Controversial plans to spend £650k on new cycle lanes along Castle Lane West go on display

SCHEME: How the lanes could look

SCHEME: How the lanes could look

First published in News by

CONTROVERSIAL plans to spend £650,000 creating new cycle lanes along one of Bournemouth’s busiest roads will go on display today.

The money will be spent improving a key stretch of Castle Lane West, in the hope of encouraging more school children to walk or cycle to school.

But one councillor has questioned the demand for cycle lanes and fears motorists will suffer months of disruptive roadworks for little benefit.

The £650,000 government-funded scheme which will see new walking and cycling routes created between the Broadway roundabout and Yeoman’s Way at Castlepoint. A cycle bypass will help cyclists travelling through the East Way junction and bus stops will be upgraded.

The area has been chosen because of the large number of school pupils that travel through there to Bournemouth’s two grammar schools, Queen’s Park infant and junior schools and the Bishop of Winchester Academy.

Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “Some 25 per cent of the town’s primary and secondary school children attend schools in and around this section of Castle Lane and it is vital to give confidence to both our children and parents that this route will be a safer option for pedestrians and cyclists.

“In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.”

But Cllr Anne Rey, whose Throop and Muscliff ward includes the northern side of Castle Lane, said: “Nobody has ever rung us up and said they need a cycle lane along Castle Lane so leave it alone.

“Why don’t they ask residents what they want before approving these schemes? It’s like the Richmond Hill roundabout, that was fine before and it didn’t need changing.”

Cllr John Trickett, whose Strouden Park ward includes the southern side of Castle Lane, said he believed there was a real demand for safe cycling routes.

“There are huge benefits to getting more children to cycle to school,” he said. “We have to have safe cycle routes and the plans currently being proposed are just the beginning of that strategy.”

Council officers will be displaying the plans and answering residents’ questions at Castlepoint between 10am and 7pm today.

Anyone wishing to give feedback on the plans can do so by visiting bournemouth.go v.uk/castlelanewest Work is set to start at the beginning of summer and finish by September.

Comments (126)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:37am Thu 3 Apr 14

arthur1948 says...

i bet they still ride on the pavement...
i bet they still ride on the pavement... arthur1948
  • Score: 29

6:24am Thu 3 Apr 14

Nee how says...

We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused, Nee how
  • Score: 7

6:36am Thu 3 Apr 14

Phixer says...

Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.”

Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.
Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.” Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype. Phixer
  • Score: 22

6:42am Thu 3 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

The cycle lane is already on the pavement in front of BSG it's not going to make it safer moving it into the road. Cyclists and pedestrians are a far safer mix than cyclists and cars and most pavements are deserted most of the time. Make the pavements shared routes to keep the traffic moving!
The cycle lane is already on the pavement in front of BSG it's not going to make it safer moving it into the road. Cyclists and pedestrians are a far safer mix than cyclists and cars and most pavements are deserted most of the time. Make the pavements shared routes to keep the traffic moving! The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 28

6:42am Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

Excellent news but this needs to be coupled with Education on cycle safety, a concerted effort by all for a change in attitude and more cycle schemes to encourage people to buy bikes. Schools, Businesses and the Local Council would also need to invest in secure lock up points. (to lock your bike to)

More Cyclists = Less Cars, especially at rush hour.

With some real effort it could work, it needs more than just Green Tarmac though.
Excellent news but this needs to be coupled with Education on cycle safety, a concerted effort by all for a change in attitude and more cycle schemes to encourage people to buy bikes. Schools, Businesses and the Local Council would also need to invest in secure lock up points. (to lock your bike to) More Cyclists = Less Cars, especially at rush hour. With some real effort it could work, it needs more than just Green Tarmac though. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 15

6:58am Thu 3 Apr 14

retry69 says...

Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
[quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate retry69
  • Score: 21

7:00am Thu 3 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long alasdair1967
  • Score: 13

7:03am Thu 3 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

How is going encouraging pupils to cycle to school going to reduce congestion? Madness.
How is going encouraging pupils to cycle to school going to reduce congestion? Madness. FNS-man
  • Score: 5

7:05am Thu 3 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

retry69 wrote:
Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate[/p][/quote]Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans. FNS-man
  • Score: 23

7:06am Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

In terms if a change of attitude and understanding cyclists requirements I urge you all to read this short article.

http://www.copenhage
nize.com/2014/03/whe
re-do-you-want-to-go
.html?m=1 - Where cyclists actually want to go.
In terms if a change of attitude and understanding cyclists requirements I urge you all to read this short article. http://www.copenhage nize.com/2014/03/whe re-do-you-want-to-go .html?m=1 - Where cyclists actually want to go. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 4

7:09am Thu 3 Apr 14

High Treason says...

Never mind the cycle lanes, spend a lot less sorting out the death trap at Bournemouth School for Girls. The junction is a mess, parked buses, parents double parked in Castle Gate Close, some driving into the school whilst pupils are trying to get out. Park on zig zag lines and block the entrance. How long before there is a severe accident. Absolute mayhem.
Never mind the cycle lanes, spend a lot less sorting out the death trap at Bournemouth School for Girls. The junction is a mess, parked buses, parents double parked in Castle Gate Close, some driving into the school whilst pupils are trying to get out. Park on zig zag lines and block the entrance. How long before there is a severe accident. Absolute mayhem. High Treason
  • Score: 28

7:16am Thu 3 Apr 14

winton50 says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them.

You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared?

Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them. You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared? Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at. winton50
  • Score: 23

7:19am Thu 3 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

FNS-man wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.
Still after the conviction of the cyclist for striking the girl at the pelican crossing I witness daily cyclists jumping red lights especially at the lights at the junction of Cabot lane and broadstone way, there are actually lights controlling the cycle lane and daily I witness cyclists blatantly showing no regards for that light ,if you want to be treated as equals comply with the traffic regulations the same as the majority of other road users ,note I did say majority as I accept there are idiot drivers as well as idiot cyclists
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate[/p][/quote]Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.[/p][/quote]Still after the conviction of the cyclist for striking the girl at the pelican crossing I witness daily cyclists jumping red lights especially at the lights at the junction of Cabot lane and broadstone way, there are actually lights controlling the cycle lane and daily I witness cyclists blatantly showing no regards for that light ,if you want to be treated as equals comply with the traffic regulations the same as the majority of other road users ,note I did say majority as I accept there are idiot drivers as well as idiot cyclists alasdair1967
  • Score: 13

7:23am Thu 3 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them.

You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared?

Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.
But they are still there to be used ,why do some cyclists use them and others don't ,the roads I have mentioned have speed limits in excess of 50 mph and the lanes have been provided for in my opinion the cyclists safety ,
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them. You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared? Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.[/p][/quote]But they are still there to be used ,why do some cyclists use them and others don't ,the roads I have mentioned have speed limits in excess of 50 mph and the lanes have been provided for in my opinion the cyclists safety , alasdair1967
  • Score: -10

7:25am Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them.

You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared?

Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.
I completely agree with you Winton50 - this article explains it all and backs up your point:

http://www.copenhage
nize.com/2014/03/whe
re-do-you-want-to-go
.html?m=1 - Where cyclists actually want to go.
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them. You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared? Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.[/p][/quote]I completely agree with you Winton50 - this article explains it all and backs up your point: http://www.copenhage nize.com/2014/03/whe re-do-you-want-to-go .html?m=1 - Where cyclists actually want to go. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 4

7:25am Thu 3 Apr 14

BIGTONE says...

The money will be spent improving a key stretch of Castle Lane West, in the hope of encouraging more school children to walk or cycle to school.


More walking to school? How do they work that one out?
I'm sure they will enjoy walking down the Green lanes!
The money will be spent improving a key stretch of Castle Lane West, in the hope of encouraging more school children to walk or cycle to school. More walking to school? How do they work that one out? I'm sure they will enjoy walking down the Green lanes! BIGTONE
  • Score: 14

7:35am Thu 3 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

And the ones that really get my back up,the Lycra clad Bradley wiggins wannabes who think they have a god given right to right around in mini pelatons three or four abreast !
And the ones that really get my back up,the Lycra clad Bradley wiggins wannabes who think they have a god given right to right around in mini pelatons three or four abreast ! alasdair1967
  • Score: -1

7:40am Thu 3 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ! alasdair1967
  • Score: 1

7:43am Thu 3 Apr 14

retry69 says...

FNS-man wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.
Trust you to go one better :)
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate[/p][/quote]Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.[/p][/quote]Trust you to go one better :) retry69
  • Score: -4

7:44am Thu 3 Apr 14

frarog says...

Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
Exactly!!! The same is also true of Castle Lane East.
[quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]Exactly!!! The same is also true of Castle Lane East. frarog
  • Score: 4

8:01am Thu 3 Apr 14

Controversial But True says...

Preserving life is quite an important topic I'd say.

Cyclists ARE human too!
Preserving life is quite an important topic I'd say. Cyclists ARE human too! Controversial But True
  • Score: 16

8:05am Thu 3 Apr 14

justme20092009 says...

bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them
bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them justme20092009
  • Score: -17

8:14am Thu 3 Apr 14

loftusrod says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague.
Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague. Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me. loftusrod
  • Score: 22

8:14am Thu 3 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

retry69 wrote:
Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
Change the gate too open out it will give you more protection and don't forget to look left and right and wait for the opportune moment.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate[/p][/quote]Change the gate too open out it will give you more protection and don't forget to look left and right and wait for the opportune moment. Lord Spring
  • Score: -2

8:21am Thu 3 Apr 14

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
Change the gate too open out it will give you more protection and don't forget to look left and right and wait for the opportune moment.
What I do is take my three grandchildren out,two in a double buggy the other holding my hand and shout to the cyclists now try and get past me you bastards,but I might change the gate to a double size metal one to try :)
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate[/p][/quote]Change the gate too open out it will give you more protection and don't forget to look left and right and wait for the opportune moment.[/p][/quote]What I do is take my three grandchildren out,two in a double buggy the other holding my hand and shout to the cyclists now try and get past me you bastards,but I might change the gate to a double size metal one to try :) retry69
  • Score: -8

8:30am Thu 3 Apr 14

EdBmth says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ![/p][/quote]I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself EdBmth
  • Score: 21

8:37am Thu 3 Apr 14

PokesdownMark says...

£650k?! do they make the green tarmac with crushed emeralds?!
£650k?! do they make the green tarmac with crushed emeralds?! PokesdownMark
  • Score: 22

8:38am Thu 3 Apr 14

brungo says...

as a car driver, rider of motorcycles & cyclist too, i feel the issue is about resect & a bit of room. there are good & bad users of the roads but there will always be conflict.

if a cycle lane is already there then why another one? passing hurn regularly, i used to wish for a cycle lane but since they put one in, not many actually use it! also what cost to plan & put this scheme on display? looks to me like there is a fund available from government so the council try to get it, even if not any good for real people. so easy to spend other peoples money & i could do that all day long!
as a car driver, rider of motorcycles & cyclist too, i feel the issue is about resect & a bit of room. there are good & bad users of the roads but there will always be conflict. if a cycle lane is already there then why another one? passing hurn regularly, i used to wish for a cycle lane but since they put one in, not many actually use it! also what cost to plan & put this scheme on display? looks to me like there is a fund available from government so the council try to get it, even if not any good for real people. so easy to spend other peoples money & i could do that all day long! brungo
  • Score: 13

8:42am Thu 3 Apr 14

samsmith says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
I'm both a cyclist and a motorist covering hundreds and thousands of miles each year on my bike and car respectively. A large number of cyclists, such as myself, do have third party insurance through their membership of the likes of the CTC and British Cycling.
As for registration this would be a complete waste of public funds. Bikes are zero emission vehicles. If they were registered so an equivalent of an excise licence was issued then it would be at cost to the state (like a zero emission car). This would be very unattractive to taxpayers. You'd then need the police force of an authoritarian state to regulate it.
It would like deter law abiding people who want to cycle from doing so. Those who don't care wouldn't bother much the same as the problem we have with uninsured/'taxed'/li
cences drivers.
My daily 12 mile cycle to work keeps me fit and hopefully reduces my burden on the NHS later on in life. So it really should be encouraged!
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ![/p][/quote]I'm both a cyclist and a motorist covering hundreds and thousands of miles each year on my bike and car respectively. A large number of cyclists, such as myself, do have third party insurance through their membership of the likes of the CTC and British Cycling. As for registration this would be a complete waste of public funds. Bikes are zero emission vehicles. If they were registered so an equivalent of an excise licence was issued then it would be at cost to the state (like a zero emission car). This would be very unattractive to taxpayers. You'd then need the police force of an authoritarian state to regulate it. It would like deter law abiding people who want to cycle from doing so. Those who don't care wouldn't bother much the same as the problem we have with uninsured/'taxed'/li cences drivers. My daily 12 mile cycle to work keeps me fit and hopefully reduces my burden on the NHS later on in life. So it really should be encouraged! samsmith
  • Score: 38

8:44am Thu 3 Apr 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

Reduce car journeys. HAHA I just fell off my chair. Add another driving lane in each direction ffs.
Reduce car journeys. HAHA I just fell off my chair. Add another driving lane in each direction ffs. Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: -6

8:48am Thu 3 Apr 14

Chiqqy says...

All those using the tired old "road tax" argument.... Get educated http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3311
131.ece
All those using the tired old "road tax" argument.... Get educated http://www.thetimes. co.uk/tto/public/cyc lesafety/article3311 131.ece Chiqqy
  • Score: 15

8:48am Thu 3 Apr 14

Chiqqy says...

All those using the tired old "road tax" argument.... Get educated http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3311
131.ece
All those using the tired old "road tax" argument.... Get educated http://www.thetimes. co.uk/tto/public/cyc lesafety/article3311 131.ece Chiqqy
  • Score: 3

8:50am Thu 3 Apr 14

High Treason says...

Controversial But True wrote:
Preserving life is quite an important topic I'd say.

Cyclists ARE human too!
Yes I agree but it is pointless spending large sums of money to improve safety for cyclists whilst we have pig ignorant motorists on the roads. Go along to BSG and most schools and take a look at how some parents behave. The junction at Castle Gate Close needs improving and BSG needs to enforce the regulations regarding parking and parents so lazy that they drive through the school gates to save walking.
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: Preserving life is quite an important topic I'd say. Cyclists ARE human too![/p][/quote]Yes I agree but it is pointless spending large sums of money to improve safety for cyclists whilst we have pig ignorant motorists on the roads. Go along to BSG and most schools and take a look at how some parents behave. The junction at Castle Gate Close needs improving and BSG needs to enforce the regulations regarding parking and parents so lazy that they drive through the school gates to save walking. High Treason
  • Score: 11

8:53am Thu 3 Apr 14

Townee says...

Cllr Anne Ray is someone who thinks for herself and doesn't just follow Beasley blind. We don't need more cycle lanes we need cycle education, everyone who rides a bike should have attended a cycling education course of at least 10 hours that include practical lessons on the road the same as motor bike riders have to.
This would educate them as to how to ride safely not just how to ride. They should also by law have to have third party liability insurance. In doing this they would be part of the community that moves on wheels.
Saying this it should also apply to mobility scooter driver, test, insurance slower scooter.
Cllr Anne Ray is someone who thinks for herself and doesn't just follow Beasley blind. We don't need more cycle lanes we need cycle education, everyone who rides a bike should have attended a cycling education course of at least 10 hours that include practical lessons on the road the same as motor bike riders have to. This would educate them as to how to ride safely not just how to ride. They should also by law have to have third party liability insurance. In doing this they would be part of the community that moves on wheels. Saying this it should also apply to mobility scooter driver, test, insurance slower scooter. Townee
  • Score: 2

9:04am Thu 3 Apr 14

Ralph Horris says...

Forget archdukes geting murdered, I think world war three is going to start over something like proposed cycle lanes along Castle Lane West. Don't mess with the anti evereything brigade in Echo comment land. You have been warned.
Forget archdukes geting murdered, I think world war three is going to start over something like proposed cycle lanes along Castle Lane West. Don't mess with the anti evereything brigade in Echo comment land. You have been warned. Ralph Horris
  • Score: 6

9:08am Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

loftusrod wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague.
Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.
I'm a motorist but find roads incredibly dangerous these days. That's why I only drive on fields and footpaths now.
[quote][p][bold]loftusrod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague. Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.[/p][/quote]I'm a motorist but find roads incredibly dangerous these days. That's why I only drive on fields and footpaths now. JackJohnson
  • Score: 10

9:08am Thu 3 Apr 14

chris42 says...

I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then !
I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then ! chris42
  • Score: 7

9:09am Thu 3 Apr 14

chris100 says...

I live by bsg and have seen the plans all I can say is hahahahahahahaha

There is no need to put cycle lanes in and no need to move the bus stop onto castle lane west

If anything they should paint a box junction by east way and put a red light camera in
I live by bsg and have seen the plans all I can say is hahahahahahahaha There is no need to put cycle lanes in and no need to move the bus stop onto castle lane west If anything they should paint a box junction by east way and put a red light camera in chris100
  • Score: 8

9:20am Thu 3 Apr 14

mikey2gorgeous says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is
fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate
Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.
Still after the conviction of the cyclist for striking the girl at the pelican crossing I witness daily cyclists jumping red lights especially at the lights at the junction of Cabot lane and broadstone way, there are actually lights controlling the cycle lane and daily I witness cyclists blatantly showing no regards for that light ,if you want to be treated as equals comply with the traffic regulations the same as the majority of other road users ,note I did say majority as I accept there are idiot drivers as well as idiot cyclists
Given that 56% of motorists admit to breaking the speed limit on a regular basis - exactly what 'majority of other road users' are complying with the regulations??
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]You have my greatest sympathy, for I live on Slades Farm Road which is fairly busy with cyclists going to school,to the cycle track and park to enjoy themselves at weekends and I find the 3-4 year old age group the worse with their trikes and stabilisers telling me to **** off every time I step out of my gate[/p][/quote]Indeed. My mother had to have a hip replacement after being mown down by one 3 year-old on his trike. Just sped off without so much as looking back. Something must be done or someone will be killed by these pre-school hooligans.[/p][/quote]Still after the conviction of the cyclist for striking the girl at the pelican crossing I witness daily cyclists jumping red lights especially at the lights at the junction of Cabot lane and broadstone way, there are actually lights controlling the cycle lane and daily I witness cyclists blatantly showing no regards for that light ,if you want to be treated as equals comply with the traffic regulations the same as the majority of other road users ,note I did say majority as I accept there are idiot drivers as well as idiot cyclists[/p][/quote]Given that 56% of motorists admit to breaking the speed limit on a regular basis - exactly what 'majority of other road users' are complying with the regulations?? mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 11

9:40am Thu 3 Apr 14

chridrum says...

http://homepage.ntlw
orld.com/pete.meg/wc
c/report/cycle-lanes
.pdf

There is much evidence to show that non segregated cycle lanes actually make roads less safe for cyclists. I agree that short stretches of cycle lane are poorly used the journey to access them is often either unclear or tortuous.

Cyclists like to take the shortest route and dislike cycling over drains, drop kerbs round lamposts and signs, stopping every 400 yards to cross a road junction. However these are the routes commonly used to create the cycle lanes councils love to provide to meet targets.
When a proper cycle path is created it will be well used, I cycle to work every day from Kings Park to the hospital apart from the dodgy stretch of 1m wide half pavement by Littledown this is now a good shared route. The 'segregated' path across Littledown valley is a tad dangerous as pedestrians do not seem to realise that it is segregated. So to any of you reading this keep to your path because I am going fast down one hill so I can get up the other with minimal effort.
As others have said it is all about respect for other travellers and for car drivers always remember we are one less car to bugger up your day. Try cycling it so much quicker and less frustrating, saves time going to the gym too. Peas & Luv
http://homepage.ntlw orld.com/pete.meg/wc c/report/cycle-lanes .pdf There is much evidence to show that non segregated cycle lanes actually make roads less safe for cyclists. I agree that short stretches of cycle lane are poorly used the journey to access them is often either unclear or tortuous. Cyclists like to take the shortest route and dislike cycling over drains, drop kerbs round lamposts and signs, stopping every 400 yards to cross a road junction. However these are the routes commonly used to create the cycle lanes councils love to provide to meet targets. When a proper cycle path is created it will be well used, I cycle to work every day from Kings Park to the hospital apart from the dodgy stretch of 1m wide half pavement by Littledown this is now a good shared route. The 'segregated' path across Littledown valley is a tad dangerous as pedestrians do not seem to realise that it is segregated. So to any of you reading this keep to your path because I am going fast down one hill so I can get up the other with minimal effort. As others have said it is all about respect for other travellers and for car drivers always remember we are one less car to bugger up your day. Try cycling it so much quicker and less frustrating, saves time going to the gym too. Peas & Luv chridrum
  • Score: 12

9:54am Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

chridrum wrote:
http://homepage.ntlw

orld.com/pete.meg/wc

c/report/cycle-lanes

.pdf

There is much evidence to show that non segregated cycle lanes actually make roads less safe for cyclists. I agree that short stretches of cycle lane are poorly used the journey to access them is often either unclear or tortuous.

Cyclists like to take the shortest route and dislike cycling over drains, drop kerbs round lamposts and signs, stopping every 400 yards to cross a road junction. However these are the routes commonly used to create the cycle lanes councils love to provide to meet targets.
When a proper cycle path is created it will be well used, I cycle to work every day from Kings Park to the hospital apart from the dodgy stretch of 1m wide half pavement by Littledown this is now a good shared route. The 'segregated' path across Littledown valley is a tad dangerous as pedestrians do not seem to realise that it is segregated. So to any of you reading this keep to your path because I am going fast down one hill so I can get up the other with minimal effort.
As others have said it is all about respect for other travellers and for car drivers always remember we are one less car to bugger up your day. Try cycling it so much quicker and less frustrating, saves time going to the gym too. Peas & Luv
Great points Childrum

Here is another article about proper segregated cycle ways:

http://www.theguardi
an.com/sustainable-b
usiness/reasons-busi
ness-leaders-danish-
style-cycling
[quote][p][bold]chridrum[/bold] wrote: http://homepage.ntlw orld.com/pete.meg/wc c/report/cycle-lanes .pdf There is much evidence to show that non segregated cycle lanes actually make roads less safe for cyclists. I agree that short stretches of cycle lane are poorly used the journey to access them is often either unclear or tortuous. Cyclists like to take the shortest route and dislike cycling over drains, drop kerbs round lamposts and signs, stopping every 400 yards to cross a road junction. However these are the routes commonly used to create the cycle lanes councils love to provide to meet targets. When a proper cycle path is created it will be well used, I cycle to work every day from Kings Park to the hospital apart from the dodgy stretch of 1m wide half pavement by Littledown this is now a good shared route. The 'segregated' path across Littledown valley is a tad dangerous as pedestrians do not seem to realise that it is segregated. So to any of you reading this keep to your path because I am going fast down one hill so I can get up the other with minimal effort. As others have said it is all about respect for other travellers and for car drivers always remember we are one less car to bugger up your day. Try cycling it so much quicker and less frustrating, saves time going to the gym too. Peas & Luv[/p][/quote]Great points Childrum Here is another article about proper segregated cycle ways: http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/reasons-busi ness-leaders-danish- style-cycling boardsandphotos
  • Score: -2

9:58am Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Reduce car journeys. HAHA I just fell off my chair. Add another driving lane in each direction ffs.
If people can get to work safely on a bike and leave the car at home, that's one less car on the road.

If a mother and child can cycle safely to school that's one less car on the road.

Exactly what part of that do you find so hilarious?
[quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Reduce car journeys. HAHA I just fell off my chair. Add another driving lane in each direction ffs.[/p][/quote]If people can get to work safely on a bike and leave the car at home, that's one less car on the road. If a mother and child can cycle safely to school that's one less car on the road. Exactly what part of that do you find so hilarious? boardsandphotos
  • Score: 7

10:13am Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

chris42 wrote:
I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then !
Justice. Rough, but justice. Perhaps he'll be less of an idiot if he ever gets back on a bike again.
[quote][p][bold]chris42[/bold] wrote: I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then ![/p][/quote]Justice. Rough, but justice. Perhaps he'll be less of an idiot if he ever gets back on a bike again. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

10:37am Thu 3 Apr 14

beachcomber1 says...

the key phrase is "Government funded".

BBC have been given some money to play with and just want to spend it somehow.
the key phrase is "Government funded". BBC have been given some money to play with and just want to spend it somehow. beachcomber1
  • Score: 3

10:55am Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Government funded is just another way of saying taxpayer funded.
Government funded is just another way of saying taxpayer funded. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

11:10am Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

EdBmth wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself
Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....
[quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ![/p][/quote]I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself[/p][/quote]Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists.... suzigirl
  • Score: -21

11:11am Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
Killing cyclists not an issue then?
Trying to kill child pedestrians on a crossing not an issue then?
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Killing cyclists not an issue then?[/p][/quote]Trying to kill child pedestrians on a crossing not an issue then? suzigirl
  • Score: -24

11:37am Thu 3 Apr 14

Kiki1973 says...

All for a bike route but pleas, please, separate it from the road if this is geared towards students. You're asking for some serious accidents if you expect young bike riders to travel along a road like Castle lane. What's wrong with a cycle lane that's alongside the pavement, not on the road?
All for a bike route but pleas, please, separate it from the road if this is geared towards students. You're asking for some serious accidents if you expect young bike riders to travel along a road like Castle lane. What's wrong with a cycle lane that's alongside the pavement, not on the road? Kiki1973
  • Score: 15

11:43am Thu 3 Apr 14

EdBmth says...

suzigirl wrote:
EdBmth wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself
Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....
Suzigirl, actually I do obey the rules of the road wether I am riding my bicycle, my motorbike or my car.

So you come back to me and say 'Typical response from a LL' and 'Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road ' and then go on to have a go at cyclists. I shan't comment any further
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ![/p][/quote]I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself[/p][/quote]Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....[/p][/quote]Suzigirl, actually I do obey the rules of the road wether I am riding my bicycle, my motorbike or my car. So you come back to me and say 'Typical response from a LL' and 'Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road ' and then go on to have a go at cyclists. I shan't comment any further EdBmth
  • Score: 11

12:08pm Thu 3 Apr 14

BmthNewshound says...

What sort of responsible parent would allow their child to cycle along Castle Lane ? As ever Cllr Filer is demonstrating gross incompetence and a complete lack of awareness of what local residents actually want or need. The Filers - more interested in collecting their £40k pa allowances than working in the interest of local people.
.
Cllr Anne Rey is speaking common sense whereas Cllr Trickett is being a good little Tory and towing the party line.
.
Perhaps when all of these cycle lanes have been completed Beesley, Filer and Trickett should practice what they preach and help reduce the number of car journeys by cycling to and from Council meetings.
.
What sort of responsible parent would allow their child to cycle along Castle Lane ? As ever Cllr Filer is demonstrating gross incompetence and a complete lack of awareness of what local residents actually want or need. The Filers - more interested in collecting their £40k pa allowances than working in the interest of local people. . Cllr Anne Rey is speaking common sense whereas Cllr Trickett is being a good little Tory and towing the party line. . Perhaps when all of these cycle lanes have been completed Beesley, Filer and Trickett should practice what they preach and help reduce the number of car journeys by cycling to and from Council meetings. . BmthNewshound
  • Score: 8

12:11pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

EdBmth wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
EdBmth wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself
Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....
Suzigirl, actually I do obey the rules of the road wether I am riding my bicycle, my motorbike or my car. So you come back to me and say 'Typical response from a LL' and 'Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road ' and then go on to have a go at cyclists. I shan't comment any further
Of course you obey all rules at all times (your halo must be weighing heavy on top of your head!) but it is good to know you know when to stop commenting!
[quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ![/p][/quote]I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself[/p][/quote]Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....[/p][/quote]Suzigirl, actually I do obey the rules of the road wether I am riding my bicycle, my motorbike or my car. So you come back to me and say 'Typical response from a LL' and 'Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road ' and then go on to have a go at cyclists. I shan't comment any further[/p][/quote]Of course you obey all rules at all times (your halo must be weighing heavy on top of your head!) but it is good to know you know when to stop commenting! suzigirl
  • Score: -28

12:20pm Thu 3 Apr 14

GarrySibbald says...

loftusrod wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague.
Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.
Loftusrod has hit the nail on the head. As well as being a cyclist I've been driving for quite a few years and hold HGV, Car and bike licenses but I can't fathom out how you are supposed to correctly use many of the existing cycle routes. Most cycle routes seem hell bent on slowing you down with frequent stop start instructions or the requirement for you to conduct dangerous manoeuvres such as riding on and off pavements onto busy main roads and back again. All commuting cyclists want to be able to do, is travel in a direct route from A to B safely and more quickly than at a walking pace. Until cycle routes achieve this they will continue to be ignored.
[quote][p][bold]loftusrod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague. Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.[/p][/quote]Loftusrod has hit the nail on the head. As well as being a cyclist I've been driving for quite a few years and hold HGV, Car and bike licenses but I can't fathom out how you are supposed to correctly use many of the existing cycle routes. Most cycle routes seem hell bent on slowing you down with frequent stop start instructions or the requirement for you to conduct dangerous manoeuvres such as riding on and off pavements onto busy main roads and back again. All commuting cyclists want to be able to do, is travel in a direct route from A to B safely and more quickly than at a walking pace. Until cycle routes achieve this they will continue to be ignored. GarrySibbald
  • Score: 16

12:25pm Thu 3 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

EdBmth wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
EdBmth wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured !
I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself
Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....
Suzigirl, actually I do obey the rules of the road wether I am riding my bicycle, my motorbike or my car.

So you come back to me and say 'Typical response from a LL' and 'Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road ' and then go on to have a go at cyclists. I shan't comment any further
You obviously don't live near a school? I live very near to Twynham, which has a very small catchment area so most will live within a mile and yet the area is chaos at either end of the school day with lone parents dropping off/picking up their kids.
[quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EdBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: If cyclists want to be treated as equals then be at least registered and insured ![/p][/quote]I am a cyclist and I am insured, although I most certainly wouldn't want to be treated as an equal to some of the blinkered cyclist hating idiots that you get on these forums, who use whatever opportunity they can to have a dig at cyclists. I just wouldn't want to lower myself[/p][/quote]Typical response from a LL - if you ride on the roads the same way as you vent your dislike of "blinkered cyclist hating idiots" no wonder cyclists get a bad press. Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road and do nothing wrong - goodness I must be seeing things every morning on Ashley Road - is that a red light I am waiting at - no it must be green as a cyclist has just past me...........maybe I should just follow him - oh no I can't as my car has a registration number, insurance and MOT and I would be made accountable for my actions unlike cyclists....[/p][/quote]Suzigirl, actually I do obey the rules of the road wether I am riding my bicycle, my motorbike or my car. So you come back to me and say 'Typical response from a LL' and 'Of course you little darlings always obey the rules of the road ' and then go on to have a go at cyclists. I shan't comment any further[/p][/quote]You obviously don't live near a school? I live very near to Twynham, which has a very small catchment area so most will live within a mile and yet the area is chaos at either end of the school day with lone parents dropping off/picking up their kids. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

12:27pm Thu 3 Apr 14

beachcomber1 says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Government funded is just another way of saying taxpayer funded.
true, the difference in this instance being that they are getting some money from central govt so just want/need to spend it regardless.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Government funded is just another way of saying taxpayer funded.[/p][/quote]true, the difference in this instance being that they are getting some money from central govt so just want/need to spend it regardless. beachcomber1
  • Score: 1

12:36pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from. JackJohnson
  • Score: -13

12:38pm Thu 3 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

So here we have it as clear as day, at least 90% of these comments range from considered reservation to near hostility at this latest 'Three Towns Travel' plan for Castle Lane. I think most people who drive (e.g. the majority of road users) have by now worked out that 'improvement' in the context of this Government funded 'TTT' anti-car scheme actually means quite the opposite.

Forget the 'consultation' the Councillor's incredibly simple minds are already made up on this, the people using Richmond Hill, the people in Boscombe, those in Ashley Road Parkstone and those in Christchurch have already expressed the same firm majority opinion about these 'TTT' road schemes - they DON'T/DIDN'T want them, and neither do we want this in Castle Lane.

How typical that as towns and cities in other Countries discover that road safety for all users is best improved by de-cluttering the tarmac and removing the forests of confusing signs our own wretched Councils are falling over themselves to spend good public money chucking all this unwanted and dangerous rubbish onto our streets.

There a thousands of ways to spend this sort of public money to improve our local roads for all users including the cyclists, just fixing the road surfaces (in natural tarmac colour thank you) might be a pretty good place to start!
So here we have it as clear as day, at least 90% of these comments range from considered reservation to near hostility at this latest 'Three Towns Travel' plan for Castle Lane. I think most people who drive (e.g. the majority of road users) have by now worked out that 'improvement' in the context of this Government funded 'TTT' anti-car scheme actually means quite the opposite. Forget the 'consultation' the Councillor's incredibly simple minds are already made up on this, the people using Richmond Hill, the people in Boscombe, those in Ashley Road Parkstone and those in Christchurch have already expressed the same firm majority opinion about these 'TTT' road schemes - they DON'T/DIDN'T want them, and neither do we want this in Castle Lane. How typical that as towns and cities in other Countries discover that road safety for all users is best improved by de-cluttering the tarmac and removing the forests of confusing signs our own wretched Councils are falling over themselves to spend good public money chucking all this unwanted and dangerous rubbish onto our streets. There a thousands of ways to spend this sort of public money to improve our local roads for all users including the cyclists, just fixing the road surfaces (in natural tarmac colour thank you) might be a pretty good place to start! muscliffman
  • Score: 14

12:59pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Gordon Cann says...

Comments above- mostly a total waste of time; I am 83 in good health . no doubt a mixture of good fortune and life style, cycling was part of my distant youth and we today have created a monstrous form of society; with our roads jammed with cars and lorries.

Castle Lane - theres a joke - no lane and certainly no castle but ;large lorries no doubt carrying sandwiches produced in some remote centre to generate higher profits for supermarket companies

As to the two Grammar Schools if we had a decent system of education we might have a fewer pupils going long distances to school and have decent comprehensive schools as at Burgate or Ringwood

One further point - there may be a few people left who recall going potato picking in the autumn- we cycled out to the farm and were paid five old fashioned pennies per hour - work now most likely done by immigrant labour!

-and yes I do own a car bought at the age of 33 when I could afford ithaving other priorities such as buying a home

but if you want a positive point revert to the medieval practice of abstention on Friday, but not with fish . but with cars- ban private motoring on Fridays let young people experience the freedom I once had

next comment on this site ?' 'totally mad !

Ps did some one mention air pollution
Comments above- mostly a total waste of time; I am 83 in good health . no doubt a mixture of good fortune and life style, cycling was part of my distant youth and we today have created a monstrous form of society; with our roads jammed with cars and lorries. Castle Lane - theres a joke - no lane and certainly no castle but ;large lorries no doubt carrying sandwiches produced in some remote centre to generate higher profits for supermarket companies As to the two Grammar Schools if we had a decent system of education we might have a fewer pupils going long distances to school and have decent comprehensive schools as at Burgate or Ringwood One further point - there may be a few people left who recall going potato picking in the autumn- we cycled out to the farm and were paid five old fashioned pennies per hour - work now most likely done by immigrant labour! -and yes I do own a car bought at the age of 33 when I could afford ithaving other priorities such as buying a home but if you want a positive point revert to the medieval practice of abstention on Friday, but not with fish . but with cars- ban private motoring on Fridays let young people experience the freedom I once had next comment on this site ?' 'totally mad ! Ps did some one mention air pollution Gordon Cann
  • Score: -4

1:15pm Thu 3 Apr 14

retry69 says...

Gordon Cann wrote:
Comments above- mostly a total waste of time; I am 83 in good health . no doubt a mixture of good fortune and life style, cycling was part of my distant youth and we today have created a monstrous form of society; with our roads jammed with cars and lorries.

Castle Lane - theres a joke - no lane and certainly no castle but ;large lorries no doubt carrying sandwiches produced in some remote centre to generate higher profits for supermarket companies

As to the two Grammar Schools if we had a decent system of education we might have a fewer pupils going long distances to school and have decent comprehensive schools as at Burgate or Ringwood

One further point - there may be a few people left who recall going potato picking in the autumn- we cycled out to the farm and were paid five old fashioned pennies per hour - work now most likely done by immigrant labour!

-and yes I do own a car bought at the age of 33 when I could afford ithaving other priorities such as buying a home

but if you want a positive point revert to the medieval practice of abstention on Friday, but not with fish . but with cars- ban private motoring on Fridays let young people experience the freedom I once had

next comment on this site ?' 'totally mad !

Ps did some one mention air pollution
Totally mad and the air pollution was muscliffman commenting :) stay healthy!
[quote][p][bold]Gordon Cann[/bold] wrote: Comments above- mostly a total waste of time; I am 83 in good health . no doubt a mixture of good fortune and life style, cycling was part of my distant youth and we today have created a monstrous form of society; with our roads jammed with cars and lorries. Castle Lane - theres a joke - no lane and certainly no castle but ;large lorries no doubt carrying sandwiches produced in some remote centre to generate higher profits for supermarket companies As to the two Grammar Schools if we had a decent system of education we might have a fewer pupils going long distances to school and have decent comprehensive schools as at Burgate or Ringwood One further point - there may be a few people left who recall going potato picking in the autumn- we cycled out to the farm and were paid five old fashioned pennies per hour - work now most likely done by immigrant labour! -and yes I do own a car bought at the age of 33 when I could afford ithaving other priorities such as buying a home but if you want a positive point revert to the medieval practice of abstention on Friday, but not with fish . but with cars- ban private motoring on Fridays let young people experience the freedom I once had next comment on this site ?' 'totally mad ! Ps did some one mention air pollution[/p][/quote]Totally mad and the air pollution was muscliffman commenting :) stay healthy! retry69
  • Score: -4

1:21pm Thu 3 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Schools, libraries, sports facilities, playgrounds, bus passes, golf courses, arts, local parks, council housing, cemeteries all things I do not use but am paying for (let alone NHS, benefits, care homes) so why should a cycle path be any different.

(I don't cycle more than a couple of tines of year).

Stupid and selfish comment IMO.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Schools, libraries, sports facilities, playgrounds, bus passes, golf courses, arts, local parks, council housing, cemeteries all things I do not use but am paying for (let alone NHS, benefits, care homes) so why should a cycle path be any different. (I don't cycle more than a couple of tines of year). Stupid and selfish comment IMO. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 10

1:29pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

justme20092009 wrote:
bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them
Get a grip and know the very basics.
Nobody pays "road tax".
Most roads are funded from local taxation.
Cyclist aren't exempt from the council tax.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them[/p][/quote]Get a grip and know the very basics. Nobody pays "road tax". Most roads are funded from local taxation. Cyclist aren't exempt from the council tax. Franks Tank
  • Score: 12

1:35pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Repo says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it? Repo
  • Score: 13

1:38pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic. Franks Tank
  • Score: 15

1:53pm Thu 3 Apr 14

spooki says...

I wonder if anyone who actually uses the roads regularly are the ones at the council who want these changes?
I wonder if anyone who actually uses the roads regularly are the ones at the council who want these changes? spooki
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

GarrySibbald wrote:
loftusrod wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague. Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.
Loftusrod has hit the nail on the head. As well as being a cyclist I've been driving for quite a few years and hold HGV, Car and bike licenses but I can't fathom out how you are supposed to correctly use many of the existing cycle routes. Most cycle routes seem hell bent on slowing you down with frequent stop start instructions or the requirement for you to conduct dangerous manoeuvres such as riding on and off pavements onto busy main roads and back again. All commuting cyclists want to be able to do, is travel in a direct route from A to B safely and more quickly than at a walking pace. Until cycle routes achieve this they will continue to be ignored.
All commuting motorists want to do is get from A to B without having to witness cyclists blatantly breaking the law i.e. jumping red lights, using mobiles, dangerous filtering, riding with no lights at nights.........
[quote][p][bold]GarrySibbald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loftusrod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]As l've said before on these stories, as someone who cycles over two thousand miles a year on the local roads, cycle lanes are the most dangerous things and l avoid them like the plague. Happy to show anyone from the local councils what l mean if they'd like to spend a day with me.[/p][/quote]Loftusrod has hit the nail on the head. As well as being a cyclist I've been driving for quite a few years and hold HGV, Car and bike licenses but I can't fathom out how you are supposed to correctly use many of the existing cycle routes. Most cycle routes seem hell bent on slowing you down with frequent stop start instructions or the requirement for you to conduct dangerous manoeuvres such as riding on and off pavements onto busy main roads and back again. All commuting cyclists want to be able to do, is travel in a direct route from A to B safely and more quickly than at a walking pace. Until cycle routes achieve this they will continue to be ignored.[/p][/quote]All commuting motorists want to do is get from A to B without having to witness cyclists blatantly breaking the law i.e. jumping red lights, using mobiles, dangerous filtering, riding with no lights at nights......... suzigirl
  • Score: -8

1:58pm Thu 3 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Would the traffic not be less snarled up if the green bits were made into extra lanes for road vehicles?
Would the traffic not be less snarled up if the green bits were made into extra lanes for road vehicles? speedy231278
  • Score: -5

1:58pm Thu 3 Apr 14

sprintervanman says...

Shame all the cycle haters don't turn their energy to trying to stop the uninsured and unlicenced drivers on the road, the conservative estimate being about 2 million. The registration,Insuran
ce and V.E.D requirements (note the lack of the word 'road tax', i have enough brain cells to know there is no such thing) don't stop them from entering our PUBLIC road systems. Trust me if one of them wrote of your pride and joy you would soon have something to complain about with the all hassle it causes.
Shame all the cycle haters don't turn their energy to trying to stop the uninsured and unlicenced drivers on the road, the conservative estimate being about 2 million. The registration,Insuran ce and V.E.D requirements (note the lack of the word 'road tax', i have enough brain cells to know there is no such thing) don't stop them from entering our PUBLIC road systems. Trust me if one of them wrote of your pride and joy you would soon have something to complain about with the all hassle it causes. sprintervanman
  • Score: 8

2:00pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it. JackJohnson
  • Score: -13

2:02pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Watusay says...

arthur1948 wrote:
i bet they still ride on the pavement...
So what? The pavements along Castle Lane West are wide enough for both cyclist and pedestrians. My son used to cycle on the road but he got knocked over twice by drivers coming out of the side road who did not give way. They also did not stop to make sure he was ok. Luckily, he was not badly injured on either occasions. Since then, I insisted he rides on the pavement slowly.

I see school children riding to and from school everyday on that stretch of Castle Lane West and the ones that use the pavements all do so with great care. They do not ride fast and they always give pedestrians plenty of room. Putting cycle lanes on the road is actually putting school children's lives in danger.
[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote: i bet they still ride on the pavement...[/p][/quote]So what? The pavements along Castle Lane West are wide enough for both cyclist and pedestrians. My son used to cycle on the road but he got knocked over twice by drivers coming out of the side road who did not give way. They also did not stop to make sure he was ok. Luckily, he was not badly injured on either occasions. Since then, I insisted he rides on the pavement slowly. I see school children riding to and from school everyday on that stretch of Castle Lane West and the ones that use the pavements all do so with great care. They do not ride fast and they always give pedestrians plenty of room. Putting cycle lanes on the road is actually putting school children's lives in danger. Watusay
  • Score: 5

2:21pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
[quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly). JackJohnson
  • Score: -10

2:29pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.
Soooo, it's a very selective logic then?
By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax.
You want to be careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.[/p][/quote]Soooo, it's a very selective logic then? By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax. You want to be careful what you wish for. Franks Tank
  • Score: 6

2:33pm Thu 3 Apr 14

thisloginprocessisdaft says...

Nearly got knocked over this morning by someone on their phone whilst driving a car. Saw three people jump red lights on in their cars. Saw people doing their make up whilst driving.

Some of you have no logic or sense when you post on here. I love walking and cycling,keeps me fit and saves quite a bit of money. I'll also probably live longer than you fat thick idiots
Nearly got knocked over this morning by someone on their phone whilst driving a car. Saw three people jump red lights on in their cars. Saw people doing their make up whilst driving. Some of you have no logic or sense when you post on here. I love walking and cycling,keeps me fit and saves quite a bit of money. I'll also probably live longer than you fat thick idiots thisloginprocessisdaft
  • Score: 6

2:33pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif. Franks Tank
  • Score: 11

2:35pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Watusay wrote:
arthur1948 wrote: i bet they still ride on the pavement...
So what? The pavements along Castle Lane West are wide enough for both cyclist and pedestrians. My son used to cycle on the road but he got knocked over twice by drivers coming out of the side road who did not give way. They also did not stop to make sure he was ok. Luckily, he was not badly injured on either occasions. Since then, I insisted he rides on the pavement slowly. I see school children riding to and from school everyday on that stretch of Castle Lane West and the ones that use the pavements all do so with great care. They do not ride fast and they always give pedestrians plenty of room. Putting cycle lanes on the road is actually putting school children's lives in danger.
Still against the law though! I see your point about children it is the other adult idiots cycling on the pavements at speed that are dangerous!
[quote][p][bold]Watusay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote: i bet they still ride on the pavement...[/p][/quote]So what? The pavements along Castle Lane West are wide enough for both cyclist and pedestrians. My son used to cycle on the road but he got knocked over twice by drivers coming out of the side road who did not give way. They also did not stop to make sure he was ok. Luckily, he was not badly injured on either occasions. Since then, I insisted he rides on the pavement slowly. I see school children riding to and from school everyday on that stretch of Castle Lane West and the ones that use the pavements all do so with great care. They do not ride fast and they always give pedestrians plenty of room. Putting cycle lanes on the road is actually putting school children's lives in danger.[/p][/quote]Still against the law though! I see your point about children it is the other adult idiots cycling on the pavements at speed that are dangerous! suzigirl
  • Score: -8

2:45pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Maiseymo says...

An obscene waste of money!
An obscene waste of money! Maiseymo
  • Score: -2

2:48pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Arthur Maureen says...

I see Suzybag is back on here giving it some, silly misguided lady. The facts are cycle lanes are poorly designed, covered in debris, suddenly come to a halt forcing the cyclist onto the road, complete waste of time.
Would rather see the money spent on enforcing the law against idiot cyclists and motorists alike who disobey the law, are dangerous and ultimately give Suzyimpartialposter something to rabbit on about..

btw Suzy - did you manage to drive your car back out of the Chinese takeaway yesterday?
I see Suzybag is back on here giving it some, silly misguided lady. The facts are cycle lanes are poorly designed, covered in debris, suddenly come to a halt forcing the cyclist onto the road, complete waste of time. Would rather see the money spent on enforcing the law against idiot cyclists and motorists alike who disobey the law, are dangerous and ultimately give Suzyimpartialposter something to rabbit on about.. btw Suzy - did you manage to drive your car back out of the Chinese takeaway yesterday? Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 9

2:48pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.
Soooo, it's a very selective logic then?
By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax.
You want to be careful what you wish for.
Not a 'very selective' logic' at all. I derive benefits directly, or indirectly, from the education of other people's children. I have, effectively, an invaluable insurance policy in the NHS which, even if I don't use it now, will gain significant benefit from in the future. I can use any public road I wish to, to get from A to B. Roads are widely distributed throughout the country, therefore the amount I pay towards them is proportionally distributed.

I will not, however, ever use a bicycle. Nor will millions of other people. They are not, and never will be, a workable solution to get millions of people to work. They're a solution for a minority of people who live close to their place of work, or just want a toy between their legs to pleasure themselves. The cost of building the infrastructure for something so ineffective and trivial should fall on its users - not the millions who will never use it and never benefit from it.

As far as roads are concerned, I would welcome the renamiing/repurposin
g of VED (let's tax the motorist to death to pay for, it seems, anything BUT roads) back to Road Fund Licence - the tax on motorists to pay for the roads and other services/facilities they use.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.[/p][/quote]Soooo, it's a very selective logic then? By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax. You want to be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Not a 'very selective' logic' at all. I derive benefits directly, or indirectly, from the education of other people's children. I have, effectively, an invaluable insurance policy in the NHS which, even if I don't use it now, will gain significant benefit from in the future. I can use any public road I wish to, to get from A to B. Roads are widely distributed throughout the country, therefore the amount I pay towards them is proportionally distributed. I will not, however, ever use a bicycle. Nor will millions of other people. They are not, and never will be, a workable solution to get millions of people to work. They're a solution for a minority of people who live close to their place of work, or just want a toy between their legs to pleasure themselves. The cost of building the infrastructure for something so ineffective and trivial should fall on its users - not the millions who will never use it and never benefit from it. As far as roads are concerned, I would welcome the renamiing/repurposin g of VED (let's tax the motorist to death to pay for, it seems, anything BUT roads) back to Road Fund Licence - the tax on motorists to pay for the roads and other services/facilities they use. JackJohnson
  • Score: -5

2:49pm Thu 3 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.
Soooo, it's a very selective logic then?
By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax.
You want to be careful what you wish for.
The guy is obviously a small minded, illogical and self centred plum and despite his stupid comment being shown to be at best 'unrealistic' there is obviously no point arguing with him.

.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.[/p][/quote]Soooo, it's a very selective logic then? By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax. You want to be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]The guy is obviously a small minded, illogical and self centred plum and despite his stupid comment being shown to be at best 'unrealistic' there is obviously no point arguing with him. . scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

2:57pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Maiseymo wrote:
An obscene waste of money!
Really? Have you seen the cost of road building.

The M74 extension in Glasgow cost £692m, which works out at £138.4m per mile or £78,000 a yard (£86,500 a metre).

A3 tunnel at Hindhead in Surrey, the vast bulk of the £371m cost is concentrated on the 1.2 mile (1.9km) tunnel, costing around £300m, equivalent to £142,000 per yard (£155,000 per metre).

Do the "Anti-brigade" actually think their "Road Tax" would come anywhere near paying for this?
[quote][p][bold]Maiseymo[/bold] wrote: An obscene waste of money![/p][/quote]Really? Have you seen the cost of road building. The M74 extension in Glasgow cost £692m, which works out at £138.4m per mile or £78,000 a yard (£86,500 a metre). A3 tunnel at Hindhead in Surrey, the vast bulk of the £371m cost is concentrated on the 1.2 mile (1.9km) tunnel, costing around £300m, equivalent to £142,000 per yard (£155,000 per metre). Do the "Anti-brigade" actually think their "Road Tax" would come anywhere near paying for this? Franks Tank
  • Score: 7

3:11pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.
Soooo, it's a very selective logic then?
By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax.
You want to be careful what you wish for.
Not a 'very selective' logic' at all. I derive benefits directly, or indirectly, from the education of other people's children. I have, effectively, an invaluable insurance policy in the NHS which, even if I don't use it now, will gain significant benefit from in the future. I can use any public road I wish to, to get from A to B. Roads are widely distributed throughout the country, therefore the amount I pay towards them is proportionally distributed.

I will not, however, ever use a bicycle. Nor will millions of other people. They are not, and never will be, a workable solution to get millions of people to work. They're a solution for a minority of people who live close to their place of work, or just want a toy between their legs to pleasure themselves. The cost of building the infrastructure for something so ineffective and trivial should fall on its users - not the millions who will never use it and never benefit from it.

As far as roads are concerned, I would welcome the renamiing/repurposin

g of VED (let's tax the motorist to death to pay for, it seems, anything BUT roads) back to Road Fund Licence - the tax on motorists to pay for the roads and other services/facilities they use.
Bicycles already are a "workable solution to get millions of people to work".
If cycling commuters were not on a bicycle how do you think they would get to work?
Think about it now....
Keep thinking.....
That right they be in their car.... in the same traffic jam as you.... quite probably getting in your way.
So it's only a small step of logic to suggest then, that you are directly benefiting from proper cycle infrastructure and, ergo, you should contribute accordingly.
Q.E.D. thank you very much.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.[/p][/quote]Soooo, it's a very selective logic then? By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax. You want to be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Not a 'very selective' logic' at all. I derive benefits directly, or indirectly, from the education of other people's children. I have, effectively, an invaluable insurance policy in the NHS which, even if I don't use it now, will gain significant benefit from in the future. I can use any public road I wish to, to get from A to B. Roads are widely distributed throughout the country, therefore the amount I pay towards them is proportionally distributed. I will not, however, ever use a bicycle. Nor will millions of other people. They are not, and never will be, a workable solution to get millions of people to work. They're a solution for a minority of people who live close to their place of work, or just want a toy between their legs to pleasure themselves. The cost of building the infrastructure for something so ineffective and trivial should fall on its users - not the millions who will never use it and never benefit from it. As far as roads are concerned, I would welcome the renamiing/repurposin g of VED (let's tax the motorist to death to pay for, it seems, anything BUT roads) back to Road Fund Licence - the tax on motorists to pay for the roads and other services/facilities they use.[/p][/quote]Bicycles already are a "workable solution to get millions of people to work". If cycling commuters were not on a bicycle how do you think they would get to work? Think about it now.... Keep thinking..... That right they be in their car.... in the same traffic jam as you.... quite probably getting in your way. So it's only a small step of logic to suggest then, that you are directly benefiting from proper cycle infrastructure and, ergo, you should contribute accordingly. Q.E.D. thank you very much. Franks Tank
  • Score: 8

3:12pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot.

We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it.

And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot. We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it. And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need. JackJohnson
  • Score: -8

3:14pm Thu 3 Apr 14

fedupwithbadcyclists says...

will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity

In a more pro-active note .........
Would however comment on the plans on the website :-

noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !!
why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking).
If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas
will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas fedupwithbadcyclists
  • Score: 3

3:30pm Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot.

We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it.

And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.
Pay nothing? Sorry are you saying cyclists pay nothing towards road repairs and improvements? After everything that has been said on here do you still not understand how road building and road repairs are paid for?
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot. We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it. And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.[/p][/quote]Pay nothing? Sorry are you saying cyclists pay nothing towards road repairs and improvements? After everything that has been said on here do you still not understand how road building and road repairs are paid for? boardsandphotos
  • Score: 6

3:33pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
I see Suzybag is back on here giving it some, silly misguided lady. The facts are cycle lanes are poorly designed, covered in debris, suddenly come to a halt forcing the cyclist onto the road, complete waste of time. Would rather see the money spent on enforcing the law against idiot cyclists and motorists alike who disobey the law, are dangerous and ultimately give Suzyimpartialposter something to rabbit on about.. btw Suzy - did you manage to drive your car back out of the Chinese takeaway yesterday?
btw arthur maureen walobs - is the secure hospital allowing you access to a computer again - best they put you meds up again.......... bless..........
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: I see Suzybag is back on here giving it some, silly misguided lady. The facts are cycle lanes are poorly designed, covered in debris, suddenly come to a halt forcing the cyclist onto the road, complete waste of time. Would rather see the money spent on enforcing the law against idiot cyclists and motorists alike who disobey the law, are dangerous and ultimately give Suzyimpartialposter something to rabbit on about.. btw Suzy - did you manage to drive your car back out of the Chinese takeaway yesterday?[/p][/quote]btw arthur maureen walobs - is the secure hospital allowing you access to a computer again - best they put you meds up again.......... bless.......... suzigirl
  • Score: -4

3:36pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot.

We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it.

And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.
Here's a leap of thinking for you.
The vast majority of cyclists also own cars and therefore contribute just as much as every other road user.
Following on from this it could then be argued that since they cycle they are not getting the full benefit from their contribution.
Probably best if you stop shooting yourself in the foot eh?
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot. We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it. And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.[/p][/quote]Here's a leap of thinking for you. The vast majority of cyclists also own cars and therefore contribute just as much as every other road user. Following on from this it could then be argued that since they cycle they are not getting the full benefit from their contribution. Probably best if you stop shooting yourself in the foot eh? Franks Tank
  • Score: 8

3:38pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

thisloginprocessisda
ft
wrote:
Nearly got knocked over this morning by someone on their phone whilst driving a car. Saw three people jump red lights on in their cars. Saw people doing their make up whilst driving. Some of you have no logic or sense when you post on here. I love walking and cycling,keeps me fit and saves quite a bit of money. I'll also probably live longer than you fat thick idiots
Here we go again more abuse from a LL........ you can get therapy you know......
[quote][p][bold]thisloginprocessisda ft[/bold] wrote: Nearly got knocked over this morning by someone on their phone whilst driving a car. Saw three people jump red lights on in their cars. Saw people doing their make up whilst driving. Some of you have no logic or sense when you post on here. I love walking and cycling,keeps me fit and saves quite a bit of money. I'll also probably live longer than you fat thick idiots[/p][/quote]Here we go again more abuse from a LL........ you can get therapy you know...... suzigirl
  • Score: -9

4:06pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

fedupwithbadcyclists wrote:
will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas
I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic!
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithbadcyclists[/bold] wrote: will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas[/p][/quote]I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic! suzigirl
  • Score: -7

4:18pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

There's £millions needed to repair all the potholes on our roads and they spend money on this rubbish, meanwhile because of consecutive councils negligence cars, motorcycles and bicycles are suffering damage and the councils refuse to take responsibility for the repairs.
Before any more alterations are made to road layouts these potholes should be made safe, then and only then should they consider any further alterations.
There's £millions needed to repair all the potholes on our roads and they spend money on this rubbish, meanwhile because of consecutive councils negligence cars, motorcycles and bicycles are suffering damage and the councils refuse to take responsibility for the repairs. Before any more alterations are made to road layouts these potholes should be made safe, then and only then should they consider any further alterations. Hessenford
  • Score: 11

4:18pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

suzigirl wrote:
fedupwithbadcyclists wrote:
will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas
I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic!
Did anybody see the program where Clarkson ate and Ortolan Bunting?
Absolute classic.
You might also want to look up how an Ortolan Buntin is prepared for consumption.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithbadcyclists[/bold] wrote: will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas[/p][/quote]I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic![/p][/quote]Did anybody see the program where Clarkson ate and Ortolan Bunting? Absolute classic. You might also want to look up how an Ortolan Buntin is prepared for consumption. Franks Tank
  • Score: 1

4:27pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Arthur Maureen says...

suzigirl wrote:
fedupwithbadcyclists wrote:
will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas
I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic!
I'm busy 'thumbing up' your posts since nobody else does and I know how mad it gets you. Please keep away from trees Suzy
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithbadcyclists[/bold] wrote: will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas[/p][/quote]I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic![/p][/quote]I'm busy 'thumbing up' your posts since nobody else does and I know how mad it gets you. Please keep away from trees Suzy Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 3

4:52pm Thu 3 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
fedupwithbadcyclists wrote: will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas
I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic!
I'm busy 'thumbing up' your posts since nobody else does and I know how mad it gets you. Please keep away from trees Suzy
You do write some nonsense.........eve
rybody is entitled to their opinion.... that it why we live in a democracy........and please stop patronising me - I thank you......watch out they calling you back into your room.......
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithbadcyclists[/bold] wrote: will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas[/p][/quote]I love Jeremy Clarkson's programme about cycling in London. Did you see Chris Boardman's face! Classic![/p][/quote]I'm busy 'thumbing up' your posts since nobody else does and I know how mad it gets you. Please keep away from trees Suzy[/p][/quote]You do write some nonsense.........eve rybody is entitled to their opinion.... that it why we live in a democracy........and please stop patronising me - I thank you......watch out they calling you back into your room....... suzigirl
  • Score: -12

4:53pm Thu 3 Apr 14

skydriver says...

They don't use the ones that set there already across the area so why waste more cash., better spend this cash on more children's services that are being cut. At least that would be of some use.
They don't use the ones that set there already across the area so why waste more cash., better spend this cash on more children's services that are being cut. At least that would be of some use. skydriver
  • Score: -6

4:57pm Thu 3 Apr 14

skydriver says...

Phixer wrote:
Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.”

Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.
Reduce the number of car journeys , what a load of c?!p.by what 5, wow real value for money. Another councillor from the planet Zanussi .
Bet he still goes to work by car, and to council meetings. Then again if that is the case then the mayors can be dispensed with, they too can arrive by bike, now then lead by example.
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.” Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.[/p][/quote]Reduce the number of car journeys , what a load of c?!p.by what 5, wow real value for money. Another councillor from the planet Zanussi . Bet he still goes to work by car, and to council meetings. Then again if that is the case then the mayors can be dispensed with, they too can arrive by bike, now then lead by example. skydriver
  • Score: 3

5:06pm Thu 3 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

skydriver wrote:
Phixer wrote:
Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.”

Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.
Reduce the number of car journeys , what a load of c?!p.by what 5, wow real value for money. Another councillor from the planet Zanussi .
Bet he still goes to work by car, and to council meetings. Then again if that is the case then the mayors can be dispensed with, they too can arrive by bike, now then lead by example.
http://evworld.com/n
ews.cfm?newsid=32625


Dutch Prime Minister cycling to work...
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.” Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.[/p][/quote]Reduce the number of car journeys , what a load of c?!p.by what 5, wow real value for money. Another councillor from the planet Zanussi . Bet he still goes to work by car, and to council meetings. Then again if that is the case then the mayors can be dispensed with, they too can arrive by bike, now then lead by example.[/p][/quote]http://evworld.com/n ews.cfm?newsid=32625 Dutch Prime Minister cycling to work... boardsandphotos
  • Score: 5

5:08pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Hessenford wrote:
There's £millions needed to repair all the potholes on our roads and they spend money on this rubbish, meanwhile because of consecutive councils negligence cars, motorcycles and bicycles are suffering damage and the councils refuse to take responsibility for the repairs.
Before any more alterations are made to road layouts these potholes should be made safe, then and only then should they consider any further alterations.
Good suggestion. If there's £650,000 available spend it on something that's going to benefit a majority of people. Filling a few potholes means cyclists will no longer need to wave, unpredictably, all over the road getting themselves converted into roadkill. Motorists will not be wrecking therir wheels and suspension driving through potholes and 'our' little bit of the world will be a much safer place for everyone.

Money well spent - not wasted on a minority group.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: There's £millions needed to repair all the potholes on our roads and they spend money on this rubbish, meanwhile because of consecutive councils negligence cars, motorcycles and bicycles are suffering damage and the councils refuse to take responsibility for the repairs. Before any more alterations are made to road layouts these potholes should be made safe, then and only then should they consider any further alterations.[/p][/quote]Good suggestion. If there's £650,000 available spend it on something that's going to benefit a majority of people. Filling a few potholes means cyclists will no longer need to wave, unpredictably, all over the road getting themselves converted into roadkill. Motorists will not be wrecking therir wheels and suspension driving through potholes and 'our' little bit of the world will be a much safer place for everyone. Money well spent - not wasted on a minority group. JackJohnson
  • Score: -1

5:27pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Avengerboy says...

As a shift worker the last time I was in a traffic jam was 1996.
As a shift worker the last time I was in a traffic jam was 1996. Avengerboy
  • Score: 2

5:31pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Avengerboy says...

Councillor Anne Rey is a car driver I take it?
Councillor Anne Rey is a car driver I take it? Avengerboy
  • Score: 2

5:44pm Thu 3 Apr 14

O'Reilly says...

Phixer wrote:
Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.”

Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.
Yea right............in his f***** dreams.
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.” Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.[/p][/quote]Yea right............in his f***** dreams. O'Reilly
  • Score: 1

6:14pm Thu 3 Apr 14

s-pb2 says...

It seems most here havent read the article. The cycle lane is being put in for the benefit of schoolchildren primarily, it doesnt say anything about commuters.

Anyway there is a perfectly useable cycle lane already on this stretch of road. Yes its on the pavement, but its clearly marked, and Id rather see school kids safe on that than on an extremely busy road.

Also those idiots who keep saying that all cyclists should be registered, insured and having passed a test. What complete idiots! So what you are saying that these schoolchildren, who this lane is primarily for, should have to be registered? should have to pay insurance? even if they are 8 years old? How would you expect a school child to pay for insurance and registration in the first place? All registration and insurance of school children on bicycles will do is cause more children not to have bicycles, increase obesity and even more traffic as the children will then be driven to school instead.

So if we register/insure/tax etc all cyclists, what about other road users? Shall we tax all mobility scooters, register anyone who uses a skateboard, compulsory insurance for all bladers, maybe even a licence to walk. And as for those 5 year olds on their scooters, have they not thought of how their actions are wrong because us car drivers have to pay VED and these children should not be let out as they dont pay anything towards the upkeep of the roads
It seems most here havent read the article. The cycle lane is being put in for the benefit of schoolchildren primarily, it doesnt say anything about commuters. Anyway there is a perfectly useable cycle lane already on this stretch of road. Yes its on the pavement, but its clearly marked, and Id rather see school kids safe on that than on an extremely busy road. Also those idiots who keep saying that all cyclists should be registered, insured and having passed a test. What complete idiots! So what you are saying that these schoolchildren, who this lane is primarily for, should have to be registered? should have to pay insurance? even if they are 8 years old? How would you expect a school child to pay for insurance and registration in the first place? All registration and insurance of school children on bicycles will do is cause more children not to have bicycles, increase obesity and even more traffic as the children will then be driven to school instead. So if we register/insure/tax etc all cyclists, what about other road users? Shall we tax all mobility scooters, register anyone who uses a skateboard, compulsory insurance for all bladers, maybe even a licence to walk. And as for those 5 year olds on their scooters, have they not thought of how their actions are wrong because us car drivers have to pay VED and these children should not be let out as they dont pay anything towards the upkeep of the roads s-pb2
  • Score: 10

6:28pm Thu 3 Apr 14

mattkuk says...

FNS-man wrote:
How is going encouraging pupils to cycle to school going to reduce congestion? Madness.
How do you think you muppet ??
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: How is going encouraging pupils to cycle to school going to reduce congestion? Madness.[/p][/quote]How do you think you muppet ?? mattkuk
  • Score: 3

6:40pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Turtlebay says...

If the result is anything like Barrack Road in Christchurch, the cyclists will just ignore the cycle lanes and continue to use the roads!
If the result is anything like Barrack Road in Christchurch, the cyclists will just ignore the cycle lanes and continue to use the roads! Turtlebay
  • Score: -2

6:50pm Thu 3 Apr 14

The Timelord says...

Nee how wrote:
We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,
This evening I was carved by a low-life of a private hire vehicle driver (not even a taxi driver) thinking he had priority and the God-given right to use the lane as a race-way to get to the red light at Cemetery Junction.
With licences being issued to people like this who don't understand private hire vehicle does not equate to 'taxi' and no enforcement to make these lanes safe cyclists will vote with their wheels and use the pavement.
[quote][p][bold]Nee how[/bold] wrote: We have cycle lanes in Lansdowne Road, the cyclist still use the pavement while the Police pass singing their favourite song "just walk on by" or rather "drive on by" . Never mind the injuries and near misses caused by cyclists speeding on the pavements, more cycle lanes but get off the pavements so we can walk in safety as well as exiting our homes without the danger of being hit and abused,[/p][/quote]This evening I was carved by a low-life of a private hire vehicle driver (not even a taxi driver) thinking he had priority and the God-given right to use the lane as a race-way to get to the red light at Cemetery Junction. With licences being issued to people like this who don't understand private hire vehicle does not equate to 'taxi' and no enforcement to make these lanes safe cyclists will vote with their wheels and use the pavement. The Timelord
  • Score: 10

6:53pm Thu 3 Apr 14

West moors 1 says...

Why do we allow these idiots to spend our taxes on such stupid ideas. The lanes will not be used, cause chaos whilst being laid and yet more lines and signs to maintain forever more. Idiots, idiots, idiots!!
Why do we allow these idiots to spend our taxes on such stupid ideas. The lanes will not be used, cause chaos whilst being laid and yet more lines and signs to maintain forever more. Idiots, idiots, idiots!! West moors 1
  • Score: -1

7:36pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

Phixer wrote:
Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.”

Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.
Does he really think that all car drivers will rush out and purchase a bike because of this total waste of money, where do these people come from.
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “In doing so we will be able to reduce car journeys along Castle Lane West and reduce congestion.” Oh, really - how? Do you think that your paymasters are too dumb to understand a stupid comment when we read one? Never mind, as long as you can sleep peaceful at night believing your own hype.[/p][/quote]Does he really think that all car drivers will rush out and purchase a bike because of this total waste of money, where do these people come from. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Thu 3 Apr 14

tim m says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
And the ones that really get my back up,the Lycra clad Bradley wiggins wannabes who think they have a god given right to right around in mini pelatons three or four abreast !
Ooh ooh I claim the Lycra rule!!
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: And the ones that really get my back up,the Lycra clad Bradley wiggins wannabes who think they have a god given right to right around in mini pelatons three or four abreast ![/p][/quote]Ooh ooh I claim the Lycra rule!! tim m
  • Score: 7

9:10pm Thu 3 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.
Soooo, it's a very selective logic then?
By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax.
You want to be careful what you wish for.
Not a 'very selective' logic' at all. I derive benefits directly, or indirectly, from the education of other people's children. I have, effectively, an invaluable insurance policy in the NHS which, even if I don't use it now, will gain significant benefit from in the future. I can use any public road I wish to, to get from A to B. Roads are widely distributed throughout the country, therefore the amount I pay towards them is proportionally distributed.

I will not, however, ever use a bicycle. Nor will millions of other people. They are not, and never will be, a workable solution to get millions of people to work. They're a solution for a minority of people who live close to their place of work, or just want a toy between their legs to pleasure themselves. The cost of building the infrastructure for something so ineffective and trivial should fall on its users - not the millions who will never use it and never benefit from it.

As far as roads are concerned, I would welcome the renamiing/repurposin

g of VED (let's tax the motorist to death to pay for, it seems, anything BUT roads) back to Road Fund Licence - the tax on motorists to pay for the roads and other services/facilities they use.
Oh dear you are very thick and misinformed.

To reply to your main claim, if there are decent cycling facilities and this reduces the congestion of the school run, for example, or congestion in general, then you will benefit indirectly. Anyone who argues that getting pupils to cycle to school would not reduce congestion is a fool.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]As far as cyclists are concerned - I'm perfectly happy with my logic, thank-you. Cycling is not going to solve our transport problems so why should any non-cyclist pay for to build an infrastructure which is only a playground for a minority - many of who admit that they won't use it because it's not suitable. The people who choose to use it should pay for it.[/p][/quote]Soooo, it's a very selective logic then? By your logic of "the people that use it should pay for it" you'll be all in favour of blanket road tolls and cyclists that don't own a car should get a rebate on their council tax. You want to be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Not a 'very selective' logic' at all. I derive benefits directly, or indirectly, from the education of other people's children. I have, effectively, an invaluable insurance policy in the NHS which, even if I don't use it now, will gain significant benefit from in the future. I can use any public road I wish to, to get from A to B. Roads are widely distributed throughout the country, therefore the amount I pay towards them is proportionally distributed. I will not, however, ever use a bicycle. Nor will millions of other people. They are not, and never will be, a workable solution to get millions of people to work. They're a solution for a minority of people who live close to their place of work, or just want a toy between their legs to pleasure themselves. The cost of building the infrastructure for something so ineffective and trivial should fall on its users - not the millions who will never use it and never benefit from it. As far as roads are concerned, I would welcome the renamiing/repurposin g of VED (let's tax the motorist to death to pay for, it seems, anything BUT roads) back to Road Fund Licence - the tax on motorists to pay for the roads and other services/facilities they use.[/p][/quote]Oh dear you are very thick and misinformed. To reply to your main claim, if there are decent cycling facilities and this reduces the congestion of the school run, for example, or congestion in general, then you will benefit indirectly. Anyone who argues that getting pupils to cycle to school would not reduce congestion is a fool. FNS-man
  • Score: 6

10:27pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Mike R-B says...

Accident reducing plans are great but until cyclists are made to use these lanes by law and the law enforced, it's all pointless.
Accident reducing plans are great but until cyclists are made to use these lanes by law and the law enforced, it's all pointless. Mike R-B
  • Score: -9

10:32pm Thu 3 Apr 14

robisbad says...

Turtlebay wrote:
If the result is anything like Barrack Road in Christchurch, the cyclists will just ignore the cycle lanes and continue to use the roads!
... have you ever tried cycling along Barrack Road?
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: If the result is anything like Barrack Road in Christchurch, the cyclists will just ignore the cycle lanes and continue to use the roads![/p][/quote]... have you ever tried cycling along Barrack Road? robisbad
  • Score: 10

2:49am Fri 4 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure.
Why should child free adults pay for schools.
Why should healthy people pay for the NHS.

You want to have a look at your logic.
May I ask where JackJohnson used any logic?
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Why should non-driving taxpayers pay for motoring infrastructure. Why should child free adults pay for schools. Why should healthy people pay for the NHS. You want to have a look at your logic.[/p][/quote]May I ask where JackJohnson used any logic? breamoreboy
  • Score: 6

2:56am Fri 4 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
Actually you make a good point. So as I will never use a gun, ship or aircraft as used by our armed forces, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]Actually you make a good point. So as I will never use a gun, ship or aircraft as used by our armed forces, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly). breamoreboy
  • Score: 5

3:11am Fri 4 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

fedupwithbadcyclists wrote:
will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity

In a more pro-active note .........
Would however comment on the plans on the website :-

noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !!
why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking).
If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas
Two comments. First nothing would get me riding a bike of any description in London. Second I can't stand Top Gear and the three morons who present it. Perhaps that's because I don't understand the preoccupation that mankind has with a vehicle that's noisy, smelly, inefficient and expensive.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithbadcyclists[/bold] wrote: will avoid the "same old chestnut" peds V cyclists/other road users and v v. as a lot of readers seem hell bent on bringing up at every opportunity In a more pro-active note ......... Would however comment on the plans on the website :- noted the new Bus stops cross over the new cycle lanes !! why is this necessary when the cycle lanes could divert behind the bus stops thus avoiding potential accidents between buses and cyclists when the buses "manoeuver " (means - pull in/out without looking). If readers saw the recent serious Top Gear experiment - cycling in London streets - Jeremy Clarkson commented that they were at most risk from buses moving in/out of stop areas[/p][/quote]Two comments. First nothing would get me riding a bike of any description in London. Second I can't stand Top Gear and the three morons who present it. Perhaps that's because I don't understand the preoccupation that mankind has with a vehicle that's noisy, smelly, inefficient and expensive. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

9:25am Fri 4 Apr 14

cmandorset says...

We are governed by simpletons who are unable to see cycles lanes on busy roads are dangerous. Cycling on busy roads is dangerous without any formal riding test and accountability to enforce good behaviour. The only way to increase safety is to provide segregated lanes stopping be cyclists and cars coming in to contact. We don't have enough space for that so they'll keep creating these expensive lane divisions and ignore the fact they don't work.
We are governed by simpletons who are unable to see cycles lanes on busy roads are dangerous. Cycling on busy roads is dangerous without any formal riding test and accountability to enforce good behaviour. The only way to increase safety is to provide segregated lanes stopping be cyclists and cars coming in to contact. We don't have enough space for that so they'll keep creating these expensive lane divisions and ignore the fact they don't work. cmandorset
  • Score: 0

10:01am Fri 4 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot.

We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it.

And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.
Unfortunately your grasp of democracy is as shaky as your understanding of how roads are financed.
In a civilised democracy it is still incumbent upon those in power to provide for, protect and look after the minority, the vulnerable and those that may be intrinsically against them.
You need only look to the Middle East or Africa to see how those new to democracy understand the concept.
In some such states the winning dynasty, tribe, religious group go about murdering, torturing and subjugating the minority or dissenting voices.
They might still hold free and democratic elections but it's not the sort of place in which I'd like to live.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot. We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it. And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately your grasp of democracy is as shaky as your understanding of how roads are financed. In a civilised democracy it is still incumbent upon those in power to provide for, protect and look after the minority, the vulnerable and those that may be intrinsically against them. You need only look to the Middle East or Africa to see how those new to democracy understand the concept. In some such states the winning dynasty, tribe, religious group go about murdering, torturing and subjugating the minority or dissenting voices. They might still hold free and democratic elections but it's not the sort of place in which I'd like to live. Franks Tank
  • Score: 5

1:17pm Sat 5 Apr 14

1CEMAN says...

How about instead of making an unessacary cycle lane which will probably never get used. Widen the road and make an extra lane to free up the traffic I get stuck in every single day!

What a waste of money.
How about instead of making an unessacary cycle lane which will probably never get used. Widen the road and make an extra lane to free up the traffic I get stuck in every single day! What a waste of money. 1CEMAN
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Sat 5 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Even the cyclists seem to agree that this is a complete and utter waste of money. Kick it into the long grass and bury it, before it becomes a huge embarsassment.
Even the cyclists seem to agree that this is a complete and utter waste of money. Kick it into the long grass and bury it, before it becomes a huge embarsassment. JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

2:15pm Sat 5 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot.

We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it.

And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.
Unfortunately your grasp of democracy is as shaky as your understanding of how roads are financed.
In a civilised democracy it is still incumbent upon those in power to provide for, protect and look after the minority, the vulnerable and those that may be intrinsically against them.
You need only look to the Middle East or Africa to see how those new to democracy understand the concept.
In some such states the winning dynasty, tribe, religious group go about murdering, torturing and subjugating the minority or dissenting voices.
They might still hold free and democratic elections but it's not the sort of place in which I'd like to live.
So you'll be happy for the local authority to provide permanent sites for travellers, then.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot. We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it. And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately your grasp of democracy is as shaky as your understanding of how roads are financed. In a civilised democracy it is still incumbent upon those in power to provide for, protect and look after the minority, the vulnerable and those that may be intrinsically against them. You need only look to the Middle East or Africa to see how those new to democracy understand the concept. In some such states the winning dynasty, tribe, religious group go about murdering, torturing and subjugating the minority or dissenting voices. They might still hold free and democratic elections but it's not the sort of place in which I'd like to live.[/p][/quote]So you'll be happy for the local authority to provide permanent sites for travellers, then. JackJohnson
  • Score: -1

1:22pm Sun 6 Apr 14

rgjamieson says...

justme20092009 wrote:
bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them
Nobody pays road tax.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them[/p][/quote]Nobody pays road tax. rgjamieson
  • Score: 5

1:24pm Sun 6 Apr 14

rgjamieson says...

justme20092009 wrote:
bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them
Nobody pays road tax.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: bang out of order,they dont pay road tax or have insurance so why spend money on them[/p][/quote]Nobody pays road tax. rgjamieson
  • Score: 7

1:28pm Sun 6 Apr 14

rgjamieson says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
winton50 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long
The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them. You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared? Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.
But they are still there to be used ,why do some cyclists use them and others don't ,the roads I have mentioned have speed limits in excess of 50 mph and the lanes have been provided for in my opinion the cyclists safety ,
Quite often shared cycling lanes / pavements are unsuitable for cycling at a reasonable speed.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: All well and good if the cyclists actually use it ,in my opinion should be an offence not to use a provided cycle lane ,infuriates me when there is a decent stretch of cycle lane and certain cyclists still choose to ride on the road Hurn airport perimeter Holten Heath and upton road along side the a 350 springs to mind good cycle lanes in excess of a mile long[/p][/quote]The problem is that often cycle lanes just magically disappear or appear with absolutely no signage or sensible method to actually get onto them. You state that these lanes are ' in excess of a mile long'. Where do they go after that? How would you feel if you were required to drive your car for only a mile and then the road suddenly disappeared? Also the DOT gave advice some time ago that cyclists shouldn't use a shared cycleway if they are going to be travelling at over 22mph which you will find number of people riding at.[/p][/quote]But they are still there to be used ,why do some cyclists use them and others don't ,the roads I have mentioned have speed limits in excess of 50 mph and the lanes have been provided for in my opinion the cyclists safety ,[/p][/quote]Quite often shared cycling lanes / pavements are unsuitable for cycling at a reasonable speed. rgjamieson
  • Score: 4

1:51pm Sun 6 Apr 14

rgjamieson says...

Turtlebay wrote:
If the result is anything like Barrack Road in Christchurch, the cyclists will just ignore the cycle lanes and continue to use the roads!
The cycle lanes on Barrack road are laregely unusable due to the amount of pedestrians using them. It is unsafe to use them when cycling at a reasonable speed..
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: If the result is anything like Barrack Road in Christchurch, the cyclists will just ignore the cycle lanes and continue to use the roads![/p][/quote]The cycle lanes on Barrack road are laregely unusable due to the amount of pedestrians using them. It is unsafe to use them when cycling at a reasonable speed.. rgjamieson
  • Score: 3

10:52am Mon 7 Apr 14

GarrySibbald says...

arthur1948 wrote:
i bet they still ride on the pavement...
Yes you may be right, but when is a pavement not a pavement? When it's a cycle route!
[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote: i bet they still ride on the pavement...[/p][/quote]Yes you may be right, but when is a pavement not a pavement? When it's a cycle route! GarrySibbald
  • Score: 1

11:54am Mon 7 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Repo wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?
You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance.

I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY.
Good Greif.
Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot.

We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it.

And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.
Unfortunately your grasp of democracy is as shaky as your understanding of how roads are financed.
In a civilised democracy it is still incumbent upon those in power to provide for, protect and look after the minority, the vulnerable and those that may be intrinsically against them.
You need only look to the Middle East or Africa to see how those new to democracy understand the concept.
In some such states the winning dynasty, tribe, religious group go about murdering, torturing and subjugating the minority or dissenting voices.
They might still hold free and democratic elections but it's not the sort of place in which I'd like to live.
So you'll be happy for the local authority to provide permanent sites for travellers, then.
Wow, we're digressing a bit now aren't we?

What I think of the provision of a temporary travellers site and its location is largely irrelevant.

However, we can assume that travellers are going to come and camp on our public spaces whether we like it or not.
It would seem that the current law, police or local government policy is too weak to be able move them on quickly unless there is a local site.
Would the pragmatic approach be to find a token plot of land way from other properties so that they can be moved off open spaces as soon as they show up rather than wait for the court system to creak into action?
Presumably, if travellers realise that they can and will be shifted as soon as they try to stop they will refrain from coming in the first place.
I doubt the travellers will want to use any site provided, but it does give the power back to the local council and police to take immediate action which, I presume, is what we all want.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]I can tell you are an intelligent person by your brilliant suggestion: can I please stop paying for the NHS because I've never used it?[/p][/quote]You are likely to use it in the future (especially if you're a cyclist). Everybody will use it for ailments and conditions ranging from a few pence to those costing many £000s. It is a form of insurance. I know, beyond reasonable doubt, that I will not use a bicycle. I will gain no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the construction of cycle routes. I ask again, why should I pay for something I know I will never use or gain any benefit from (directly or indirectly).[/p][/quote]BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CIVILISED DEMOCRACY. Good Greif.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry - I forgot. We live in a democracy - where a minority of people who pay NOTHING for what they are being given is taken from a majority of people who will not and will never use it. And here's me thinking that a democracy was about doing what the majority want and need.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately your grasp of democracy is as shaky as your understanding of how roads are financed. In a civilised democracy it is still incumbent upon those in power to provide for, protect and look after the minority, the vulnerable and those that may be intrinsically against them. You need only look to the Middle East or Africa to see how those new to democracy understand the concept. In some such states the winning dynasty, tribe, religious group go about murdering, torturing and subjugating the minority or dissenting voices. They might still hold free and democratic elections but it's not the sort of place in which I'd like to live.[/p][/quote]So you'll be happy for the local authority to provide permanent sites for travellers, then.[/p][/quote]Wow, we're digressing a bit now aren't we? What I think of the provision of a temporary travellers site and its location is largely irrelevant. However, we can assume that travellers are going to come and camp on our public spaces whether we like it or not. It would seem that the current law, police or local government policy is too weak to be able move them on quickly unless there is a local site. Would the pragmatic approach be to find a token plot of land way from other properties so that they can be moved off open spaces as soon as they show up rather than wait for the court system to creak into action? Presumably, if travellers realise that they can and will be shifted as soon as they try to stop they will refrain from coming in the first place. I doubt the travellers will want to use any site provided, but it does give the power back to the local council and police to take immediate action which, I presume, is what we all want. Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

1:15pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Top_Gear says...

chris42 wrote:
I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then !
Wow, inspiring comment. Than you for participating.
[quote][p][bold]chris42[/bold] wrote: I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then ![/p][/quote]Wow, inspiring comment. Than you for participating. Top_Gear
  • Score: 4

1:21pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Top_Gear says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.
Are you thick? I don't think you understand how modern society works.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Why should non-cycling taxpayers pay for cycle routes? I don't care where the money is coming from - as long as it is coming from the people it is being spent on, or being spent on services/facilities that are required by the people it was taken from.[/p][/quote]Are you thick? I don't think you understand how modern society works. Top_Gear
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Dorset Logic says...

Can I just say as an elderly and out of touch person, who moans at anything and everything, that the Echo's repeated use of the word Cycle makes me froth at the mouth, I get into a rage and start to shake. Why do things have to change in the world. It was better when you could shoot these kind of people with their silly peddling about, knee's bent riding behavior. I didn't fight in any wars, but I only got an orange for Christmas. When I'm driving about scraping the sides of other peoples cars and knocking off their mirrors at 20 mph, I do not want to see any of these lycra clad fools around. Is this understood.
I am a tolerant man, normally, except when it comes to cycle lanes, anyone under 15, other people and other organic organisms. I do not like Jeremy Kyle.

Yours
Brigadier Fortescue Smyth Wilkinson Small (Desc)
Can I just say as an elderly and out of touch person, who moans at anything and everything, that the Echo's repeated use of the word Cycle makes me froth at the mouth, I get into a rage and start to shake. Why do things have to change in the world. It was better when you could shoot these kind of people with their silly peddling about, knee's bent riding behavior. I didn't fight in any wars, but I only got an orange for Christmas. When I'm driving about scraping the sides of other peoples cars and knocking off their mirrors at 20 mph, I do not want to see any of these lycra clad fools around. Is this understood. I am a tolerant man, normally, except when it comes to cycle lanes, anyone under 15, other people and other organic organisms. I do not like Jeremy Kyle. Yours Brigadier Fortescue Smyth Wilkinson Small (Desc) Dorset Logic
  • Score: 7

2:32pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Dorset Logic says...

Top_Gear wrote:
chris42 wrote:
I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then !
Wow, inspiring comment. Than you for participating.
I missed that incident of the cyclist going through a red light. Keep it to yourself though, I've seen a car do it. shhhhhh
[quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chris42[/bold] wrote: I saw a cyclist go through a red light at frizzels roundabout and he got hit by a car, so who is to blame for that one then ![/p][/quote]Wow, inspiring comment. Than you for participating.[/p][/quote]I missed that incident of the cyclist going through a red light. Keep it to yourself though, I've seen a car do it. shhhhhh Dorset Logic
  • Score: 2

12:54am Wed 9 Apr 14

wrifan says...

£800K on "improving" Horseshoe Common area, £250K top of Richmond Hill and now £650K on cycle lanes! Surely there are more pressing projects in this town???!!
£800K on "improving" Horseshoe Common area, £250K top of Richmond Hill and now £650K on cycle lanes! Surely there are more pressing projects in this town???!! wrifan
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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