Bournemouth wins £286k grant to improve road surfaces

Bournemouth Echo: £286k to spend on potholes £286k to spend on potholes

BOURNEMOUTH is to receive more than a quarter of a million pounds of Government cash to fix potholes in the town.

The council’s successfully bid to the Government’s pothole repair fund and has received £268,802 to help cover the cost of mending the town’s storm ravaged roads.

The extra money is in addition to the council’s £1million investment into their Road Rescue and Smart Streets campaign for this financial year and also to the £349,312 allocated to Bournemouth from the Government’s severe weather recovery scheme earlier in the year.

The council said the money will be spent repairing potholes, resurfacing roads and refreshing road marking over the next 12 months.

Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “We are pleased that we have been successful in bidding for extra funding which will add to the money already being invested into our Road Rescue campaign.

“Improving Bournemouth’s road network is a top priority for the council and over the next year ‘Road Rescue’ teams will be carrying out work to bring roads up to a standard that our residents expect.

“Once complete, those who live and commute through this part of the borough will benefit from better road surfaces throughout the town.”

Residents are being urged to use the free My Bournemouth app to report any potholes as well as many other environmental issues including graffiti, damaged pavements and faulty streetlights.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:33pm Wed 2 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?
What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac? speedy231278
  • Score: 3

1:38pm Wed 2 Jul 14

bobthedestroyer says...

speedy231278 wrote:
What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?
By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?[/p][/quote]By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 2

2:12pm Wed 2 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

bobthedestroyer wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?
By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D
And speaking of green tarmac I have just driven along Castle Lane West past all the signs about forthcoming road 'improvements'.

By chance I also saw an isolated cyclist, riding down the middle of the carriageway occasionally dodging in between the slow traffic on either side and completely ignoring the wide marked out empty pavement cycle lane already in place along there.
[quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?[/p][/quote]By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D[/p][/quote]And speaking of green tarmac I have just driven along Castle Lane West past all the signs about forthcoming road 'improvements'. By chance I also saw an isolated cyclist, riding down the middle of the carriageway occasionally dodging in between the slow traffic on either side and completely ignoring the wide marked out empty pavement cycle lane already in place along there. muscliffman
  • Score: 11

2:41pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Brenda H says...

Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves.
Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way. Brenda H
  • Score: -9

3:13pm Wed 2 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Brenda H wrote:
Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves.
Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me.

But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
[quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all. muscliffman
  • Score: 5

3:13pm Wed 2 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Brenda H wrote:
Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves.
Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me.

But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
[quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Brenda H says...

muscliffman wrote:
Brenda H wrote:
Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves.
Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me.

But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
So Sir your Original response was to mention a cyclist on Castle Lane who you found not to your liking. Your relevance stating that to pot hole repairs as the original article is about is what exactly ? Yes of cause you were responding to a comment on Green Tarmac which as far as i am aware has no relevance to a pot hole repair either.The article is about repairing pot holes and has no mention of cycling or refers to it whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.[/p][/quote]So Sir your Original response was to mention a cyclist on Castle Lane who you found not to your liking. Your relevance stating that to pot hole repairs as the original article is about is what exactly ? Yes of cause you were responding to a comment on Green Tarmac which as far as i am aware has no relevance to a pot hole repair either.The article is about repairing pot holes and has no mention of cycling or refers to it whatsoever. Brenda H
  • Score: -1

3:38pm Wed 2 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

muscliffman wrote:
Brenda H wrote:
Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves.
Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me.

But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
I'm sorry biased garbage.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry biased garbage. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Wed 2 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Wonder if all the 'cyclists' will jump at the chance to come on here and moan on and on about the use of their taxes to mend the holes made by cars and lorries?

Hmmm just tumbleweed from their corner.

Whereas from us drivers? well we couldn't wait - even though this has nothing to do with cyclists - for some of us to swarm out with our pathetic, pathetic little 'lets twist it to fit in with our blinkered agenda of spouting factually incorrect vitriol about how we are perfect and pay for literally everything, and we mean everything and anyone using a bike is a free loader and a menace'.

I can't tell you how sad and pathetic you look and 'sound'.

I'm out.

Number of f***ks given any more? Zero.
Wonder if all the 'cyclists' will jump at the chance to come on here and moan on and on about the use of their taxes to mend the holes made by cars and lorries? Hmmm just tumbleweed from their corner. Whereas from us drivers? well we couldn't wait - even though this has nothing to do with cyclists - for some of us to swarm out with our pathetic, pathetic little 'lets twist it to fit in with our blinkered agenda of spouting factually incorrect vitriol about how we are perfect and pay for literally everything, and we mean everything and anyone using a bike is a free loader and a menace'. I can't tell you how sad and pathetic you look and 'sound'. I'm out. Number of f***ks given any more? Zero. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

3:47pm Wed 2 Jul 14

djd says...

Start with Holdenhurst Road from the Wellington Road roundabout as far as Ashley Road.
Sort out the junction of Holdenhurst Road and Ashley Road.
Finish off the rest of Ashley Road.
If there's any money left, Charminster Road could be resurfaced.
As for wasting money. It wasn't so young ago that new bus stops and raised kerbs were put in along Christchurch Road down Pokesdown Hill.
The bus stop at Hambledon Road is being dug up again...to put a new surface on the pavement . What a waste of money.
Start with Holdenhurst Road from the Wellington Road roundabout as far as Ashley Road. Sort out the junction of Holdenhurst Road and Ashley Road. Finish off the rest of Ashley Road. If there's any money left, Charminster Road could be resurfaced. As for wasting money. It wasn't so young ago that new bus stops and raised kerbs were put in along Christchurch Road down Pokesdown Hill. The bus stop at Hambledon Road is being dug up again...to put a new surface on the pavement . What a waste of money. djd
  • Score: 6

3:48pm Wed 2 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Brenda H wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Brenda H wrote:
Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves.
Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me.

But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
So Sir your Original response was to mention a cyclist on Castle Lane who you found not to your liking. Your relevance stating that to pot hole repairs as the original article is about is what exactly ? Yes of cause you were responding to a comment on Green Tarmac which as far as i am aware has no relevance to a pot hole repair either.The article is about repairing pot holes and has no mention of cycling or refers to it whatsoever.
You're (we're) wasting your breath.
[quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.[/p][/quote]So Sir your Original response was to mention a cyclist on Castle Lane who you found not to your liking. Your relevance stating that to pot hole repairs as the original article is about is what exactly ? Yes of cause you were responding to a comment on Green Tarmac which as far as i am aware has no relevance to a pot hole repair either.The article is about repairing pot holes and has no mention of cycling or refers to it whatsoever.[/p][/quote]You're (we're) wasting your breath. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

4:43pm Wed 2 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

muscliffman wrote:
Brenda H wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
So what if they spend money on repairing cycle lane potholes. If you hit a pothole in your car the worst you are likely to suffer is a damaged tyre etc. A cyclist is more likely to be badly injured if he/she comes off their bike as a result of hitting one.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.[/p][/quote]So what if they spend money on repairing cycle lane potholes. If you hit a pothole in your car the worst you are likely to suffer is a damaged tyre etc. A cyclist is more likely to be badly injured if he/she comes off their bike as a result of hitting one. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

tbpoole wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Brenda H wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
So what if they spend money on repairing cycle lane potholes. If you hit a pothole in your car the worst you are likely to suffer is a damaged tyre etc. A cyclist is more likely to be badly injured if he/she comes off their bike as a result of hitting one.
There should be no potholes on roads or cycle lanes, your analogy that a car driver only suffers a blown tyre is pure fiction, hitting a pothole can cause cars to mount pavements or swerve cross the road into oncoming traffic.
Plain fact is that there should be no pot holes anywhere in the interests of safety.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.[/p][/quote]So what if they spend money on repairing cycle lane potholes. If you hit a pothole in your car the worst you are likely to suffer is a damaged tyre etc. A cyclist is more likely to be badly injured if he/she comes off their bike as a result of hitting one.[/p][/quote]There should be no potholes on roads or cycle lanes, your analogy that a car driver only suffers a blown tyre is pure fiction, hitting a pothole can cause cars to mount pavements or swerve cross the road into oncoming traffic. Plain fact is that there should be no pot holes anywhere in the interests of safety. Hessenford
  • Score: 5

5:30pm Wed 2 Jul 14

politicaltrainspotter says...

Lowther Road.Bournemouth first free white knuckle ride.
Lowther Road.Bournemouth first free white knuckle ride. politicaltrainspotter
  • Score: 6

5:47pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Townee says...

It would be ok if they did the job properly but all they do is cut out and fill, never seal the edges. When a car, bus or bike goes over it the edges wear and when we have the next bad weather the rain will get in. Then when it freezes the road will open up again and so the people who do this work will never be out of work.
I SAY DO THE JOB RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT WONT NEED DOING FOR YEARS.
It would be ok if they did the job properly but all they do is cut out and fill, never seal the edges. When a car, bus or bike goes over it the edges wear and when we have the next bad weather the rain will get in. Then when it freezes the road will open up again and so the people who do this work will never be out of work. I SAY DO THE JOB RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT WONT NEED DOING FOR YEARS. Townee
  • Score: 3

7:32pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Peroni says...

Well if that's a bit extra,then at £60 a pot.....that's 4766 extra holes.
But I think there many more than that to deal with lol
Well if that's a bit extra,then at £60 a pot.....that's 4766 extra holes. But I think there many more than that to deal with lol Peroni
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Wed 2 Jul 14

johnbournemouth says...

Pot holes ? There are certainly a lot about . Having driven round one near my home which got bigger and bigger decided to Email council highways with the location and guess what ? It was filled in within 2 days . Makes you think how many other drove around it . You can't expect highways to know about everyone so please -- see a bad pot hole -- send them an Email of where it is. You might be surprised although considering the money they make out of car parking one has to wonder why they need extra funding from government to maintain our roads properly.
Pot holes ? There are certainly a lot about . Having driven round one near my home which got bigger and bigger decided to Email council highways with the location and guess what ? It was filled in within 2 days . Makes you think how many other drove around it . You can't expect highways to know about everyone so please -- see a bad pot hole -- send them an Email of where it is. You might be surprised although considering the money they make out of car parking one has to wonder why they need extra funding from government to maintain our roads properly. johnbournemouth
  • Score: 1

9:12pm Wed 2 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

Peroni wrote:
Well if that's a bit extra,then at £60 a pot.....that's 4766 extra holes.
But I think there many more than that to deal with lol
Don't forget they will re surface and re paint the roads as well.
That money will be gone in a flash.
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: Well if that's a bit extra,then at £60 a pot.....that's 4766 extra holes. But I think there many more than that to deal with lol[/p][/quote]Don't forget they will re surface and re paint the roads as well. That money will be gone in a flash. BIGTONE
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Wed 2 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

muscliffman wrote:
bobthedestroyer wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?
By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D
And speaking of green tarmac I have just driven along Castle Lane West past all the signs about forthcoming road 'improvements'.

By chance I also saw an isolated cyclist, riding down the middle of the carriageway occasionally dodging in between the slow traffic on either side and completely ignoring the wide marked out empty pavement cycle lane already in place along there.
Highway Code Rules 63 & 64: -

63
CYCLE LANES: Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills.

64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

So if I or any other Cyclists want to cycle on the Road we are legally within our rights to do so, Bmth, Poole, Xchurch had a long way to go before it has anything like a proper cycle lane infrastructure that can be used for longer journeys without interuption. Check out Vancouver or Coppenhagen as great examples.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?[/p][/quote]By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D[/p][/quote]And speaking of green tarmac I have just driven along Castle Lane West past all the signs about forthcoming road 'improvements'. By chance I also saw an isolated cyclist, riding down the middle of the carriageway occasionally dodging in between the slow traffic on either side and completely ignoring the wide marked out empty pavement cycle lane already in place along there.[/p][/quote]Highway Code Rules 63 & 64: - 63 CYCLE LANES: Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills. 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 So if I or any other Cyclists want to cycle on the Road we are legally within our rights to do so, Bmth, Poole, Xchurch had a long way to go before it has anything like a proper cycle lane infrastructure that can be used for longer journeys without interuption. Check out Vancouver or Coppenhagen as great examples. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Wed 2 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

*has a long way
*has a long way boardsandphotos
  • Score: 0

11:53pm Wed 2 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
bobthedestroyer wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?
By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D
And speaking of green tarmac I have just driven along Castle Lane West past all the signs about forthcoming road 'improvements'.

By chance I also saw an isolated cyclist, riding down the middle of the carriageway occasionally dodging in between the slow traffic on either side and completely ignoring the wide marked out empty pavement cycle lane already in place along there.
Highway Code Rules 63 & 64: -

63
CYCLE LANES: Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills.

64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

So if I or any other Cyclists want to cycle on the Road we are legally within our rights to do so, Bmth, Poole, Xchurch had a long way to go before it has anything like a proper cycle lane infrastructure that can be used for longer journeys without interuption. Check out Vancouver or Coppenhagen as great examples.
And (best example I have seen, where the bike was on par, if not favored, in some areas), Lanzarote.

It was such a good system we hired bikes as well as the car (we'd hired the car before we got there). So, the vehicle we;d paid for was only used for long distance, otherwise we favoured the bike. Completely out of character but an example of what happens when a town gets it right.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: What's the betting it will all be spent on green tarmac?[/p][/quote]By the time they have conducted various surveys they'll be nothing left. They'll also look to do "improvements" at the same time no doubt, as you say green tarmac, some lights a speed bump or two a few No Cycling signs in the wrong place. Or am I being cynical? :-D[/p][/quote]And speaking of green tarmac I have just driven along Castle Lane West past all the signs about forthcoming road 'improvements'. By chance I also saw an isolated cyclist, riding down the middle of the carriageway occasionally dodging in between the slow traffic on either side and completely ignoring the wide marked out empty pavement cycle lane already in place along there.[/p][/quote]Highway Code Rules 63 & 64: - 63 CYCLE LANES: Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills. 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 So if I or any other Cyclists want to cycle on the Road we are legally within our rights to do so, Bmth, Poole, Xchurch had a long way to go before it has anything like a proper cycle lane infrastructure that can be used for longer journeys without interuption. Check out Vancouver or Coppenhagen as great examples.[/p][/quote]And (best example I have seen, where the bike was on par, if not favored, in some areas), Lanzarote. It was such a good system we hired bikes as well as the car (we'd hired the car before we got there). So, the vehicle we;d paid for was only used for long distance, otherwise we favoured the bike. Completely out of character but an example of what happens when a town gets it right. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

12:03am Thu 3 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

pee off auto-spell I never consented to you making 'favoured' 'favored' in the same way I will not agree with your spelling of specialize when I know specialised to be the correct spelling.

I am British not US of A. For a newspaper to choose a US based system is disappointing. What next in the 'it's cheaper' version, patois?
pee off auto-spell I never consented to you making 'favoured' 'favored' in the same way I will not agree with your spelling of specialize when I know specialised to be the correct spelling. I am British not US of A. For a newspaper to choose a US based system is disappointing. What next in the 'it's cheaper' version, patois? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

7:27am Thu 3 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Brenda H wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.
Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.
So what if they spend money on repairing cycle lane potholes. If you hit a pothole in your car the worst you are likely to suffer is a damaged tyre etc. A cyclist is more likely to be badly injured if he/she comes off their bike as a result of hitting one.
There should be no potholes on roads or cycle lanes, your analogy that a car driver only suffers a blown tyre is pure fiction, hitting a pothole can cause cars to mount pavements or swerve cross the road into oncoming traffic.
Plain fact is that there should be no pot holes anywhere in the interests of safety.
Prove that it is 'pure fiction' then.....in 95% or more of accidents the driver is to blame and faults with the vehicle make up most of the rest. Where is your evidence of all these accidents caused by potholes?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda H[/bold] wrote: Would be delighted to know and understand why the comments as far are related to cycling in an article where no such vehicle is mentioned.Perhaps in my older years i am missing a point or are these comments made to make those who state them feel better or perhaps bigger in themselves. Really does not make any difference to myself what is said but it does seem a little Childish to respond in this way.[/p][/quote]Roads, tarmac, vehicles, cycles - all sounds pretty relevant discussing an article about Council road improvements to me. But then along comes someone criticising the comment contents from others for being irrelevant to the subject and yet they don't even mention the topic at all.[/p][/quote]So what if they spend money on repairing cycle lane potholes. If you hit a pothole in your car the worst you are likely to suffer is a damaged tyre etc. A cyclist is more likely to be badly injured if he/she comes off their bike as a result of hitting one.[/p][/quote]There should be no potholes on roads or cycle lanes, your analogy that a car driver only suffers a blown tyre is pure fiction, hitting a pothole can cause cars to mount pavements or swerve cross the road into oncoming traffic. Plain fact is that there should be no pot holes anywhere in the interests of safety.[/p][/quote]Prove that it is 'pure fiction' then.....in 95% or more of accidents the driver is to blame and faults with the vehicle make up most of the rest. Where is your evidence of all these accidents caused by potholes? tbpoole
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree