More cycle lanes will make Bournemouth safer (From Bournemouth Echo)

Why will cyclists be safer? There is no legislation in place to stop vehicles parking in cycle lanes. They don't use them now so what's the point. Typical stretch between Glenferness Avenue and Boundary Rd roundabout going towards Wallisdown where there is a narrow stretch of dual carriageway and a cycle lane on the pavement, they still ride on the road, so what's the point in more?

So will it make Bournemouth safer for pedestrians and other road users who have to endure the "rogue" cyclists getting up to their usual tricks on pavements and breaking the law on the roads? Car drivers and motorcyclists are accountable for their actions as we are identifiable unlike the "rogue" cyclists......

Waste of money as cyclists dont use existing lanes now,for example Darby's corner to Gravel hill and beyond,then Darby's corner to Mountbatten Roundabout,Ham Lane and the new cycle lane from Bear Cross roundabout up to the retail park.it seems they would rather just carry on risking accidents and blaming drivers.If there is a perfectly good cycle lane and they dont use it a fine perhaps would convince them that their arrogant attitude will not be tolerated.The money should be put to better use in my opinion.Stand back for incoming.

More cycle lanes are all very well, but until it is made compulsory for cyclists to use them and not ride willy-nilly all over the pavements there doesn't seem to be much point.

I agree wholeheartedly with Suzigirl and feel that cyclists should be made accountable for their actions.

It's apartheid all over again.

More cycle lanes not to use then. I often walk from the crooked beam restaurant to iford roundabout which has a cycle lane between the 2 and there are more cyclists on the path than on the cycle lane. Ok i understand if its a small child but the amount of adults is a joke and they seem to think that THEY are the ones with right of way.

gosh suzigirl you really are obsessed with your anti-cyclist views - glad you don't include all the motorcyclists who seem to think the speed limit is only for cars , but then i believe you are a motorcyclist , so maybe that explains your views.

and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!

Cycle lanes are not the answer compulsory cycling test and licensing is .. Anyone can buy a bike and hit the road oblivious to the Highway Code which relates to them by law. Yet we have idiots on two wheels riding on pavements carving up traffic and riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake. Education and legislation and insurance. That is the answer not unused bike lanes.

As a cyclist that obeys the law, I have issues with a lot of the cycle paths in Bournemouth. I drive too, so know what it's like from both sides. The cycle lanes on the roads are dangerous, and a waste of time and money, and I therefore ignore them. Highway code states that cyclists do not have to use them, and used to say that one should cycle at least 1m from the gutter to avoid obstacles such as drains and debris. Drivers, when not blocking them, think they can pass a cyclist without giving any room, because the car is not in the cycle lane. This is dangerous, and in contravention to the highway code (rule 163: give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215). ).

The paths also stop when you need them most, at junctions or roundabouts. Short cycle lanes with awkward access, such as the one between Glenferness Avenue and Boundary Rd roundabout going towards Wallisdown are not used because if you are going along Wallisdown road, you can't see the access point to join it. Without a fully thought through network, segregated from roads and pedestrians, the odd stretch of cycle path is a waste of time and money, and creates more danger through complacency by both drivers and cyclists.

The standard of observation and knowledge of the highway code from drivers is shocking. When in a car you don't notice it as much, but when vulnerable on a bike, it's blindingly obvious. Rarely does a day go by that I don't have a frightening near miss, from a driver passing too close, or pulling out on me. If you shout out to warn the driver, you face a barrage of abuse.

Yes, I've seen idiot cyclists that jump red lights, ride on the pavement, or not have lights, but I've also seen drivers jump red lights, drive without lights, and even actually attempt to knock me off deliberately. Once even mounting the pavement after forcing me onto it in an attempt to kill me, I believe.

Drivers often state that cyclists don't pay road tax, and shouldn't be on the roads. Sorry to report car drivers don't pay road tax either. They just pay a tax to pollute. Roads are funded by council and income tax, not that our council spends nearly enough on maintaining our roads.

dangerous cyclists (and for sure they are around) are mainly a danger to themselves- if they cause a collision then they come of worst ( this is just basic physics after all) - the anti-cycle brigade talk on here you'd expect to see headlines like "deaths caused by cyclists rise again" or " yet another pedestrian injured in collision with cyclist" but you don't do you? What sadly you do read all too often is the death and injuries caused DAILY by motorised vehicles, but hey don't let a trivial thing like the facts get in the way of your bile and prejudice will you!

I'm 26 and never wanted to drive. I'm happy bussing and cycling, however over the years as a cyclist I've seen some crazy things.. people driving so dangerously sometimes, cutting corners, not indicating, not understanding roundabouts, going through red lights, not looking out for cyclists in poor weather, suddenly pulling out of side roads and driveways.. it is NOT hard to see us cyclists. It really isn't.

I've had a few of those "1 second earlier/later and I'd be dead" situations. Sometimes on busier roads I feel so vulnerable I do cycle (slowly) on pavements, especially on Castle Lane, which fortunately has lots of cycle lanes.. but we need more!

Just want to point out I'm a good cyclist, I use lights, and only really use the pavement when it's empty. I know some cyclists are pretty crazy too.

Clever. They don't really want the 'cycle lanes' for cyclists, it's actually to create more parking spaces for their own Council works vans!

Baywolf wrote:
Cycle lanes are not the answer compulsory cycling test and licensing is .. Anyone can buy a bike and hit the road oblivious to the Highway Code which relates to them by law. Yet we have idiots on two wheels riding on pavements carving up traffic and riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake. Education and legislation and insurance. That is the answer not unused bike lanes.

Compulsory licensing for bikes is daft. It'll just discourage people from using them.
Bikes are so much less dangerous than motor vehicles for everyone involved because they don't weigh so much or travel so fast.
Bikes cause much less injuries and deaths than cars.
The more people who cycle, the safer it becomes for everyone.
What is "riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake"?

Baywolf wrote:
Cycle lanes are not the answer compulsory cycling test and licensing is .. Anyone can buy a bike and hit the road oblivious to the Highway Code which relates to them by law. Yet we have idiots on two wheels riding on pavements carving up traffic and riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake. Education and legislation and insurance. That is the answer not unused bike lanes.

There are lots of drivers who seem oblivious to the highway code too.
The highway code says you should give a cyclist as much room as a small vehicle when overtaking.
Education is a good thing though. I'm up for making cycle training more available. Also I think cycle awareness training for motorists is a good idea too.

ryanuk86 wrote:
Just want to point out I'm a good cyclist, I use lights, and only really use the pavement when it's empty. I know some cyclists are pretty crazy too.

Most pavements are deserted most of the time so all pavements could made be shared routes where necessary. From Moordown to Winton the pavements are wide enough to have a marked cycle track on the double yellow lined side of the road. Pedestrians and cyclists is a much safer mix.

I actually think as part of the driving test, you should have to spend the morning cycling on the roads. Would soon make one realise how vulnerable they are and need as much respect as other road users.

The attitudes of both the cyclists and the drivers on this forum, views representative of the town, are probably the real reason why Bournemouth is so precarious for cyclists.

Address the lack of respect for other people and maybe the accident statistics will start to drop.

Can we make people take a licence to be nice to each other?

the definition of a footpath by Bournemouth council "CYCLE LANE"

suzigirl wrote:
So will it make Bournemouth safer for pedestrians and other road users who have to endure the "rogue" cyclists getting up to their usual tricks on pavements and breaking the law on the roads? Car drivers and motorcyclists are accountable for their actions as we are identifiable unlike the "rogue" cyclists......

Ok, cars have number plates, but many drivers still routinely ignore speed limits, jump lights and drive atrociously. When I walk with my 10 year old son to school in the morning, it's the cars that make us feel vulnerable, not the cycles.

Bournemouth is a hell hole for both motorists and cyclists. Too much traffic, roads not wide enough, many roads should be one way only.

uvox44 wrote:
gosh suzigirl you really are obsessed with your anti-cyclist views - glad you don't include all the motorcyclists who seem to think the speed limit is only for cars , but then i believe you are a motorcyclist , so maybe that explains your views.

suzigirl is no more obsessive than you are with your anti car views against motorists.

uvox44 wrote:
and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!

Cyclists have been known to flee the site of an accident, just as some car drivers do, the difference is that car drivers can be identified by make and colour of car and more importantly the registration number.
If a cyclist flees the scene of an accident how are they held accountable if they cannot be identified.
All cyclists should have some kind of registration and more importantly some form of insurance.
I have to have insurance for my home, washing machine, gas boiler, and fridge freezer and god knows what else neither of which uses the road so why shouldn't cyclists in this day and age.
More cycle lanes, don''t make me laugh, most cyclists don't use the road properly let alone a purpose built road way just for them.

uvox44 wrote:
and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!

Cyclists have been known to flee the site of an accident, just as some car drivers do, the difference is that car drivers can be identified by make and colour of car and more importantly the registration number.
If a cyclist flees the scene of an accident how are they held accountable if they cannot be identified.
All cyclists should have some kind of registration and more importantly some form of insurance.
I have to have insurance for my home, washing machine, gas boiler, and fridge freezer and god knows what else neither of which uses the road so why shouldn't cyclists in this day and age.
More cycle lanes, don''t make me laugh, most cyclists don't use the road properly let alone a purpose built road way just for them.

Dean Park wrote:
More cycle lanes are all very well, but until it is made compulsory for cyclists to use them and not ride willy-nilly all over the pavements there doesn't seem to be much point.

I agree wholeheartedly with Suzigirl and feel that cyclists should be made accountable for their actions.

It would also contribute to cyclists' safety if they all obeyed the Highway Code! In particular stopping at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings when the lights were red, giving way to traffic coming from the right at roundabouts and stopping to look for oncoming traffic when emerging from side roads.

bluto999 wrote:

Baywolf wrote:
Cycle lanes are not the answer compulsory cycling test and licensing is .. Anyone can buy a bike and hit the road oblivious to the Highway Code which relates to them by law. Yet we have idiots on two wheels riding on pavements carving up traffic and riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake. Education and legislation and insurance. That is the answer not unused bike lanes.

Compulsory licensing for bikes is daft. It'll just discourage people from using them.
Bikes are so much less dangerous than motor vehicles for everyone involved because they don't weigh so much or travel so fast.
Bikes cause much less injuries and deaths than cars.
The more people who cycle, the safer it becomes for everyone.
What is "riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake"?

Swirving in And out away from the pavement side without looking behind and not cycling in a straight line.

RivermeadMike wrote:

Dean Park wrote:
More cycle lanes are all very well, but until it is made compulsory for cyclists to use them and not ride willy-nilly all over the pavements there doesn't seem to be much point.

I agree wholeheartedly with Suzigirl and feel that cyclists should be made accountable for their actions.

It would also contribute to cyclists' safety if they all obeyed the Highway Code! In particular stopping at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings when the lights were red, giving way to traffic coming from the right at roundabouts and stopping to look for oncoming traffic when emerging from side roads.

Same applies to pedestrian too; the car rules?

Baywolf wrote:

bluto999 wrote:

Baywolf wrote:
Cycle lanes are not the answer compulsory cycling test and licensing is .. Anyone can buy a bike and hit the road oblivious to the Highway Code which relates to them by law. Yet we have idiots on two wheels riding on pavements carving up traffic and riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake. Education and legislation and insurance. That is the answer not unused bike lanes.

Compulsory licensing for bikes is daft. It'll just discourage people from using them.
Bikes are so much less dangerous than motor vehicles for everyone involved because they don't weigh so much or travel so fast.
Bikes cause much less injuries and deaths than cars.
The more people who cycle, the safer it becomes for everyone.
What is "riding in an unsafe manner which makes it unsafe for drivers to overtake"?

Swirving in And out away from the pavement side without looking behind and not cycling in a straight line.

A wet manhole cover, or a pothole is a potentially lethal obstacle for a bike. That'll cause someone to swerve. A gust of wind might do too.
That's why the highway code says you should leave a car's width when overtaking.

I agree with pyro_tim. New cycle lanes will not solve anything until the greater issues are tackled properly.
I am a cyclist and a driver. Just this morning, I was forced to make an emergency stop in my car on Holdenhurst Road because three lads on their bikes shot out across the road in front of me from behind the vehicle on the other side. Had I not stopped so quickly, I would almost certainly have caused at least two of them life-threatening injuries. This is sadly not an unusual event for many drivers in the area – hence the strength of animosity towards all cyclists. As a cyclist, I do everything I should – wear the correct clothing / helmet, use lights in the dark, use the cycle lanes, stop for red lights etc. etc. But I am fully aware that I am one of a minority. For every good cyclist I see on the roads now, I probably see four or five intent upon flouting the law. My daughter regularly asks if she can cycle the three miles to school and it pains me to constantly refuse her the opportunity to get some exercise and be more independent. However, I cannot cope with the overwhelming fear I feel every time she does it because I know it simply isn’t safe. As a parent I am adamant that she is too old to be cycling on the pavements but know she isn’t safe to be cycling on the road.
On the other hand, not all car drivers are saints either! Too many people in cars are so intent upon driving at the maximum speed limit at all times, in spite of the safety factors involved, that they forget about stopping distances, allowing a decent amount of space when they overtake and other common courtesies and rules inherent with following the Highway Code. They may not necessarily be breaking the law; but would it seriously hurt them to show a little consideration for the others around them instead of leading their whole lives at a break-neck speed?
Until the Council is ready to fund the Police force sufficiently to educate and, more importantly, fine all offenders, nothing will improve. Similarly, if the Council continues to put cycle lanes where they want rather than where they are actually needed by the cyclists, then the lanes will continue to be under-utilised. And for as long as vehicle drivers (not just cars) are intent upon parking and driving in the cycle lanes which do exist, then the faith in the system by everyone will be continually corroded. It is, unfortunately, a blatant case of apathy all round.

Hessenford wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!

Cyclists have been known to flee the site of an accident, just as some car drivers do, the difference is that car drivers can be identified by make and colour of car and more importantly the registration number.
If a cyclist flees the scene of an accident how are they held accountable if they cannot be identified.
All cyclists should have some kind of registration and more importantly some form of insurance.
I have to have insurance for my home, washing machine, gas boiler, and fridge freezer and god knows what else neither of which uses the road so why shouldn't cyclists in this day and age.
More cycle lanes, don''t make me laugh, most cyclists don't use the road properly let alone a purpose built road way just for them.

You don't have to have insurance for your washing machine, boiler or fridge. it's just a good idea so you can replace them if something happens to them.
If you've got a mortgage then the mortgage company will insist that you have house insurance so they won't lose out if something happens to your house.
The law says that you do have to have car insurance to drive your car on the road. This is because it is easy to cause damage with a car that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for otherwise.
On a bike you are much much less likely to cause such expensive damage. This is why it's not compulsory.
I do have insurance on my bike. It's very cheap. Much cheaper than car insurance. This is because bikes don't cause much damage, ever.

bluto999 wrote:

Hessenford wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!

Cyclists have been known to flee the site of an accident, just as some car drivers do, the difference is that car drivers can be identified by make and colour of car and more importantly the registration number.
If a cyclist flees the scene of an accident how are they held accountable if they cannot be identified.
All cyclists should have some kind of registration and more importantly some form of insurance.
I have to have insurance for my home, washing machine, gas boiler, and fridge freezer and god knows what else neither of which uses the road so why shouldn't cyclists in this day and age.
More cycle lanes, don''t make me laugh, most cyclists don't use the road properly let alone a purpose built road way just for them.

You don't have to have insurance for your washing machine, boiler or fridge. it's just a good idea so you can replace them if something happens to them.
If you've got a mortgage then the mortgage company will insist that you have house insurance so they won't lose out if something happens to your house.
The law says that you do have to have car insurance to drive your car on the road. This is because it is easy to cause damage with a car that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for otherwise.
On a bike you are much much less likely to cause such expensive damage. This is why it's not compulsory.
I do have insurance on my bike. It's very cheap. Much cheaper than car insurance. This is because bikes don't cause much damage, ever.

You Say....The law says that you do have to have car insurance to drive your car on the road. This is because it is easy to cause damage with a car that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for otherwise. On a bike you are much much less likely to cause such expensive damage. This is why it's not compulsory.
.
Sorry but its about time bikes were insured, bikes run into people and cars and cause damage which is expensive to repair and the cyclist laughs his head off about it.
I get fed up with all the sob stories from cyclists, they cycle all over the road, ignore red lights, cycle the wrong way along major roads in these dam cycle lanes, cycle at night with no lights and moan when they get hit, I have not an ounce of sympathy for them, they want to use the roads then abide by the rules of the road and get some protection so that when something does happen and it's the cyclist who was at fault at least the victim has some redress.
Most, not all, cyclists act like children on the road but then as they get it all for free I suppose they can.
Until cyclists are controlled by law as motorists are then I will shed no tears when their stupidity causes them harm on the roads.
The roads are for drivers who have passed a driving test which gives them the right to be there, most cyclists couldn't steer a supermarket trolley without causing mayhem.

I haven't really got an opinion either way. I cycle occasionally and drive every day. However, I did see five, yes five, council vehicles parked in the cycle lanes on Wellington Road all day on Tuesday and all day yesterday. There were more than enough parking spaces around the corner but this would have involved an arduos thirty yard walk. Just saying.

Once again it comes down to cyclist going 'But car drivers....' and car drivers going 'But cyclists...' its pathetic. Cyclists tell me where it says its ok to break the law because of the 'But they do this' defence? Saying more people are hurt by cars than bikes is a mixture of the damage caused by a lump of metal weighing a few tonnes verses a bike and rider and the amount of cars vs bikes. Why not be an example to other riders and stay off the pavements,use lights and follow the highway code then car drivers will not be able to complain about it will they!

Once again it comes down to cyclist going 'But car drivers....' and car drivers going 'But cyclists...' its pathetic. Cyclists tell me where it says its ok to break the law because of the 'But they do this' defence? Saying more people are hurt by cars than bikes is a mixture of the damage caused by a lump of metal weighing a few tonnes verses a bike and rider and the amount of cars vs bikes. Why not be an example to other riders and stay off the pavements,use lights and follow the highway code then car drivers will not be able to complain about it will they!

Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!Cyclists have been known to flee the site of an accident, just as some car drivers do, the difference is that car drivers can be identified by make and colour of car and more importantly the registration number.
If a cyclist flees the scene of an accident how are they held accountable if they cannot be identified.
All cyclists should have some kind of registration and more importantly some form of insurance.
I have to have insurance for my home, washing machine, gas boiler, and fridge freezer and god knows what else neither of which uses the road so why shouldn't cyclists in this day and age.
More cycle lanes, don''t make me laugh, most cyclists don't use the road properly let alone a purpose built road way just for them.You don't have to have insurance for your washing machine, boiler or fridge. it's just a good idea so you can replace them if something happens to them.
If you've got a mortgage then the mortgage company will insist that you have house insurance so they won't lose out if something happens to your house.
The law says that you do have to have car insurance to drive your car on the road. This is because it is easy to cause damage with a car that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for otherwise.
On a bike you are much much less likely to cause such expensive damage. This is why it's not compulsory.
I do have insurance on my bike. It's very cheap. Much cheaper than car insurance. This is because bikes don't cause much damage, ever.You Say....The law says that you do have to have car insurance to drive your car on the road. This is because it is easy to cause damage with a car that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for otherwise. On a bike you are much much less likely to cause such expensive damage. This is why it's not compulsory.
.
Sorry but its about time bikes were insured, bikes run into people and cars and cause damage which is expensive to repair and the cyclist laughs his head off about it.
I get fed up with all the sob stories from cyclists, they cycle all over the road, ignore red lights, cycle the wrong way along major roads in these dam cycle lanes, cycle at night with no lights and moan when they get hit, I have not an ounce of sympathy for them, they want to use the roads then abide by the rules of the road and get some protection so that when something does happen and it's the cyclist who was at fault at least the victim has some redress.
Most, not all, cyclists act like children on the road but then as they get it all for free I suppose they can.
Until cyclists are controlled by law as motorists are then I will shed no tears when their stupidity causes them harm on the roads.
The roads are for drivers who have passed a driving test which gives them the right to be there, most cyclists couldn't steer a supermarket trolley without causing mayhem.Hessenford wrote
Sorry but its about time bikes were insured, bikes run into people and cars and cause damage which is expensive to repair and the cyclist laughs his head off about it.
I get fed up with all the sob stories from cyclists, they cycle all over the road, ignore red lights, cycle the wrong way along major roads in these dam cycle lanes, cycle at night with no lights and moan when they get hit, I have not an ounce of sympathy for them, they want to use the roads then abide by the rules of the road and get some protection so that when something does happen and it's the cyclist who was at fault at least the victim has some redress.
Most, not all, cyclists act like children on the road but then as they get it all for free I suppose they can.
Until cyclists are controlled by law as motorists are then I will shed no tears when their stupidity causes them harm on the roads.
The roads are for drivers who have passed a driving test which gives them the right to be there, most cyclists couldn't steer a supermarket trolley without causing mayhem.

It is the minority of cyclists that flout the law, as it is with drivers. You're diatribe solves nothing, and makes me suspect you are the sort of person that has tried to knock me off, or the same breed as the one that knocked over and killed my 6 year old sister when she was cycling.

Roads are not for drivers that have passed their test, but for all of us to get from a to b. They are also covered in asphalt because of cyclists in the first place, not cars. So be grateful, or you'd still be driving on mud tracks.

Cyclists are vulnerable, even if they are doing something stupid, all you can do is tut, and make sure you don't hit them in your tonne of steel. At the end of the day they cannot hurt you, but you and even me in my car can hurt them when sitting in air conditioned bliss. Most of those cyclists killed or seriously injured have done nothing wrong, and are obeying the rules. Usually unfortunately, due to numbers, it's the driver that is in the wrong, as they are the vehicle that hits the cyclist. No matter what the cyclist has done, the driver should have been aware of the potential risk, and given enough room to stop, or avoid. Granted, occasionally, as someone else has said, a cyclist shoots out in front of you unseen, and this wouldn't be the drivers fault nor would it be if the cyclist jumped the lights, but most other incidents are. I don't think any car has ever given me enough room when following to stop should I fall, and rarely do drivers give me enough room when passing, so that should I fall off, they'd miss me. The highway code allows for these occurrences, but I doubt you, along with most other drivers do.

Just because you remember the bad cyclists, think of the thousands of others you didn't notice in your driving career when you passed so close you almost killed them. This can only be the case why you don't remember them.

Just remember, cyclists are both humans and traffic, not an inconvenience to you that may hold you up for 30 seconds until the next set of lights.

Hessenford - Try riding a bike for a week. You may see things differently.

Insurance and compulsory helmets, lights, etc.for all cyclists may persuade some of the minority idiots off their bikes.

edit*
Only really workable if it's enforced properly though.

bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford - Try riding a bike for a week. You may see things differently.

I suspect I would see red traffic lights unlike most cyclists.

Hessenford you seem very upset at the fact that cyclists don't pay as much as you do for their transport - perhaps your anger might lead you to try cycling yourself - then your blinkers might fall away after you've been cut up numerous times, had impatient motorists squeeze past only to join the back of a queue of cars that they could have waited a few seconds longer to join, etc etc. Yes there are bad cyclists but as I said earlier they are mainly a danger to themselves , which is the opposite of a bad motor vehicle driver , who are not only a danger to themselves but EVERYONE. But please provide evidence (links to all the hundreds of news stories about the damage done by this army of reckless cyclists that supposedly is terrorising the population ) i guess i might be a long time waiting and we both know why don't we?

uvox44 wrote:
and for all those who say cyclists aren't accountable for their actions have you actually thought through what you are saying- are you actually saying that if a cyclist CAUSES an accident that injures someone that the police would not get involved because they can't be held accountable? Clearly this is rubbish , isn't it? So in what ways are cyclists not held accountable? And what do you feel they are not being held accountable for exactly? Come on think it through!

You, sir, are an idiot! It would be almost impossible to track a cyclist down should they decide to leave the scene of an acident. And the fact that many (not all) cyclist choose to run red lights/cycle on the pavement just proves the fact!

uvox44 wrote:
Hessenford you seem very upset at the fact that cyclists don't pay as much as you do for their transport - perhaps your anger might lead you to try cycling yourself - then your blinkers might fall away after you've been cut up numerous times, had impatient motorists squeeze past only to join the back of a queue of cars that they could have waited a few seconds longer to join, etc etc. Yes there are bad cyclists but as I said earlier they are mainly a danger to themselves , which is the opposite of a bad motor vehicle driver , who are not only a danger to themselves but EVERYONE. But please provide evidence (links to all the hundreds of news stories about the damage done by this army of reckless cyclists that supposedly is terrorising the population ) i guess i might be a long time waiting and we both know why don't we?

Get off your horse, you know as well as I do that cyclists have caused damage or injury.
I do cycle but mainly in the new forest for some peace and quiet and away from traffic.
I wouldn't like to be a cyclist these days for the simple reason that roads are mainly used by vehicles which hurt if they hit you plus as a responsible cyclist I wouldn't like to inflict any more two wheeled nightmares on my fellow motorists like the morons they have to deal with at present.
Wait as long as you like for any links but you know as well as I do when a cyclist hits a car or walker it's not a big news story but when one of these two wheeled idiots gets hit by a car it's national headline news, so wait as long as you like, if your a cyclist the longer you wait the longer I will have to put up with one less cyclist weaving in and out of traffic and running red lights.

radical wrote:

bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford - Try riding a bike for a week. You may see things differently.

I suspect I would see red traffic lights unlike most cyclists.

radical, I invite you to ride a bike for a bit too. Show us how it should be done! Might make a good feature for the echo.

bluto999 wrote:

radical wrote:

bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford - Try riding a bike for a week. You may see things differently.

I suspect I would see red traffic lights unlike most cyclists.

radical, I invite you to ride a bike for a bit too. Show us how it should be done! Might make a good feature for the echo.

No problem, probably do a better job than some of the brain dead treehuggers on the roads these days.

sorry got a bit lost in the logic? of your rant there Radical (but the bit about getting off my horse made me laugh - must be all that processed meat affecting you). You seem to be arguing that you don't cycle to protect car drivers from bad cyclists such as yourself?:
" plus as a responsible cyclist I wouldn't like to inflict any more two wheeled nightmares on my fellow motorists like the morons they have to deal with at present."
Can you see the inherent contradiction in your statement above - are you a responsible cyclist or a two-wheel moron? If you are a responsible cyclist please get out there on your bike and set a good example to all those maniacs you seem to see out there (unlike the minority that dare i suggest less prejudiced people notice)

Hessenford you really need help. I didn't mean for it paste all comments to go up, just your comment, but I can't edit it out now.

I have reread my post, and it is a balanced, mostly non emotional comment stating how we need to drive to not kill people.

I have 10 bikes in the garage, so I invite you to come on a ride with me, and a journo from the Echo, and anyone else for that matter, around Bournemouth. Just an hour of your time, on a nice sunny day. Then tell me who scares / irritates / upsets you. You don't even need to talk to me, you can follow, or lead, up to you. Just bring your own helmet

Cyclists simply put are not doing exactly what I want, ie. driving a car.
I like cars because I am lazy and completely selfish. You know I actually had to slow down for one the other day, added at least 2 seconds to my journey, outrageous.
They should be made to buy petrol liike me, and be forced to que for it.
Sometimes they even havd the gall to overtake me, in a car, next thing will be more of them and that must not happen.
These **** keep fit freaks really expose me for the idle bigoted miserable mug that I am.
Being bled by every parasite that thinks he can make a fast buck out of my weakness for the latest status symbol on wheels.
Make them suffer, it'll make me feel so much better.

pyro - tim - i suspect you may have noticed that the anti-cyclist brigade does NOT want a calm rational discussion of the reality of cycling and its benefits/ harms , they are most likely just those who hate it when a bike whizzes past them stuck in a traffic jam (caused by others who choose cars over better urban transport - and yes i do drive but no i don't moan when i am stuck in traffic, anymore than i moan about car drivers in the warm and dry if i get caught in a downpour on my bike (or horse if you believe radical) because it is a choice I'm lucky enough to be able to make.

mmmmmmm wrote:
It's apartheid all over again.

You're right, it is, cyclists should have equality under the law and be acountable for their actions like other road users are.

lol @ seabeam- many a truth in a joke!

uvox44 wrote:
dangerous cyclists (and for sure they are around) are mainly a danger to themselves- if they cause a collision then they come of worst ( this is just basic physics after all) - the anti-cycle brigade talk on here you'd expect to see headlines like "deaths caused by cyclists rise again" or " yet another pedestrian injured in collision with cyclist" but you don't do you? What sadly you do read all too often is the death and injuries caused DAILY by motorised vehicles, but hey don't let a trivial thing like the facts get in the way of your bile and prejudice will you!

It says 1cyclist died in 2011 in Bournemouth, hardly a gorefest of car carnage is it.

GAHmusic- please quote the specific wording of this law that exempts cyclists - or does no such law exist? Try cycling into a police car and see if this mythical lack of accountabilty actually exists!

casualtyofchocolate wrote:
I agree with pyro_tim. New cycle lanes will not solve anything until the greater issues are tackled properly.
I am a cyclist and a driver. Just this morning, I was forced to make an emergency stop in my car on Holdenhurst Road because three lads on their bikes shot out across the road in front of me from behind the vehicle on the other side. Had I not stopped so quickly, I would almost certainly have caused at least two of them life-threatening injuries. This is sadly not an unusual event for many drivers in the area – hence the strength of animosity towards all cyclists. As a cyclist, I do everything I should – wear the correct clothing / helmet, use lights in the dark, use the cycle lanes, stop for red lights etc. etc. But I am fully aware that I am one of a minority. For every good cyclist I see on the roads now, I probably see four or five intent upon flouting the law. My daughter regularly asks if she can cycle the three miles to school and it pains me to constantly refuse her the opportunity to get some exercise and be more independent. However, I cannot cope with the overwhelming fear I feel every time she does it because I know it simply isn’t safe. As a parent I am adamant that she is too old to be cycling on the pavements but know she isn’t safe to be cycling on the road.
On the other hand, not all car drivers are saints either! Too many people in cars are so intent upon driving at the maximum speed limit at all times, in spite of the safety factors involved, that they forget about stopping distances, allowing a decent amount of space when they overtake and other common courtesies and rules inherent with following the Highway Code. They may not necessarily be breaking the law; but would it seriously hurt them to show a little consideration for the others around them instead of leading their whole lives at a break-neck speed?
Until the Council is ready to fund the Police force sufficiently to educate and, more importantly, fine all offenders, nothing will improve. Similarly, if the Council continues to put cycle lanes where they want rather than where they are actually needed by the cyclists, then the lanes will continue to be under-utilised. And for as long as vehicle drivers (not just cars) are intent upon parking and driving in the cycle lanes which do exist, then the faith in the system by everyone will be continually corroded. It is, unfortunately, a blatant case of apathy all round.

Never run to be a concillor, you make way to much sense

uvox44 wrote:
GAHmusic- please quote the specific wording of this law that exempts cyclists - or does no such law exist? Try cycling into a police car and see if this mythical lack of accountabilty actually exists!

Well to be fair you are right unfortunately it is the lack of equality in how it is aplied. You will find an interesting piece of footage on youtube where a cyclist having been stopped for commiting a motoring offence refused to give his details to the police officer. The cyclist was a law student and was quite right in the end he just cycled off but the officer did not persue him and why? Because a lack of structure such as dvla registration gave the officer nothing to trace the vehicle to summons and the offence didn't warrant arrest. Look for it it's interesting

GAHmusic - with your knowledge of physics and also just commonsense answer this very simple question - would you rather be in a car hit by a cyclist or on a bike hit by a car (at the same speed)-

I know the video well GAHmusic- i don't condone cyclists going through red lights and never do this either in a car or cycle, but this cyclist did not (fortunately ) harm himself or anyone else and the police officer was committing an assault by grabbing him - presumably the officer knew this and this the main reason why he didn't pursue the cycist.

uvox44 wrote:
sorry got a bit lost in the logic? of your rant there Radical (but the bit about getting off my horse made me laugh - must be all that processed meat affecting you). You seem to be arguing that you don't cycle to protect car drivers from bad cyclists such as yourself?:
" plus as a responsible cyclist I wouldn't like to inflict any more two wheeled nightmares on my fellow motorists like the morons they have to deal with at present."
Can you see the inherent contradiction in your statement above - are you a responsible cyclist or a two-wheel moron? If you are a responsible cyclist please get out there on your bike and set a good example to all those maniacs you seem to see out there (unlike the minority that dare i suggest less prejudiced people notice)

Glad I gave you a laugh, your interpretation of my reasoning for not cycling is way out of wack, I cycle along dirt tracks at speed and enjoy the fresh air away from traffic fumes and clogged roads.
Most cyclists on our roads today think that that's where they are, they have no road sense in fact they have no sense what so ever.
Because of the cyclists who cause the problems of today on the roads this has caused all cyclists to be tarred with the same brush and I am guilty of this also, for this reason I would not inflict myself on any motorist by riding my bike on the road, they would see me as just another tit on a bike, and rightly so, even though I may be riding lawfully.
I am fully aware of the hatred between motorist and cyclist, most of this hatred is caused by a select few cyclists who seem to think they are above the law when it comes to the rules of the road, I have shouted at a few myself sometimes, running red lights when traffic is already moving from the green light on the opposite road, riding at night with no lights, riding the wrong way along a major road, cyclists using mobile phones, just a few infringements that a motorist would be heavily fined for.
So read what you like into my comments, I don't really care, I am happy that I can drive my car to work and cycle when not at work without inflicting myself on any wound up motorists.

I saw a cyclist riding in a cycle lane at 7pm the other evening.

Trouble was he was cycling against the flow of traffic on the wrong side of the road!.

No high vis jacket and no lights!!!!

radical- if i followed your logic then everytime i saw a bad driver (and there are quite a few , but as a percentage probably no more or less than the percentage of bad cyclists- they are however far more dangerous because they are in fast , heavy vehicles not on light realtively slow and exposed ones) then i would ban myself from driving a car on the grounds that the stressed responsible cyclists on the road don't need another (percieved) dangerous driver!!! It is a very funny thought process and admittedly would solve the congestion around town overnight but doubt it will catch on!

uvox44 wrote:
radical- if i followed your logic then everytime i saw a bad driver (and there are quite a few , but as a percentage probably no more or less than the percentage of bad cyclists- they are however far more dangerous because they are in fast , heavy vehicles not on light realtively slow and exposed ones) then i would ban myself from driving a car on the grounds that the stressed responsible cyclists on the road don't need another (percieved) dangerous driver!!! It is a very funny thought process and admittedly would solve the congestion around town overnight but doubt it will catch on!

Take the pi55 all you like the simple fact is that cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling on any roads.
Yes there are dangerous drivers on the roads but I have yet to see one going over a red light on purpose, drive against the flow of traffic and drive with no lights on during darkness.
I think you will find there are more cyclists riding at night without lights than there are motorists and given the ratio of cars to cyclists I think that's pretty high.
Cyclist are not safe to be on the road and should be relegated to disused railway track beds.

thanks radical , you have proved beyond doubt that you won't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices

Radical, you don't drive at night do you? I've seen drivers do all that. They often park against the flow of traffic on the one way section of St Michaels Road. Not to mention the drunks on the road driving with no lights, going through red lights etc etc. Then the usual 3 cars going through on "amber" when the second two were definitely red. Bad cyclists exist, not a lot we can do about it, just the same as the bad drivers, but don't tar us law abiding road users with the same brush.

All drivers should not overtake any road user, cyclist or not approaching a junction, lights or roundabouts, and give everyone space to be an idiot. I assume you do it to other cars, I know I do when driving, so why not cyclists? Let's make the place safer ourselves, instead of blaming someone else

uvox44 wrote:
thanks radical , you have proved beyond doubt that you won't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices

And the facts are what exactly, the only fact I can see is that 99% of cyclists on the road have a death wish and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near traffic. Nothing to do with prejudices, just what I see every day on the road .

well we must travel on different roads because you'd have divide by 10 or more to justify that statement - it is as ludicrous as me saying that 99 per cent of car drivers have a death wish really

radical wrote:

BH10D wrote:

radical wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
radical- if i followed your logic then everytime i saw a bad driver (and there are quite a few , but as a percentage probably no more or less than the percentage of bad cyclists- they are however far more dangerous because they are in fast , heavy vehicles not on light realtively slow and exposed ones) then i would ban myself from driving a car on the grounds that the stressed responsible cyclists on the road don't need another (percieved) dangerous driver!!! It is a very funny thought process and admittedly would solve the congestion around town overnight but doubt it will catch on!

Take the pi55 all you like the simple fact is that cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling on any roads.
Yes there are dangerous drivers on the roads but I have yet to see one going over a red light on purpose, drive against the flow of traffic and drive with no lights on during darkness.
I think you will find there are more cyclists riding at night without lights than there are motorists and given the ratio of cars to cyclists I think that's pretty high.
Cyclist are not safe to be on the road and should be relegated to disused railway track beds.

There are some brain dead morons posting comments as well. your making yourself look a right tool.

Go away you sad little character , rather than attempt an insult why not try commenting on the issue in hand or is it to hard for you to string more than one or two sentences together, dick.

You said cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling and 99% percent of cyclists have a death wish is ridiculous. There are good and bad cyclists and drivers. Come up with some real facts rather than stubborn blinkered prejudice.

Obviously the moderator is currently sleeping :-)

radical wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
Hessenford you seem very upset at the fact that cyclists don't pay as much as you do for their transport - perhaps your anger might lead you to try cycling yourself - then your blinkers might fall away after you've been cut up numerous times, had impatient motorists squeeze past only to join the back of a queue of cars that they could have waited a few seconds longer to join, etc etc. Yes there are bad cyclists but as I said earlier they are mainly a danger to themselves , which is the opposite of a bad motor vehicle driver , who are not only a danger to themselves but EVERYONE. But please provide evidence (links to all the hundreds of news stories about the damage done by this army of reckless cyclists that supposedly is terrorising the population ) i guess i might be a long time waiting and we both know why don't we?

Get off your horse, you know as well as I do that cyclists have caused damage or injury.
I do cycle but mainly in the new forest for some peace and quiet and away from traffic.
I wouldn't like to be a cyclist these days for the simple reason that roads are mainly used by vehicles which hurt if they hit you plus as a responsible cyclist I wouldn't like to inflict any more two wheeled nightmares on my fellow motorists like the morons they have to deal with at present.
Wait as long as you like for any links but you know as well as I do when a cyclist hits a car or walker it's not a big news story but when one of these two wheeled idiots gets hit by a car it's national headline news, so wait as long as you like, if your a cyclist the longer you wait the longer I will have to put up with one less cyclist weaving in and out of traffic and running red lights.

Are you mental?

"when a cyclist hits a car or walker it's not a big news story"

Whenever a pedestrian is injured by a cyclist it's front page news on the Echo. There was a manhunt when someone hit an old lady, stopped to see if she was OK and then rode off.

BH10D wrote:

radical wrote:

BH10D wrote:

radical wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
radical- if i followed your logic then everytime i saw a bad driver (and there are quite a few , but as a percentage probably no more or less than the percentage of bad cyclists- they are however far more dangerous because they are in fast , heavy vehicles not on light realtively slow and exposed ones) then i would ban myself from driving a car on the grounds that the stressed responsible cyclists on the road don't need another (percieved) dangerous driver!!! It is a very funny thought process and admittedly would solve the congestion around town overnight but doubt it will catch on!

Take the pi55 all you like the simple fact is that cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling on any roads.
Yes there are dangerous drivers on the roads but I have yet to see one going over a red light on purpose, drive against the flow of traffic and drive with no lights on during darkness.
I think you will find there are more cyclists riding at night without lights than there are motorists and given the ratio of cars to cyclists I think that's pretty high.
Cyclist are not safe to be on the road and should be relegated to disused railway track beds.

There are some brain dead morons posting comments as well. your making yourself look a right tool.

Go away you sad little character , rather than attempt an insult why not try commenting on the issue in hand or is it to hard for you to string more than one or two sentences together, dick.

You said cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling and 99% percent of cyclists have a death wish is ridiculous. There are good and bad cyclists and drivers. Come up with some real facts rather than stubborn blinkered prejudice.

So you say I'm prejudiced , if that's true then its the stupid moronic actions of some cyclists that has caused me to be that way. I can live with that, quite frankly I don't care if you can.

For more examples of people's ill informed and often dangerous views on cyclists take a look at @CycleHatred on twitter.

GAHmusic wrote:
Obviously the moderator is currently sleeping :-)

Sam's probably bored by the monotony of all this!

I assume that all the motorists whinging on here ALWAYS adhere to the highway code. That includes never straying over any speed limits and using lights when conditions necisstate - like when it is incredibly dull - like it is this morning Friday 22nd & when it is snowing!

I know for a fact they don't as I live on the A35 with at least 10 sets of traffic lights in 1 mile of road.

I'd say 1 in 500 cars sticks to the speed limit, of 30 MPH, outside where I live.

Seems pretty moronic really as you are just contributing to the queues that you must enjoy sitting in!

Perhaps if they adjusted their attitude from their cocoon of metal then they would get more respect from cyclists.

The amount of times cars overtake me yet then veer to the left immediately after is staggering. It's like they have very small brains and are also scared of putting their car towards the middle of the road so that there is room on the inside.

Is this because they are scared of being hit by traffic coming the opposite way? Think about it eh you angry little men.

Radical:"So you say I'm prejudiced , if that's true then its the stupid moronic actions of some cyclists that has caused me to be that way. I can live with that, quite frankly I don't care if you can."

note the use of the word "some" in Radicals post above- yet he claims it is 99 per cent of cyclists- slipped up there didn't we?

"Our recent work has delivered approximately 1.3Km of such segregated lanes alongside Ringwood Road between Bear Cross and Poole Lane Roundabout.” It's about quality not distance. Quality relates to accident prevention in and around schools etc, Winton and Glenmore being glaring omissions.

radical wrote:

BH10D wrote:

radical wrote:

BH10D wrote:

radical wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
radical- if i followed your logic then everytime i saw a bad driver (and there are quite a few , but as a percentage probably no more or less than the percentage of bad cyclists- they are however far more dangerous because they are in fast , heavy vehicles not on light realtively slow and exposed ones) then i would ban myself from driving a car on the grounds that the stressed responsible cyclists on the road don't need another (percieved) dangerous driver!!! It is a very funny thought process and admittedly would solve the congestion around town overnight but doubt it will catch on!

Take the pi55 all you like the simple fact is that cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling on any roads.
Yes there are dangerous drivers on the roads but I have yet to see one going over a red light on purpose, drive against the flow of traffic and drive with no lights on during darkness.
I think you will find there are more cyclists riding at night without lights than there are motorists and given the ratio of cars to cyclists I think that's pretty high.
Cyclist are not safe to be on the road and should be relegated to disused railway track beds.

There are some brain dead morons posting comments as well. your making yourself look a right tool.

Go away you sad little character , rather than attempt an insult why not try commenting on the issue in hand or is it to hard for you to string more than one or two sentences together, dick.

You said cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling and 99% percent of cyclists have a death wish is ridiculous. There are good and bad cyclists and drivers. Come up with some real facts rather than stubborn blinkered prejudice.

So you say I'm prejudiced , if that's true then its the stupid moronic actions of some cyclists that has caused me to be that way. I can live with that, quite frankly I don't care if you can.

Oh at least take responsibility for what you say.

Most cycle lanes are ill-conceived and poorly designed and usually stopp when you need them most (ie at junctions etc)
And for the ill-advised out there Car drivers don't pay road tax they pay Vehicle Excise Duty which is effectively a pollution charge.
In addition I would guess that a majority of cyclists are also car users and by using their bikes are actually contributing to a reduction in congestion. Motorists sat in never ending queues at rush hour should be pleased there are cyclists rather than more cars.
Of course there are plenty of idiotic cyclists as there are idiotic car drivers and pedestrians but the actions of a few should not tar the majority who obey the rules and ride courteously and safely.

radical wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
radical- if i followed your logic then everytime i saw a bad driver (and there are quite a few , but as a percentage probably no more or less than the percentage of bad cyclists- they are however far more dangerous because they are in fast , heavy vehicles not on light realtively slow and exposed ones) then i would ban myself from driving a car on the grounds that the stressed responsible cyclists on the road don't need another (percieved) dangerous driver!!! It is a very funny thought process and admittedly would solve the congestion around town overnight but doubt it will catch on!

Take the pi55 all you like the simple fact is that cyclists are beyond a doubt brain dead morons when it comes to cycling on any roads.
Yes there are dangerous drivers on the roads but I have yet to see one going over a red light on purpose, drive against the flow of traffic and drive with no lights on during darkness.
I think you will find there are more cyclists riding at night without lights than there are motorists and given the ratio of cars to cyclists I think that's pretty high.
Cyclist are not safe to be on the road and should be relegated to disused railway track beds.

There are cyclists and there are people who use bicycles.
The two are fundamentally different and in my experience people who use bicycles rather than cyclists display a totally different attitude to other road users.
Your comments are breathtaking in their ignorance and display the kind of stupidity associated with with the worst kind of road users AND the worst kind of cyclists.
Grow up !

I think if you glance over some of the childish, bickering remarks from some of the road users be it cycle or cars it may give a hint to indicate some of the problems that face responsible road users

uvox44 wrote:
gosh suzigirl you really are obsessed with your anti-cyclist views - glad you don't include all the motorcyclists who seem to think the speed limit is only for cars , but then i believe you are a motorcyclist , so maybe that explains your views.

I am not anti-cyclist - I am anti-idiot whether it be on a bicycle, motor bike or car! I have said this before I don't understand why the so called "vulnerable" cyclists take unnecessary risks with their lives doing stupid things like going through red lights - cycling in dark clothing with no lights! I am very respectful to law abiding cyclists when I am riding/driving but as for Mr Chav cyclist or Mr lycra mob well.......

suzigirl wrote:

uvox44 wrote: gosh suzigirl you really are obsessed with your anti-cyclist views - glad you don't include all the motorcyclists who seem to think the speed limit is only for cars , but then i believe you are a motorcyclist , so maybe that explains your views.

I am not anti-cyclist - I am anti-idiot whether it be on a bicycle, motor bike or car! I have said this before I don't understand why the so called "vulnerable" cyclists take unnecessary risks with their lives doing stupid things like going through red lights - cycling in dark clothing with no lights! I am very respectful to law abiding cyclists when I am riding/driving but as for Mr Chav cyclist or Mr lycra mob well.......

You run them over?

suzigirl wrote:

uvox44 wrote:
gosh suzigirl you really are obsessed with your anti-cyclist views - glad you don't include all the motorcyclists who seem to think the speed limit is only for cars , but then i believe you are a motorcyclist , so maybe that explains your views.

I am not anti-cyclist - I am anti-idiot whether it be on a bicycle, motor bike or car! I have said this before I don't understand why the so called "vulnerable" cyclists take unnecessary risks with their lives doing stupid things like going through red lights - cycling in dark clothing with no lights! I am very respectful to law abiding cyclists when I am riding/driving but as for Mr Chav cyclist or Mr lycra mob well.......

I wear lycra for cycling. Best tool for the job, however, I usually cover it up with loose shorts. You ride motorbikes I assume, so you wear leathers. What's the difference? Both look stupid when worn out of context

pyro_tim wrote:

suzigirl wrote:

uvox44 wrote: gosh suzigirl you really are obsessed with your anti-cyclist views - glad you don't include all the motorcyclists who seem to think the speed limit is only for cars , but then i believe you are a motorcyclist , so maybe that explains your views.

I am not anti-cyclist - I am anti-idiot whether it be on a bicycle, motor bike or car! I have said this before I don't understand why the so called "vulnerable" cyclists take unnecessary risks with their lives doing stupid things like going through red lights - cycling in dark clothing with no lights! I am very respectful to law abiding cyclists when I am riding/driving but as for Mr Chav cyclist or Mr lycra mob well.......

I wear lycra for cycling. Best tool for the job, however, I usually cover it up with loose shorts. You ride motorbikes I assume, so you wear leathers. What's the difference? Both look stupid when worn out of context

point taken - not all cyclists that wear lycra are in the mob! I have to say there is nothing nicer that seeing a man riding a bike properly in lycra - especially the butt cheeks LOL!.....

they'll just stick to the pavements as usual...about time they needed insurance

hmmm chrissec - somewhat late to the troll party!

I have nothing against cyclists however i get fed up when as a pedestrian a cyclist nearly ploughs into you on a pavement or when you cross the road at a pelican crossing after they have jumped the lights.

More consideration all round and I wish they would have lights on their cycles when it is dark.

Motorists need to allow more room when passing a cycle

nottingham wrote:
I have nothing against cyclists however i get fed up when as a pedestrian a cyclist nearly ploughs into you on a pavement or when you cross the road at a pelican crossing after they have jumped the lights.

More consideration all round and I wish they would have lights on their cycles when it is dark.

Motorists need to allow more room when passing a cycle

Yeah i know it happens all the time, but it always amazes me how they manage to only nearly plough into you

Dont worry drivers your quite safe with me when im cycling.I have insurance to cover you up to £10 million.So if the day comes when i smash into you,wrecking your car,possibly seriously injuring or killing you and find myself standing at the side of the road muttering "didnt see you mate" you have nothing to worry about.Drive safe happy people

The Driver Privilege Checklist
If I am hurt or killed while driving, unless I am intoxicated or grossly negligent, I will not be blamed for my decision to drive.
If I live in North America, my driving is subsidized by my local, regional, and federal government, who provide roads and infrastructure. This subsidy is far beyond that given to any other form of daily transportation.
Learning to drive is a rite of passage, seen as a normal and necessary step towards adulthood, whereas other forms of transport are seen as childish or impractical.
If I choose to transport my children in a car, I will not be called a bad parent or berated for doing so.
If my child is injured or killed while in my car, I will not be blamed for their death unless I was intoxicated or otherwise grossly negligent.
If while driving I injure or kill another person, whether they are another driver, a passenger, a pedestrian, or a cyclist, unless I am intoxicated or otherwise grossly negligent this will be seen nothing more than a regrettable accident.
Large areas of the city, suburb, or rural area I live in are built and laid out with driving in mind to the exclusion of other forms of transportation, and may be totally inaccessible to non-drivers.
While travelling I do not have to experience cold, heat, rain, or snow for more than a few moments unless I choose to.
I can complain to friends, family, and aquaintances about minor accidents and other annoyances without being told that I should stop driving.
It is easier for me than it is for non-drivers to buy many staple goods, such as groceries, as they are often sold in car-centric locations which are difficult to access by other means of transport. I also have the advantage of more easily buying in bulk.
Unless I am very extravagant, the money I spend on purchasing and running my car is not seen as wasted, as a car is seen as a necessity. And the most obvious:
While in transit, I am protected by a 2-tonne metal machine which is faster, stronger, and more durable than anything else I encounter on the road besides larger cars and trucks. If I am in a collision with a pedestrian or a cyclist, even if I am not at fault, I am much more likely to escape without serious injury or death.
If I make a mistake while driving, am in an accident, or cause injury to myself or others, this will not be held against all drivers or considered proof that driving is inherently dangerous or irresponsible.

are you reading this because youre actually interested in whats going on?
it could be a lot bigger start of something that will take a lot longer to change than anyone knows
http://aseasyasridin
gabike.wordpress.com
/2013/02/26/no-you-a
re-not-held-up-on-du
tch-cycle-paths/

that ^^^ was about cycle lanes.
this is about the way decisions are made.
http://aseasyasridin
gabike.wordpress.com
/2013/03/21/why-the-
hierarchy-of-provisi
on-is-doomed/

Whatever the views of car drivers, they need to get used to the cyclists as three facts remain.

1) The cost of motoring is going to become more and more costly.

2) More and more cyclists are on the roads.

3) Car drivers' flabby hearts and bingo winged arms mean that they are the dying breed.

Cyclists need t be forced to use the cycle lanes provided. They put themselves in danger by trying to cycle with vehicles when a designated cycle lane has been provided (Castle Lane between Tesco and Cooper Dean) invariably some lycra clad moron (they are not a moron for being a cyclist just for not using the cycle lanes) is not using the cycle lane.

The Council have recently repainted the lines as you approach the Tesco turn off on Castel Lane and have made it very dangerous for cars as they appear to have forced traffic to head towards each other to give cyclists a few more inches of space.

Bournemouth is over 200 years old and the roads have grown based on lanes etc over the years. Then you have the excellent estate planing here if one car parks on the road there is barely room for another car to pass so they have inherently made it dangerous for vehicles and cycles to share the roads.

This is never going to be resolved its a lose lose situation.

And Dennis Gritt is just a stirrer.

get ready for the ban hammer bobthedestroyer

Is it allowed to make positive comments here, and provide ideas for a good way forward or is it just for a load of miserable old b******* ?

Dorset Logic wrote:
Is it allowed to make positive comments here, and provide ideas for a good way forward or is it just for a load of miserable old b******* ?

mainly the latter,
if youre really interested in this look at some of the links posted above^^

We could all just live and let live and except the fact that not everyone likes to use the same mode of transport so we learn to share our limited space with each other.....or is that me just being plain stupid?????

fyi Suzigirl is actually a man called Bernard, lives in Winton.

Arthur Maureen wrote:
fyi Suzigirl is actually a man called Bernard, lives in Winton.

Always was a bit wary as was always commenting on mens buttocks in lycra LOL

There are a lot of poor drivers around here and a lot of poor cyclists.
I would have thought the safest option was for cyclists sharing the pavement on properly designated routes.
Castle Lane is a dreadful road and as a motorist, I would not be keen to cycle on that road one little bit.