[/p][/quote]Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the tip kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 1

7:08am Thu 26 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
rozmister wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun
Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.
Thanks for the tip
Perhaps a flashing sign each end of the obstruction warning driver they may be require a picnic like you do in Cornwall
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun[/p][/quote]Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the tip[/p][/quote]Perhaps a flashing sign each end of the obstruction warning driver they may be require a picnic like you do in Cornwall kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

9:29am Thu 26 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

budgetvelo wrote:
suzigirl wrote: Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements!
What a stupid, ill thought out comment. What a good way to discourage cycling and make more people take to their cars thus increasing the volume of traffic on our already overburdened road network..clever
Wind your neck in mate - it is called having an opinion. If cyclists are intent on breaking the laws then they should be accountable and identifiable.
[quote][p][bold]budgetvelo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements![/p][/quote]What a stupid, ill thought out comment. What a good way to discourage cycling and make more people take to their cars thus increasing the volume of traffic on our already overburdened road network..clever[/p][/quote]Wind your neck in mate - it is called having an opinion. If cyclists are intent on breaking the laws then they should be accountable and identifiable. suzigirl
  • Score: -3

9:40am Thu 26 Jun 14

justme20092009 says...

more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots
more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots justme20092009
  • Score: -4

9:57am Thu 26 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

justme20092009 wrote:
more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots
What makes you say 'cyclists who put nothing into pay for it'? (sic)
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots[/p][/quote]What makes you say 'cyclists who put nothing into pay for it'? (sic) scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

11:24am Thu 26 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Ragwin wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.
The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.
That'll be very interesting. What will be taxed to make up the shortfall on fuel tax and the VAT on the fuel tax?
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Waste of money, waste of time and waste of resources, all this time and effort would have been better spent repairing and improving the existing road network in Bournemouth for the majority rather than pandering to the minority.[/p][/quote]The planners are looking to the future rather than the present. By 2025 private car travel would have reduced by 50%. By then the availability of petrol for private motorists will begin to be tightly restricted due to supply limitations.[/p][/quote]That'll be very interesting. What will be taxed to make up the shortfall on fuel tax and the VAT on the fuel tax? breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

11:29am Thu 26 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Hessenford "I wont be here in 40 years so I don't really give a monkeys". Modern society in one.
Hessenford "I wont be here in 40 years so I don't really give a monkeys". Modern society in one. breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

11:34am Thu 26 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
I agree alternative forms of energy are likely to grow,

But have to draw issue with 'at the moment they pay nothing to use the highway, ".

Most cyclists will either have a car they pay for a partner who has a car they pay for. Plus roads are paid for in the main out of general taxation.

Why won't people accept this??

(Our house of two runs two cars and the bikes rarely get a look in so I am hardly biased in favour of cyclists I just understand things like 'facts' and reality')
With respect to your final comment you're clearly on the wrong forum, facts, reality, no way José :-)
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: I agree alternative forms of energy are likely to grow, But have to draw issue with 'at the moment they pay nothing to use the highway, ". Most cyclists will either have a car they pay for a partner who has a car they pay for. Plus roads are paid for in the main out of general taxation. Why won't people accept this?? (Our house of two runs two cars and the bikes rarely get a look in so I am hardly biased in favour of cyclists I just understand things like 'facts' and reality')[/p][/quote]With respect to your final comment you're clearly on the wrong forum, facts, reality, no way José :-) breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

11:39am Thu 26 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

justme20092009 wrote:
more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots
I'm a cyclist. I would pay tax on my income if it was high enough. I pay other taxes, insurance tax and council tax to name just two. So where does this complete cobblers about cyclists not paying tax come into this discussion?
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots[/p][/quote]I'm a cyclist. I would pay tax on my income if it was high enough. I pay other taxes, insurance tax and council tax to name just two. So where does this complete cobblers about cyclists not paying tax come into this discussion? breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

11:58am Thu 26 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

An aside but at least it's transport related, even if it's a stupid idea from those very silly continentals that'll never catch on here "We are pleased to announce that we bundle the EuroPython ticket with a BVG ticket (the Berlin transport authority). So all rides using the public transportation system within Berlin are free for all attendees during the conference. For details see https://ep2014.europ
ython.eu/en/venue/pu
blic-transportation/
"
An aside but at least it's transport related, even if it's a stupid idea from those very silly continentals that'll never catch on here "We are pleased to announce that we bundle the EuroPython ticket with a BVG ticket (the Berlin transport authority). So all rides using the public transportation system within Berlin are free for all attendees during the conference. For details see https://ep2014.europ ython.eu/en/venue/pu blic-transportation/ " breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

justme20092009 wrote:
more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots
"Whole lotta frothing going on"

Could I add the word traveller or perhaps immigration on top of cyclist, or will someone explode. How about wind farm.

Froth, howl, whine, cry - it wasn't like it in my day.

Please no more Tax comments either - you're wrong.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots[/p][/quote]"Whole lotta frothing going on" Could I add the word traveller or perhaps immigration on top of cyclist, or will someone explode. How about wind farm. Froth, howl, whine, cry - it wasn't like it in my day. Please no more Tax comments either - you're wrong. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 2

2:13pm Thu 26 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

justme20092009 wrote:
more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots
and don't want the cycle lanes. They would rather illegally use the pavements and annoy car drivers on the road!
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots[/p][/quote]and don't want the cycle lanes. They would rather illegally use the pavements and annoy car drivers on the road! suzigirl
  • Score: -7

2:38pm Thu 26 Jun 14

middistance says...

suzigirl wrote:
budgetvelo wrote:
suzigirl wrote: Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements!
What a stupid, ill thought out comment. What a good way to discourage cycling and make more people take to their cars thus increasing the volume of traffic on our already overburdened road network..clever
Wind your neck in mate - it is called having an opinion. If cyclists are intent on breaking the laws then they should be accountable and identifiable.
because that works for cars so well. taking one test in your lifetime and think that makes an above average driver. Most wouldn't pass again now. Driving standards are just shocking, and inconsiderate to other road users.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]budgetvelo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should pay for a yearly licence to ride a bicycle on the road and also take some sort of test and also have some kind of identification so that they can be brought to book for any road traffic infringements![/p][/quote]What a stupid, ill thought out comment. What a good way to discourage cycling and make more people take to their cars thus increasing the volume of traffic on our already overburdened road network..clever[/p][/quote]Wind your neck in mate - it is called having an opinion. If cyclists are intent on breaking the laws then they should be accountable and identifiable.[/p][/quote]because that works for cars so well. taking one test in your lifetime and think that makes an above average driver. Most wouldn't pass again now. Driving standards are just shocking, and inconsiderate to other road users. middistance
  • Score: 5

4:51pm Thu 26 Jun 14

whersmycuffigcufflinks says...

Make every motorist have a bike rack fitted
when a biker is spotted
put the bike on the rack
and let the cyclist drive the car
sure to be a better driver
that's it.
Make every motorist have a bike rack fitted when a biker is spotted put the bike on the rack and let the cyclist drive the car sure to be a better driver that's it. whersmycuffigcufflinks
  • Score: 2

7:18pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

Scrap VED for cars, scrap insurance for car drivers and scrap the MOT for all vehicles and then perhaps motorists wont be so pi55ed off with cyclists, oh nearly forgot, scrap all the traffic lights so that none of us have to abide by a red light then there will be no arguments between car drivers and cyclists, I would call that a level playing field for all of us.
Scrap VED for cars, scrap insurance for car drivers and scrap the MOT for all vehicles and then perhaps motorists wont be so pi55ed off with cyclists, oh nearly forgot, scrap all the traffic lights so that none of us have to abide by a red light then there will be no arguments between car drivers and cyclists, I would call that a level playing field for all of us. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

8:14pm Thu 26 Jun 14

eyesropen says...

Aside from the pointlessness of this and waste of money which could be spent repairing our crumbling roads, why do the works need to take so long?? It's not that big a job surely.
Aside from the pointlessness of this and waste of money which could be spent repairing our crumbling roads, why do the works need to take so long?? It's not that big a job surely. eyesropen
  • Score: 1

10:13pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Ragwin says...

Hessenford wrote:
Scrap VED for cars, scrap insurance for car drivers and scrap the MOT for all vehicles and then perhaps motorists wont be so pi55ed off with cyclists, oh nearly forgot, scrap all the traffic lights so that none of us have to abide by a red light then there will be no arguments between car drivers and cyclists, I would call that a level playing field for all of us.
I would do the opposite. I would increase VED to £5,000 a year, charge workers £10 a day for using their cars, introduce 5 year bans for speeding, offences and have motorists retake their driving test every 3 years.

And when you get car tax your vehicle reg would be linked to your bank account so any driving offences are automatically deducted from your bank account with a 6 month appeal process.

And finally I would also have CCTV at petrol pumps that c heck the car reg to ensure it is insured. If it is not insured then no petrol or diesel can be taken from the pump.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Scrap VED for cars, scrap insurance for car drivers and scrap the MOT for all vehicles and then perhaps motorists wont be so pi55ed off with cyclists, oh nearly forgot, scrap all the traffic lights so that none of us have to abide by a red light then there will be no arguments between car drivers and cyclists, I would call that a level playing field for all of us.[/p][/quote]I would do the opposite. I would increase VED to £5,000 a year, charge workers £10 a day for using their cars, introduce 5 year bans for speeding, offences and have motorists retake their driving test every 3 years. And when you get car tax your vehicle reg would be linked to your bank account so any driving offences are automatically deducted from your bank account with a 6 month appeal process. And finally I would also have CCTV at petrol pumps that c heck the car reg to ensure it is insured. If it is not insured then no petrol or diesel can be taken from the pump. Ragwin
  • Score: 1

10:31pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Ragwin says...

An advert for this website was shown about solicitors who specialise in cases where cyclists are hit by motorists.

http://carryoncyclin
g.co.uk/
An advert for this website was shown about solicitors who specialise in cases where cyclists are hit by motorists. http://carryoncyclin g.co.uk/ Ragwin
  • Score: 2

2:22am Fri 27 Jun 14

mimi55 says...

rozmister wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun
Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.
I think he was being sarcastic?? Brings back memories of childhood visits to
Devon, when the hold ups could last 7 hours, and the ice-cream sellers used
to go along the queues!
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Will there be catering And toilet facilities .for those trapped in the traffic jams for longer than they are already .a first aid station for heat stroke given that it is in the middle of summer. And packed with holiday maker .the Irish caravan club not to mention the long suffering residents and workers that already suffer the biggest gathering of traffic lights on the planet and of course a social worker to warn parents about keeping their children in appalling conditions during the 3hour trip to school.perhaps a few market stools CHAPS selling their wares carpets beads fake wstches sandwiches perhaps a tea Waller could be fun[/p][/quote]Why should there be? When I go on holiday to cornwall it takes me 4 hours to get there but I don't expect some poor sod to set up a first aid tent just in case I get heatstroke. You're responsible for your own wellbeing, take plenty of water, a snack, etc and man up.[/p][/quote]I think he was being sarcastic?? Brings back memories of childhood visits to Devon, when the hold ups could last 7 hours, and the ice-cream sellers used to go along the queues! mimi55
  • Score: 0

9:17am Fri 27 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

Ragwin wrote:
An advert for this website was shown about solicitors who specialise in cases where cyclists are hit by motorists. http://carryoncyclin g.co.uk/
What about motorists hit by cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: An advert for this website was shown about solicitors who specialise in cases where cyclists are hit by motorists. http://carryoncyclin g.co.uk/[/p][/quote]What about motorists hit by cyclists? suzigirl
  • Score: -3

9:22am Fri 27 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

Hessenford wrote:
Scrap VED for cars, scrap insurance for car drivers and scrap the MOT for all vehicles and then perhaps motorists wont be so pi55ed off with cyclists, oh nearly forgot, scrap all the traffic lights so that none of us have to abide by a red light then there will be no arguments between car drivers and cyclists, I would call that a level playing field for all of us.
I'm not sure where your playing field is.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Scrap VED for cars, scrap insurance for car drivers and scrap the MOT for all vehicles and then perhaps motorists wont be so pi55ed off with cyclists, oh nearly forgot, scrap all the traffic lights so that none of us have to abide by a red light then there will be no arguments between car drivers and cyclists, I would call that a level playing field for all of us.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure where your playing field is. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 2

9:27am Fri 27 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

justme20092009 wrote:
more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots
I'd say that was quite clever myself.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: more money being wasted for cyclists who put nothing into pay for it dont need insurance or tax,,idiots[/p][/quote]I'd say that was quite clever myself. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 1

10:58am Fri 27 Jun 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
Funny how drivers seem to know what cyclists should be doing ,better than cyclists do.
Motorers this road will be a nightmare for you as you deserve it,suck it up,or ride a bike!
****
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: Funny how drivers seem to know what cyclists should be doing ,better than cyclists do. Motorers this road will be a nightmare for you as you deserve it,suck it up,or ride a bike![/p][/quote]**** thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 0

11:02am Fri 27 Jun 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
Just a thought,but if people didn't drive like **** then there wouldn't be any need to keep cars away from bikes.
never been a cyclist riding like a c*** has there!
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: Just a thought,but if people didn't drive like **** then there wouldn't be any need to keep cars away from bikes.[/p][/quote]never been a cyclist riding like a c*** has there! thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Professor Zaroff says...

sciac2001 wrote:
JediJimbob wrote:
Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation.

Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle.

Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance.

I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about.

I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!!

Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.
Is a pram a vehicle too?
Only if it has Compo in it.
[quote][p][bold]sciac2001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JediJimbob[/bold] wrote: Before I open myself up for a torrent of abuse let me say I am a devils advocate here. Yes I am a car driver but I did get my cycling proficiency test and have spent 1,000's of hours cycling on rural roads and in Bournemouth so I can say with knowledge and experience there are good and bad road users on both sides of the equation. Firstly I do believe cyclists SHOULD pay to use the road. It is called vehicle excise duty and last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle. Secondly, I have narrowly avoided accidents from both cars AND bicycles that skip red lights. The problem here is that bicycles are not required to have insurance so if they cause the accident, it is deemed the car owners responsibility to pay for damage to the vehicle in the same way as if they were hit by an uninsured car. For this reason, cyclists SHOULD pay for insurance. I have witnessed the police on many occasions ignore cyclists and motorists who have broken the law and gone against the highway code right in front of them so maybe our Police force need to actually enforce the so called zero tolerance approach they usually talk about. I am not anti cycling but just last week I had a complete moron (I won't classify him as a cyclist) decide that highway code was a suggestion and it was acceptable to play chicken with me on a roundabout by cycling anti-clockwise!! Unfortunately on this occasion he did indeed bounce off my bonnet as I stopped and he was too busy looking elsewhere to see me. No injuries thank god but he did demand I pay for the damage to his bike!!! Get a grip people. we all have to use the road to get places but we should all be responsible for our actions and pay our way.[/p][/quote]Is a pram a vehicle too?[/p][/quote]Only if it has Compo in it. Professor Zaroff
  • Score: 1

3:02pm Fri 27 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

suzigirl wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
An advert for this website was shown about solicitors who specialise in cases where cyclists are hit by motorists. http://carryoncyclin g.co.uk/
What about motorists hit by cyclists?
So rare it wasn't, worth the price of card in the newsagents let alone the press.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: An advert for this website was shown about solicitors who specialise in cases where cyclists are hit by motorists. http://carryoncyclin g.co.uk/[/p][/quote]What about motorists hit by cyclists?[/p][/quote]So rare it wasn't, worth the price of card in the newsagents let alone the press. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

11:44am Sat 28 Jun 14

ScaredAmoeba says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
Funny how drivers seem to know what cyclists should be doing ,better than cyclists do.
Motorers this road will be a nightmare for you as you deserve it,suck it up,or ride a bike!
In my experience, a significant proportion of motorists demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Traffic Law, and an utter lack of skill regarding how to drive legally, competently and safely.

For instance a 30 mph sign does not mean 40-60 mph and occasionally 80+mph! BTW, unless expressly permitted, parking on the pavement is prohibited and means driving on the pavement. Between 2005-2009 pavement drivers killed one person ever eight days, or 151 times as many people on the pavement (footway or verge) as were killed by pavement cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: Funny how drivers seem to know what cyclists should be doing ,better than cyclists do. Motorers this road will be a nightmare for you as you deserve it,suck it up,or ride a bike![/p][/quote]In my experience, a significant proportion of motorists demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Traffic Law, and an utter lack of skill regarding how to drive legally, competently and safely. For instance a 30 mph sign does not mean 40-60 mph and occasionally 80+mph! BTW, unless expressly permitted, parking on the pavement is prohibited and means driving on the pavement. Between 2005-2009 pavement drivers killed one person ever eight days, or 151 times as many people on the pavement (footway or verge) as were killed by pavement cyclists. ScaredAmoeba
  • Score: 3

1:23pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Avengerboy says...

Good news, I will cycle past you lardies in your traffic jam.
Good news, I will cycle past you lardies in your traffic jam. Avengerboy
  • Score: 2

3:36pm Sun 29 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Avengerboy wrote:
Good news, I will cycle past you lardies in your traffic jam.
I believe that motorists in the Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole conurbation are trying to catch up (groan!!!) with their peers in central London, where they manage the magnificent average speed of 7mph. What is it about the British culture that we like queues? At least a majority seem to, personally I can't stand them.
[quote][p][bold]Avengerboy[/bold] wrote: Good news, I will cycle past you lardies in your traffic jam.[/p][/quote]I believe that motorists in the Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole conurbation are trying to catch up (groan!!!) with their peers in central London, where they manage the magnificent average speed of 7mph. What is it about the British culture that we like queues? At least a majority seem to, personally I can't stand them. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

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