Thu, 24th Apr 2014

Echo News

Southampton plans for major cycle corridor across the city

By Bethan Phillips

11:34am Wednesday 23rd January 2013

City's plan for cycle superhighway

City's plan for cycle superhighway

GROUNDBREAKING plans have been unveiled to create a new cycle superhighway for Southampton.

The “innovative” scheme, inspired by a similar project in Holland, is set to connect up the eastern side of the city with the centre.

And accident blackspots like the Itchen Bridge and Marsh Road could be transformed for those travelling on two wheels.

A total of £1m in Government funding has been secured by the city council to pay for the first part of the project – which would run from Woolston station to St Mary’s Place.

The narrow cycle paths on the Itchen Bridge could be replaced with a wider shared footpath and cycleway.

There could also be a Dutch-style off-road route around the notorious roundabout at the Woolston end of Itchen Bridge, along with a new traffic light system on the Southampton side.

The route has been designed by cyclists who use the route, road safety experts from the city council and engineers from design firm Urban Movement.

Dilys Gartside, who runs Southampton cycle training company Cyclewise, is one of the people who has helped put the plans together.

She said: “The problem with Southampton when getting around by bike is that the city is cut in half by the River Itchen.

“The bridges have always been unpleasant for cyclists.

“The Itchen Bridge is practically a no-no. There are narrow cycle lanes on a narrow carriageway and inevitably vehicles often straddle the cycleway.

“And once you have got over it, there are two vicious roundabouts at either end.

“The whole of that route has been fraught with danger for cyclists for many years.”

A serious accident in Marsh Road in April last year left a 28- year-old woman with lifechanging injuries, when a van collided with her bike.

But, according to Mrs Gartside, the new route could deal with problem areas.

She said: “This new route should eliminate a lot of those nasty junctions and problems.

“It’s currently not a route that even experienced cyclists will do. The new route is a very exciting step forward – this is really quite innovative.

“We have been working with professional design engineers and it started out with the traditional ways of doing t h i n g s without positive results.

“So we have been looking at some of the Dutch ways of doing things and looking at what works, what’s a waste of money and what’s excellent value for money.”

Southampton City Council is now running a consultation on the new route.

If it then gets the go-ahead from councillors, work could begin in June 2013, with the first phase completed by 2015.

The council says the other phases, which would connect Hedge End and Botley to Southampton Central station, would be put into place when future funding becomes available.

The following drop-in sessions about the new cycle route will take place as part of Southampton City Council’s consultation:


View Southampton Cycle Corridor in a larger map

Comments(132)

Comments(132)

loosehead says...
12:16pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?

SotonLad says...
12:20pm Wed 23 Jan 13

How on earth does it cost £1 million?

downfader says...
12:27pm Wed 23 Jan 13

SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?
Its complicated. I agree its a lot of money but it takes into account legal teams, sometimes getting experts in from places like the Netherlands, paying the contractors (Balfour Beatty) for the work and experience.

Then there are the materials.

If SCC get this right (and I know there are a lot of very good people working on this) it will transform Southampton for the better - making us a fitter and healthier place.

I'm going to see if I can get down to the consultation when it happens.

Shoong says...
12:28pm Wed 23 Jan 13

SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?
I would at least double that if I were you.

bigal007 says...
12:31pm Wed 23 Jan 13

loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes

downfader says...
12:31pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Shoong wrote:
SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?
I would at least double that if I were you.
I think we also have to remember that Councils think nothing of spending hundreds of millions on roads, and the Highways Agency costs us £6 billion.

This really is a drop in the ocean.

Plum Pudding says...
12:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

You can absolutly guarantee that it will cost more than originally estimated.

However given that this is a facility solely for one particular section of the road using public, should they not be asked to contribute. If it was a fast lane for cars, they would be expected to pay, and it isn't as if they are pedestrians either.yes they pay council tax but as road users incurring additional significant cost, let them stump up some of the money! And make it legally enforceable...

bernard7 says...
12:36pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument

downfader says...
12:41pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Plum Pudding wrote:
You can absolutly guarantee that it will cost more than originally estimated.

However given that this is a facility solely for one particular section of the road using public, should they not be asked to contribute. If it was a fast lane for cars, they would be expected to pay, and it isn't as if they are pedestrians either.yes they pay council tax but as road users incurring additional significant cost, let them stump up some of the money! And make it legally enforceable...
We do pay. It comes out of council and central government budgets - we ALL pay into the council tax, income tax, VAT etc pot.

Those are where the vast majority of the funds for road infrastructure come from. Lets not drag this into an ignorant debate on a non-existent "road tax".

Lockssmart says...
12:43pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Does this mean Ginger_cyclist will shut up now?

j4j6060 says...
12:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13

bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety

bigfella777 says...
12:49pm Wed 23 Jan 13

All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?

fat_doughnut says...
12:51pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Eastleigh have had these for years.

Outside of the Box says...
12:52pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Anything that gets cyclist off the roads, gets my vote, it could cost £10 million and be well worth it,,,,everyone's a winner,,,as long as cyclist use it,,,,safer travelling for all.

downfader says...
12:52pm Wed 23 Jan 13

j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ
Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ
Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.

downfader says...
12:55pm Wed 23 Jan 13

bigfella777 wrote:
All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
Not all the parks have cycling permitted. The routes are on the SCC cycling map, failing that send Dale Bostock an email at the council with the specific route. He's the cycling officer there and has been pretty good at clearing up things for me and others I know.

allsaintsnocurves says...
1:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

bigfella777 wrote:
All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
You can cycle through the parks if on the pathways. The problem with cycle lanes is pedestrians walk on them anyway. Until there is cycle police patrolling the lanes with spot fines for pedestrians it is hard to see this changing much. They could paint a track in the park though as it would help with any arguments.

j4j6060 says...
1:02pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ

Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ

Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.
yes they are in disrepair but so are the roads arent they? the question i was answering is ''why isnt there a cycle path millbrook /redbridge flyovers'' well there is..... in poor repair or not surely it is safer than riding on roads

malcher says...
1:19pm Wed 23 Jan 13

With the development going on in Woolston and the subsequent increased traffic, the whole Itchen Bridge problem needs a review. The automation of the toll plaza is slowing traffic at the moment and as they are now automated why are they not all open at all times? With the increase in traffic it somehow needs more lanes. Perhaps removing one of the footpaths would allow this. The best option would be to make it traffic only and build a seperate bridge for pedestrians/cyclists but obviously that would incur considerable cost.However something needs doing NOW before the problems manifest!

Mr E says...
1:27pm Wed 23 Jan 13

fat_doughnut wrote:
Eastleigh have had these for years.
I live on one of these.

Its an accident waiting to happen thanks to a minority of cyclists who ride at a speed that is inappropriate for what is a space shared with pedestrians.

ohec says...
1:29pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Outside of the Box wrote:
Anything that gets cyclist off the roads, gets my vote, it could cost £10 million and be well worth it,,,,everyone's a winner,,,as long as cyclist use it,,,,safer travelling for all.
Thats the whole point they spent an absolute fortune where i used to live on cycle tracks but do they get used NO for a variety of reasons the main one being i cant ride fast enough on them, even when the cycle track is alongside the road they still ride in the road.People keep quoting Holland but the Dutch have a totally different approach to cycling they treat cycling as a much more laid back casual means of getting from A to B not like over hear where anything goes as regards the law or consideration for others, even lights are optional as is bright clothing the general attitude is hit me at your peril.

southy says...
1:32pm Wed 23 Jan 13

bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.

dolomiteman says...
1:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.

wizard says...
1:56pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
How do motorists pay more to use the roads?

Jesus_02 says...
2:05pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
Shoong wrote:
SotonLad wrote: How on earth does it cost £1 million?
I would at least double that if I were you.
I think we also have to remember that Councils think nothing of spending hundreds of millions on roads, and the Highways Agency costs us £6 billion. This really is a drop in the ocean.
4/5 x 3 bed terrace houses

1m is not what it used to be!

southy says...
2:06pm Wed 23 Jan 13

wizard wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
How do motorists pay more to use the roads?
fuel tax vehcical tax

Totton Tim says...
2:10pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
wizard wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
How do motorists pay more to use the roads?
fuel tax vehcical tax
There is an increasing number of cars (of which I have one) whereby their tax disc costs £0 per annum

smbmsmbm says...
2:13pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
wizard wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
How do motorists pay more to use the roads?
fuel tax vehcical tax
Paying more tax doesn't mean you're more entitled to anything.

Just like people who pay less are not less entitled to anything.

Totton Tim says...
2:15pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dolomiteman wrote:
Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.
Not much point in introducing more laws when the average car driver doesn't abide by the ones that are in place already, eg parking on corners, parking on pavements, exceeding the speed etc etc. Just to cap it all, if caught then claiming that any fines are just there as "cash cows"!

wizard says...
2:18pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
wizard wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
How do motorists pay more to use the roads?
fuel tax vehcical tax
Vehicle tax???? whats that? oh that little round thing in the window? thats called VED and pays for your emmisions from YOUR car, you should really get your facts straight! motorists are no more entitled to use the road than anyone else.Try looking at this

http://ipayroadtax.c
om

Jesus_02 says...
2:20pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dolomiteman wrote:
Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.
Stupid argument from someone that doesnt cycle (or probably drive anything other than a car/van)...I've nearly been driven into on the cycle lane across Cobden twice in as manny weeks.

I kept a diary for around a month, detailing when motorist have endangered me though lack of adherence to the law. This didn't include pavement parking and parking on double yellows with hazards on to go to the Shop or wait for someone

I checked government advice on cycling to see what I could do to reduce these incidents. This included making for allowances for common instances when people break the Law.

I managed to reduce the amount of instances from around 8 per week to about 4.

But to do this I had to;

Change my route
Give way even when I had right of way
Get of and walk rather than take a right hand turn

Governemnt guidlines advise cyclist that are likely to be traveling over 15mph to use roads.

For gods sake read them before making stupid comments

PS: I also Drive a Car and Motorbike, and Run and Walk on the pavenments. Basically I am a 3 dimensional human being rather than an anoyance on a bike

Jesus_02 says...
2:21pm Wed 23 Jan 13

SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?
The boadwalk between St Maryies ind Est and the Horseshoe Bridge cost 1m also

downfader says...
2:25pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment

mummsie says...
2:25pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Blimey! That makes a change... Something happening on the Woolston side of the water for a change PLUS on the Southampton side. Still not enough though and so l will carry on riding my bike on the pavements (with the obvious care to pedestrians) and not on the roads.

southy says...
2:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

wizard wrote:
southy wrote:
wizard wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
How do motorists pay more to use the roads?
fuel tax vehcical tax
Vehicle tax???? whats that? oh that little round thing in the window? thats called VED and pays for your emmisions from YOUR car, you should really get your facts straight! motorists are no more entitled to use the road than anyone else.Try looking at this

http://ipayroadtax.c

om
You should also to, the emmision is done though the mot of a vehcicle, an extra £5 was put on to cars mot testing for emmisions.
car owners pay extra, they pay though tax on fuel, and the VRL

southy says...
2:38pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.

smbmsmbm says...
2:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
The 2 are not connected.

Motorists pay more duty than non-motorists; fuel duty, VED etc. This is a pretty reasonable thing to assume.

Roads cost a lot to maintain.

The amount that is spent on road maintenance is not linked to the amount of motoring taxes collected. In fact motoring in this country is very heavily subsidised.

By your argument people that are higher rate income tax payers should be entitled to more public services because they are paying more in.

Plum Pudding says...
2:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!

smbmsmbm says...
2:56pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).

southy says...
3:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

smbmsmbm wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more.

smbmsmbm says...
3:05pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more.
That is a fact.

It is also a fact that this doesn't entitle motorists to any special treatment.

Just as people that drink (paying duty on alcohol) don't get any special treatment.

bernard7 says...
3:06pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Mr Plum, well im a cyclist and a motorist and i pay council tax, so i pay a lot for my car which is in a higher tax band as i choose to drive a 4x4, i pay the same as other people in my council tax band!

So im a cyclist and i pay quite a lot towards the roads and therefore i shall use them to cycle on.

loosehead says...
3:09pm Wed 23 Jan 13

j4j6060 wrote:
downfader wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ


Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ


Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.
yes they are in disrepair but so are the roads arent they? the question i was answering is ''why isnt there a cycle path millbrook /redbridge flyovers'' well there is..... in poor repair or not surely it is safer than riding on roads
I know there's a footpath which use to be a lot wider if you cross the train station bridge into town( Millbrook train station) but where exactly is the cycle path from Totton to town?
Why is it that cyclists would rather risk their lives on this main road instead of using those paths?
I would say if you're really trying to make this city more green & cyclist friendly cut Millbrook Rd to two lanes making the other lane either side to cyclists only.
I honestly think this is a good idea I use to ride to work & I know what toe rags there are out there driving cars I've had full beer cans thrown at me from speeding cars

elvisimo says...
3:16pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now.
DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.

southy says...
3:22pm Wed 23 Jan 13

elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now.
DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.

Jesus_02 says...
3:26pm Wed 23 Jan 13

smbmsmbm wrote:
southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more.
That is a fact. It is also a fact that this doesn't entitle motorists to any special treatment. Just as people that drink (paying duty on alcohol) don't get any special treatment.
My Motor bike tax is £15.

How much do you propose that cyclists pay?

Would my child need to pay more as he has stabalisers?

Or less for his other bike that doesnt have peddles?

How about pedestrains that walk in cycle lanes? Should we be setting up local bylaws to fine pedestrains that dont keep to there side of the pavement?

And dogs that swim in the river and annoy fishermen (that do pay a livence fee). Should we fine the dogs or thier owners, because everybody know that dogs are supposed to runaround on the grass.

All these topics and more stupid arguments can be found in southys new book.."101 things that you should probably just ignore but end up disgussing online"

downfader says...
3:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more.
They dont. Its been proven by the SMMT, the AA, the IPPR..

Revenues raised = £50bn
External costs (environmental, policing, court system, NHS treatment to victims of collisions) = £180bn

Its all in the IPPR report. Though I dont chime with their call the raise taxation on motorists.

Sorry but it has to be said again - each time people bleat the "cash cow" or similar it simply draws this more heavily into focus. And that if done poorly could contribute to a Government administration RAISING motoring taxation.

Thats the risk people take

downfader says...
3:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more.
They dont. Its been proven by the SMMT, the AA, the IPPR..

Revenues raised = £50bn
External costs (environmental, policing, court system, NHS treatment to victims of collisions) = £180bn

Its all in the IPPR report. Though I dont chime with their call the raise taxation on motorists.

Sorry but it has to be said again - each time people bleat the "cash cow" or similar it simply draws this more heavily into focus. And that if done poorly could contribute to a Government administration RAISING motoring taxation.

Thats the risk people take

elvisimo says...
3:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.

ohec says...
3:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jesus_02 say's

Government guidlines advise cyclist that are likely to be traveling over 15mph to use roads.
So what on earth is the point of spending millions on trying to keep cyclist safe and off the roads, scrap cycle paths make cyclist adhere to the law including having lights at all times and make high visibility clothing compulsory, if they wont help themselves then its time to get tough with all cyclist including spot inspections and on the spot fines. They seem to be a very self centred bunch who want everything their own way and its time they accepted responsibility for themselves.

bazzeroz says...
3:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Why not put in more pavements so that the cyclists can use them? Lets face it they don't use cycle lanes or abide by traffic regs now! Beggars the question: why do cars have to stop at crossings for bikes? Cars pollute so, why make them stop and pollute even more?

southy says...
3:36pm Wed 23 Jan 13

loosehead wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
downfader wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ



Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ



Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.
yes they are in disrepair but so are the roads arent they? the question i was answering is ''why isnt there a cycle path millbrook /redbridge flyovers'' well there is..... in poor repair or not surely it is safer than riding on roads
I know there's a footpath which use to be a lot wider if you cross the train station bridge into town( Millbrook train station) but where exactly is the cycle path from Totton to town?
Why is it that cyclists would rather risk their lives on this main road instead of using those paths?
I would say if you're really trying to make this city more green & cyclist friendly cut Millbrook Rd to two lanes making the other lane either side to cyclists only.
I honestly think this is a good idea I use to ride to work & I know what toe rags there are out there driving cars I've had full beer cans thrown at me from speeding cars
Loose the cycle path starts one part up by Cadnam Roundabout on the Salsibury road, another up by the the school on the ringwood road and another on top of Ashurst hill.
When crossing the river the cycle track is on the seaward side of the bridge all the way into the center.

elvisimo says...
3:38pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jesus_02 wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
You're failing to take into account the cost of accidents, pollution and a variety of other factors that make motoring much more expensive than the amount of money raised in motoring taxes (including fuel duty, VAT etc).
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more.
That is a fact. It is also a fact that this doesn't entitle motorists to any special treatment. Just as people that drink (paying duty on alcohol) don't get any special treatment.
My Motor bike tax is £15. How much do you propose that cyclists pay? Would my child need to pay more as he has stabalisers? Or less for his other bike that doesnt have peddles? How about pedestrains that walk in cycle lanes? Should we be setting up local bylaws to fine pedestrains that dont keep to there side of the pavement? And dogs that swim in the river and annoy fishermen (that do pay a livence fee). Should we fine the dogs or thier owners, because everybody know that dogs are supposed to runaround on the grass. All these topics and more stupid arguments can be found in southys new book.."101 things that you should probably just ignore but end up disgussing online"
Yes - any I am pretty sure that my neighbours are on benefits. As I pay for some of that im inviting myself round there this evening for dinner and to watch their TV.

elvisimo says...
3:39pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Jesus_02 say's Government guidlines advise cyclist that are likely to be traveling over 15mph to use roads. So what on earth is the point of spending millions on trying to keep cyclist safe and off the roads, scrap cycle paths make cyclist adhere to the law including having lights at all times and make high visibility clothing compulsory, if they wont help themselves then its time to get tough with all cyclist including spot inspections and on the spot fines. They seem to be a very self centred bunch who want everything their own way and its time they accepted responsibility for themselves.
balanced.

j4j6060 says...
3:48pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
downfader wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c




om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ




Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c




om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ




Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.
yes they are in disrepair but so are the roads arent they? the question i was answering is ''why isnt there a cycle path millbrook /redbridge flyovers'' well there is..... in poor repair or not surely it is safer than riding on roads
I know there's a footpath which use to be a lot wider if you cross the train station bridge into town( Millbrook train station) but where exactly is the cycle path from Totton to town?
Why is it that cyclists would rather risk their lives on this main road instead of using those paths?
I would say if you're really trying to make this city more green & cyclist friendly cut Millbrook Rd to two lanes making the other lane either side to cyclists only.
I honestly think this is a good idea I use to ride to work & I know what toe rags there are out there driving cars I've had full beer cans thrown at me from speeding cars
Loose the cycle path starts one part up by Cadnam Roundabout on the Salsibury road, another up by the the school on the ringwood road and another on top of Ashurst hill.
When crossing the river the cycle track is on the seaward side of the bridge all the way into the center.
it is there Loose but im no good at explaining it but it is marked on the map on this link
http://www.southampt
on.ac.uk/transport/i
mg/SCC%20Bike%20guid
e.pdf

j4j6060 says...
3:49pm Wed 23 Jan 13

j4j6060 wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
downfader wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c





om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ





Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c





om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ





Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.
yes they are in disrepair but so are the roads arent they? the question i was answering is ''why isnt there a cycle path millbrook /redbridge flyovers'' well there is..... in poor repair or not surely it is safer than riding on roads
I know there's a footpath which use to be a lot wider if you cross the train station bridge into town( Millbrook train station) but where exactly is the cycle path from Totton to town?
Why is it that cyclists would rather risk their lives on this main road instead of using those paths?
I would say if you're really trying to make this city more green & cyclist friendly cut Millbrook Rd to two lanes making the other lane either side to cyclists only.
I honestly think this is a good idea I use to ride to work & I know what toe rags there are out there driving cars I've had full beer cans thrown at me from speeding cars
Loose the cycle path starts one part up by Cadnam Roundabout on the Salsibury road, another up by the the school on the ringwood road and another on top of Ashurst hill.
When crossing the river the cycle track is on the seaward side of the bridge all the way into the center.
it is there Loose but im no good at explaining it but it is marked on the map on this link
http://www.southampt

on.ac.uk/transport/i

mg/SCC%20Bike%20guid

e.pdf
mmmhh well that didnt work then lol

Ginger_cyclist says...
3:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?
Its complicated. I agree its a lot of money but it takes into account legal teams, sometimes getting experts in from places like the Netherlands, paying the contractors (Balfour Beatty) for the work and experience.

Then there are the materials.

If SCC get this right (and I know there are a lot of very good people working on this) it will transform Southampton for the better - making us a fitter and healthier place.

I'm going to see if I can get down to the consultation when it happens.
I might see you there mate, will be good to actually see what they have planned.

downfader says...
3:51pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Jesus_02 say's

Government guidlines advise cyclist that are likely to be traveling over 15mph to use roads.
So what on earth is the point of spending millions on trying to keep cyclist safe and off the roads, scrap cycle paths make cyclist adhere to the law including having lights at all times and make high visibility clothing compulsory, if they wont help themselves then its time to get tough with all cyclist including spot inspections and on the spot fines. They seem to be a very self centred bunch who want everything their own way and its time they accepted responsibility for themselves.
Your comment simply shows that you fail to listen.

We have no problem with illegal riding being tackled but to broad brush all as being "self centred" is really daft and quite funny.

Does this mean all motorists are selfish then? Because we've all seen the pavement parking, the speeding, the cars without adequate lighting.

Stop thinking about yourself for once, or looking for excuses (eg the high visibility clothing didnt stop this dangerous cut up: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=b55yFkkEi
iQ )

southy says...
3:51pm Wed 23 Jan 13

elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.
The fact is still there, to have a motor vehcical on the road you are paying out more, in some form of collettions it do not matter where that money ends up. and I not looking at how much fuel a vehcical might use, but what I would look at is the tax and vat on that fuel as part of that cost in keeping our roads, that every one needs and use in one form or another.

smbmsmbm says...
3:54pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.
The fact is still there, to have a motor vehcical on the road you are paying out more, in some form of collettions it do not matter where that money ends up. and I not looking at how much fuel a vehcical might use, but what I would look at is the tax and vat on that fuel as part of that cost in keeping our roads, that every one needs and use in one form or another.
So you keep saying.

What is your point though?

Ginger_cyclist says...
3:57pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dolomiteman wrote:
Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.
But it is our legal right to use the road, motorists only have the privilege to do so, that's why you can get banned from driving and why you need to have a licence to drive, it's also because cars do a hell of a lot more damage to a body than a cyclists could ever hope to do.

geoff51 says...
4:01pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Why is it that anything to do with cycing brings out the usual idiots with their indisputable facts about the wonders of their mode of transport?
The cyclist gets far more attention and special treatment than any other road user or pedestrian and contributes far less.
The money spent on this harebrain scheme would be far better spent on improving road surfaces so that the cyclist could safely ride without hitting potholes after all they nrver use the cycle tracks when they are built anyway.

southy says...
4:01pm Wed 23 Jan 13

smbmsmbm wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.
The fact is still there, to have a motor vehcical on the road you are paying out more, in some form of collettions it do not matter where that money ends up. and I not looking at how much fuel a vehcical might use, but what I would look at is the tax and vat on that fuel as part of that cost in keeping our roads, that every one needs and use in one form or another.
So you keep saying.

What is your point though?
Go to the beginning this statement.

"bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument"

We all needs the roads, so we all should pay, and not what bernard7 wrote that only car users should pay.

Ginger_cyclist says...
4:03pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.

smbmsmbm says...
4:08pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.
The fact is still there, to have a motor vehcical on the road you are paying out more, in some form of collettions it do not matter where that money ends up. and I not looking at how much fuel a vehcical might use, but what I would look at is the tax and vat on that fuel as part of that cost in keeping our roads, that every one needs and use in one form or another.
So you keep saying.

What is your point though?
Go to the beginning this statement.

"bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument"

We all needs the roads, so we all should pay, and not what bernard7 wrote that only car users should pay.
I see, layers of nested quotes are hard to follow sometimes.

We do all pay. Motoring reciepts (from all sources) don't cover the true cost of motoring in this country.

So even if motoring related taxes went straight back into funding motoring (which they don't) there would still be a significant shortfall.

Ginger_cyclist says...
4:10pm Wed 23 Jan 13

loosehead wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
downfader wrote:
j4j6060 wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea but why isn't it going across to Millbrook/redbridge fly over?
there is allready a path from totton to southampton town for bikes
yes there has been a cycle path from totton to southampton for years, its a shame that some cyclists dont use it as it was put there for their safety
Again, its not always ideal, is in poor repair for one. Lets not forget how people moan and moan about pavement cyclists and then what do we have to Totton - a cycle facility that shares with pedestrians.

Shock horror.

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=UBpUv01kJ



Y4 They gritted the road, never the paths over the last week that I used it.

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=n5zCFkOJZ



Tw - my review of the facility through Millbrook to Totton.

Stop demonising the cyclists for making a legal choice. Instead ask for better as we have been doing.
yes they are in disrepair but so are the roads arent they? the question i was answering is ''why isnt there a cycle path millbrook /redbridge flyovers'' well there is..... in poor repair or not surely it is safer than riding on roads
I know there's a footpath which use to be a lot wider if you cross the train station bridge into town( Millbrook train station) but where exactly is the cycle path from Totton to town?
Why is it that cyclists would rather risk their lives on this main road instead of using those paths?
I would say if you're really trying to make this city more green & cyclist friendly cut Millbrook Rd to two lanes making the other lane either side to cyclists only.
I honestly think this is a good idea I use to ride to work & I know what toe rags there are out there driving cars I've had full beer cans thrown at me from speeding cars
And keep that cycle only lane as wide as the lane it replaces? Yes, that would be a pretty good idea to be honest BUT it would also have to take into account of junctions, would those junctions also be modified to allow motorists to pass cyclists safely? Would there be anything to stop motorists at junctions from cutting up cyclists who are going straight on?

southy says...
4:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
your missing the point Ginger
1 do your push-bike use fuel (apart from your body)
Answer no it don't so your not paying Tax and Vat on Fuel.
2 Do your push-bike have VRL.
Answer no it don't
3 Do your push-bike have to have an MOT by law
Answer no it don't
4 Do your push-bike have to have insurance by law
Answer no it dont
All 4 things in that list is a must for motorise vehcicals to have to legally use the roads, and all 4 things carry vat and tax all moneys that go towards in helping to fund the roads, even low it ends up in a different place.

southy says...
4:14pm Wed 23 Jan 13

smbmsmbm wrote:
southy wrote:
smbmsmbm wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.
The fact is still there, to have a motor vehcical on the road you are paying out more, in some form of collettions it do not matter where that money ends up. and I not looking at how much fuel a vehcical might use, but what I would look at is the tax and vat on that fuel as part of that cost in keeping our roads, that every one needs and use in one form or another.
So you keep saying.

What is your point though?
Go to the beginning this statement.

"bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument"

We all needs the roads, so we all should pay, and not what bernard7 wrote that only car users should pay.
I see, layers of nested quotes are hard to follow sometimes.

We do all pay. Motoring reciepts (from all sources) don't cover the true cost of motoring in this country.

So even if motoring related taxes went straight back into funding motoring (which they don't) there would still be a significant shortfall.
yes i know but it is some thing that we all need and use weather if use it directley (like having a car on the roads) or indirectley (relying on transport getting goods into the shops that we need)

southy says...
4:19pm Wed 23 Jan 13

I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.

downfader says...
4:25pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
your missing the point Ginger
1 do your push-bike use fuel (apart from your body)
Answer no it don't so your not paying Tax and Vat on Fuel.
2 Do your push-bike have VRL.
Answer no it don't
3 Do your push-bike have to have an MOT by law
Answer no it don't
4 Do your push-bike have to have insurance by law
Answer no it dont
All 4 things in that list is a must for motorise vehcicals to have to legally use the roads, and all 4 things carry vat and tax all moneys that go towards in helping to fund the roads, even low it ends up in a different place.
None of those are benefits to driving, and show why even occasional cycling can be more beneficial to motorists.

1. If you dont have to use the car then the bike wins on cost here

2. Vehicle registration and licensing only came in due to the way a number of people behaved - and the significantly outnumber any cycle related law breaking (in both frequency and percentage)

3. MOTs on cars. If you've got the belt on chances are you would OK. Swinging around a lot of weight can cause a lot of damage when it goes wrong - a bike is light - if it is poorly maintained then we risk injury or death to ourselves.

4. Insurance? Why do motorists have to get it? The answer again is down to the damage caused, the statistics.

How many cyclists killed pedestrians last year?

Answer = none. The year before 2 iirc.

How many drivers killed pedestrians?

Over 600. With the 2011 data showing that 59% of all collisions involving pedestrians were the driver's fault this is worth remembering why one party pays for insurance by law and why the other probably wont.

All you've really dont is show that cycling has a strong economic benefit over driving.

smbmsmbm says...
4:26pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.
Why should they be?

These things exist for cars because of a cars ability (in the wrong hands) to cause great harm. With great power comes great responsibility.

freefinker says...
4:27pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.
.. please tell us what VRL is?

Ginger_cyclist says...
4:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

It shouldn't just be done on a single road, it should be on ALL major roads but other than that, I think it could be good for the less experienced and less confident riders.

Ginger_cyclist says...
4:37pm Wed 23 Jan 13

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.
.. please tell us what VRL is?
I think he's trying to say cyclists should have bikes registered and the riders should be licenced.

downfader says...
5:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.
.. please tell us what VRL is?
Vehicle registration and licensing.

downfader says...
5:04pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.
.. please tell us what VRL is?
I think he's trying to say cyclists should have bikes registered and the riders should be licenced.
Major flaw in that is this: the bicycle is the great enabler of the disenfranchised.

You can get a bike for £20, it wont be that great but it will get you from a to b.Once to create extra costs and hurdles then those that do drive revert back to the car, and those that cannot afford it will sit on benefits and claim lack of mobility leads to their unemployment.

There are around 4000 cyclists in the Southampton area, now imagine that 2000 of them get in a car instead during peak times.

southy says...
5:09pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
your missing the point Ginger
1 do your push-bike use fuel (apart from your body)
Answer no it don't so your not paying Tax and Vat on Fuel.
2 Do your push-bike have VRL.
Answer no it don't
3 Do your push-bike have to have an MOT by law
Answer no it don't
4 Do your push-bike have to have insurance by law
Answer no it dont
All 4 things in that list is a must for motorise vehcicals to have to legally use the roads, and all 4 things carry vat and tax all moneys that go towards in helping to fund the roads, even low it ends up in a different place.
None of those are benefits to driving, and show why even occasional cycling can be more beneficial to motorists.

1. If you dont have to use the car then the bike wins on cost here

2. Vehicle registration and licensing only came in due to the way a number of people behaved - and the significantly outnumber any cycle related law breaking (in both frequency and percentage)

3. MOTs on cars. If you've got the belt on chances are you would OK. Swinging around a lot of weight can cause a lot of damage when it goes wrong - a bike is light - if it is poorly maintained then we risk injury or death to ourselves.

4. Insurance? Why do motorists have to get it? The answer again is down to the damage caused, the statistics.

How many cyclists killed pedestrians last year?

Answer = none. The year before 2 iirc.

How many drivers killed pedestrians?

Over 600. With the 2011 data showing that 59% of all collisions involving pedestrians were the driver's fault this is worth remembering why one party pays for insurance by law and why the other probably wont.

All you've really dont is show that cycling has a strong economic benefit over driving.
You want the benefit of the use of cycles only lanes, then its only right cycles should start paying more to have that benefit.

southy says...
5:11pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I am all for cycle tracks, but to have them then those cycle tracks must be treated equally as car owners, like they must start having a yearly MOT for cycles, they must pay for a VRL, they must have insurance like cars have car insurance.
.. please tell us what VRL is?
I think he's trying to say cyclists should have bikes registered and the riders should be licenced.
Major flaw in that is this: the bicycle is the great enabler of the disenfranchised.

You can get a bike for £20, it wont be that great but it will get you from a to b.Once to create extra costs and hurdles then those that do drive revert back to the car, and those that cannot afford it will sit on benefits and claim lack of mobility leads to their unemployment.

There are around 4000 cyclists in the Southampton area, now imagine that 2000 of them get in a car instead during peak times.
Most of those 4000 cyclist are drivers to motorise vehcicals also

ohec says...
5:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
Well we all expect stupid comments from southy but your post here beats his, in one breath you say that all VED goes into the national pot but then go on to say that every other tax going goes into another pot. The truth is their is only one pot and only a fraction of VED is spent on the roads and the rest goes towards other government expenditure. But the issue here isn't about money it's about all living together and all taking responsibility for ourselves and one of the most vulnerable road users are cyclist, other road users are subject to all manner of restrictions which the government enforce on us for our own safety i.e. seat belts / crash helmets M.O.Ts yet the cyclist is free to do what he likes. A bike and a moped can travel at roughly the same speed yet the moped rider has to comply with the law and wear a crash helmet have insurance and VED plus have his bike inspected every year and the only difference is the mode of power.

downfader says...
5:14pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
your missing the point Ginger
1 do your push-bike use fuel (apart from your body)
Answer no it don't so your not paying Tax and Vat on Fuel.
2 Do your push-bike have VRL.
Answer no it don't
3 Do your push-bike have to have an MOT by law
Answer no it don't
4 Do your push-bike have to have insurance by law
Answer no it dont
All 4 things in that list is a must for motorise vehcicals to have to legally use the roads, and all 4 things carry vat and tax all moneys that go towards in helping to fund the roads, even low it ends up in a different place.
None of those are benefits to driving, and show why even occasional cycling can be more beneficial to motorists.

1. If you dont have to use the car then the bike wins on cost here

2. Vehicle registration and licensing only came in due to the way a number of people behaved - and the significantly outnumber any cycle related law breaking (in both frequency and percentage)

3. MOTs on cars. If you've got the belt on chances are you would OK. Swinging around a lot of weight can cause a lot of damage when it goes wrong - a bike is light - if it is poorly maintained then we risk injury or death to ourselves.

4. Insurance? Why do motorists have to get it? The answer again is down to the damage caused, the statistics.

How many cyclists killed pedestrians last year?

Answer = none. The year before 2 iirc.

How many drivers killed pedestrians?

Over 600. With the 2011 data showing that 59% of all collisions involving pedestrians were the driver's fault this is worth remembering why one party pays for insurance by law and why the other probably wont.

All you've really dont is show that cycling has a strong economic benefit over driving.
You want the benefit of the use of cycles only lanes, then its only right cycles should start paying more to have that benefit.
OK lets turn this about - should pedestrians pay extra for pavements? Given that they have also already paid for something.

Do you go into shops, wait by the door and tell shoppers that they have to pay again, and if they dont they're immoral?

How does this fit in with your socialist viewpoint? Its quite a right-wing libertarian view this pay-for-freedom philosophy.

downfader says...
5:19pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
Well we all expect stupid comments from southy but your post here beats his, in one breath you say that all VED goes into the national pot but then go on to say that every other tax going goes into another pot. The truth is their is only one pot and only a fraction of VED is spent on the roads and the rest goes towards other government expenditure. But the issue here isn't about money it's about all living together and all taking responsibility for ourselves and one of the most vulnerable road users are cyclist, other road users are subject to all manner of restrictions which the government enforce on us for our own safety i.e. seat belts / crash helmets M.O.Ts yet the cyclist is free to do what he likes. A bike and a moped can travel at roughly the same speed yet the moped rider has to comply with the law and wear a crash helmet have insurance and VED plus have his bike inspected every year and the only difference is the mode of power.
OK lets have a FULL Government review of motoring taxation in the UK.

Let them look at everything, and by that I mean EVERYTHING. Then charge per the true cost of motoring to society.

Look at ALL the collisions, ALL the environmental damage, the policing, the courts, the legal issues, everything.

You'll be looking at paying approx £50,000 a year in tax. Is that what you want? Those are from the numbers in the IPPR report.

freefinker says...
5:22pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
your missing the point Ginger
1 do your push-bike use fuel (apart from your body)
Answer no it don't so your not paying Tax and Vat on Fuel.
2 Do your push-bike have VRL.
Answer no it don't
3 Do your push-bike have to have an MOT by law
Answer no it don't
4 Do your push-bike have to have insurance by law
Answer no it dont
All 4 things in that list is a must for motorise vehcicals to have to legally use the roads, and all 4 things carry vat and tax all moneys that go towards in helping to fund the roads, even low it ends up in a different place.
None of those are benefits to driving, and show why even occasional cycling can be more beneficial to motorists.

1. If you dont have to use the car then the bike wins on cost here

2. Vehicle registration and licensing only came in due to the way a number of people behaved - and the significantly outnumber any cycle related law breaking (in both frequency and percentage)

3. MOTs on cars. If you've got the belt on chances are you would OK. Swinging around a lot of weight can cause a lot of damage when it goes wrong - a bike is light - if it is poorly maintained then we risk injury or death to ourselves.

4. Insurance? Why do motorists have to get it? The answer again is down to the damage caused, the statistics.

How many cyclists killed pedestrians last year?

Answer = none. The year before 2 iirc.

How many drivers killed pedestrians?

Over 600. With the 2011 data showing that 59% of all collisions involving pedestrians were the driver's fault this is worth remembering why one party pays for insurance by law and why the other probably wont.

All you've really dont is show that cycling has a strong economic benefit over driving.
You want the benefit of the use of cycles only lanes, then its only right cycles should start paying more to have that benefit.
.. doesn't sound very 'socialist' to me.

smbmsmbm says...
5:31pm Wed 23 Jan 13

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
your missing the point Ginger
1 do your push-bike use fuel (apart from your body)
Answer no it don't so your not paying Tax and Vat on Fuel.
2 Do your push-bike have VRL.
Answer no it don't
3 Do your push-bike have to have an MOT by law
Answer no it don't
4 Do your push-bike have to have insurance by law
Answer no it dont
All 4 things in that list is a must for motorise vehcicals to have to legally use the roads, and all 4 things carry vat and tax all moneys that go towards in helping to fund the roads, even low it ends up in a different place.
None of those are benefits to driving, and show why even occasional cycling can be more beneficial to motorists.

1. If you dont have to use the car then the bike wins on cost here

2. Vehicle registration and licensing only came in due to the way a number of people behaved - and the significantly outnumber any cycle related law breaking (in both frequency and percentage)

3. MOTs on cars. If you've got the belt on chances are you would OK. Swinging around a lot of weight can cause a lot of damage when it goes wrong - a bike is light - if it is poorly maintained then we risk injury or death to ourselves.

4. Insurance? Why do motorists have to get it? The answer again is down to the damage caused, the statistics.

How many cyclists killed pedestrians last year?

Answer = none. The year before 2 iirc.

How many drivers killed pedestrians?

Over 600. With the 2011 data showing that 59% of all collisions involving pedestrians were the driver's fault this is worth remembering why one party pays for insurance by law and why the other probably wont.

All you've really dont is show that cycling has a strong economic benefit over driving.
You want the benefit of the use of cycles only lanes, then its only right cycles should start paying more to have that benefit.
.. doesn't sound very 'socialist' to me.
Nor me.

I'm pretty new round here.

southy do you claim to be a socialist?

ohec says...
5:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.
But it is our legal right to use the road, motorists only have the privilege to do so, that's why you can get banned from driving and why you need to have a licence to drive, it's also because cars do a hell of a lot more damage to a body than a cyclists could ever hope to do.
If i may use an example a young lad passes his test and buys a car when he goes to insure that car he can finish up paying more for his insurance than the car is worth why? because of the damage he can do to others the insurance company are not charging him for his old banger but for the damage he can do with it, if he knocked you off your bike and you sustained serious injury it could cost his insurance company millions, by the same token you on your bike could cause an accident and cause serious injury to somebody who would they claim against who would pay for their car, yes the driver would have to claim on his own insurance so don't talk to me about the damage that a car can do to a cyclist it works both ways, have you ever sat in a car while a cyclist squeezes past scrapping his handlebar along your car or smashing your mirror and then ridding off without a care.

smbmsmbm says...
5:43pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.
But it is our legal right to use the road, motorists only have the privilege to do so, that's why you can get banned from driving and why you need to have a licence to drive, it's also because cars do a hell of a lot more damage to a body than a cyclists could ever hope to do.
If i may use an example a young lad passes his test and buys a car when he goes to insure that car he can finish up paying more for his insurance than the car is worth why? because of the damage he can do to others the insurance company are not charging him for his old banger but for the damage he can do with it, if he knocked you off your bike and you sustained serious injury it could cost his insurance company millions, by the same token you on your bike could cause an accident and cause serious injury to somebody who would they claim against who would pay for their car, yes the driver would have to claim on his own insurance so don't talk to me about the damage that a car can do to a cyclist it works both ways, have you ever sat in a car while a cyclist squeezes past scrapping his handlebar along your car or smashing your mirror and then ridding off without a care.
It would be a pretty tall order for a collision between a bicycle to do as much damage to a car or person as collision between a motorised vehicle (usually weighing 1000kg upwards) and another car or person.

This is taken into account when law makers decide who should have to be subject to compulsory insurance.

I have third party insurance as a cyclist, it cost me ~£25 for a year. My car insurance costs me ~£400 a year. The risk to others is reflected in the price.

Cyclists are deemed to be a very low risk.

Motorists are deemed to be a very high risk. So high that insurance is a legal obligation.

smbmsmbm says...
5:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

I missed a bit there, first paragraph should read:

It would be a pretty tall order for a collision between a bicycle and a car/pedestrian to do as much damage to a car or person as collision between a motorised vehicle (usually weighing 1000kg upwards) and another car or person.

downfader says...
6:11pm Wed 23 Jan 13

My cycle insurance was FREE as part of my CTC membership. British Cycling membership is the very same.

SaintM says...
6:14pm Wed 23 Jan 13

how do cyclist carry their shopping home

thinklikealocal says...
6:40pm Wed 23 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
Plum Pudding wrote: You can absolutly guarantee that it will cost more than originally estimated. However given that this is a facility solely for one particular section of the road using public, should they not be asked to contribute. If it was a fast lane for cars, they would be expected to pay, and it isn't as if they are pedestrians either.yes they pay council tax but as road users incurring additional significant cost, let them stump up some of the money! And make it legally enforceable...
We do pay. It comes out of council and central government budgets - we ALL pay into the council tax, income tax, VAT etc pot. Those are where the vast majority of the funds for road infrastructure come from. Lets not drag this into an ignorant debate on a non-existent "road tax".
Cyclists pay taxes too you know!

downfader says...
6:41pm Wed 23 Jan 13

SaintM wrote:
how do cyclist carry their shopping home
In my pannier bags.

Two other I know pay a fiver or something for delivery and internet shop at the Waitrose website.

Safehands says...
6:41pm Wed 23 Jan 13

I used to cycle the Itchen Bridge regularly. In my opinion, the present cycle lane is absolutely fine.
Even if a new lane was provided, most cyclists would probably still use the road, just as they do on West Quay Road, where the cycle lane is largely ignored.
Infuriating.

downfader says...
6:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Safehands wrote:
I used to cycle the Itchen Bridge regularly. In my opinion, the present cycle lane is absolutely fine.
Even if a new lane was provided, most cyclists would probably still use the road, just as they do on West Quay Road, where the cycle lane is largely ignored.
Infuriating.
So how do you overtake a slower, newer cyclist when the motors are at standstill?

The Itchen Bridge lane does not follow the DFT's own 2.1m wide guidelines. When the bridge is gritted its never to the edge where the cyclelanes are, either.

thinklikealocal says...
6:52pm Wed 23 Jan 13

southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
Er no - and as a regular on here you really should have learnt by now. DVLA car and road taxes as well as the fuel duty are both placed in the Exchequer along with corporation taxes and income taxes. Local Authorities collect Congestion Charges and Parking fees.
It still remains that they do still pay more, it don't matter where the money ends up, Motorise vehcicals pay more.
you are quite odd. Um are you pointing out things like cars cost more than bikes or perhaps that bikes do really use much in terms of petrol? if so I think most people probably know that. Cars are also a personal choice and to many people a luxury. they are not a necesity.
The fact is still there, to have a motor vehcical on the road you are paying out more, in some form of collettions it do not matter where that money ends up. and I not looking at how much fuel a vehcical might use, but what I would look at is the tax and vat on that fuel as part of that cost in keeping our roads, that every one needs and use in one form or another.
Yes motorists pay more but I'm not sure what your repeated point is? However much they pay it no way near covers the Government's costs associated with motoring. The shortfall is met through 'other' taxation so why shouldn't cyclists have a piece of the pie?

thinklikealocal says...
6:57pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote: Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc? What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1 and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised. I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
Well we all expect stupid comments from southy but your post here beats his, in one breath you say that all VED goes into the national pot but then go on to say that every other tax going goes into another pot. The truth is their is only one pot and only a fraction of VED is spent on the roads and the rest goes towards other government expenditure. But the issue here isn't about money it's about all living together and all taking responsibility for ourselves and one of the most vulnerable road users are cyclist, other road users are subject to all manner of restrictions which the government enforce on us for our own safety i.e. seat belts / crash helmets M.O.Ts yet the cyclist is free to do what he likes. A bike and a moped can travel at roughly the same speed yet the moped rider has to comply with the law and wear a crash helmet have insurance and VED plus have his bike inspected every year and the only difference is the mode of power.
Your post beats the previous one.....

good-gosh says...
7:01pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Some cyclists may be automatically insured against risks to others under the pubic liability cover of their household insurance.

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:05pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
No they don't southy, all money from taxes get put into the same pot of money and then it gets divided between everything that needs paying for, did you know that in reality, only 4% of your VED and about 6% of fuel duty actually goes towards the roads? The other 90% of the budget spent on roads comes from every other tax going including VAT.
Well we all expect stupid comments from southy but your post here beats his, in one breath you say that all VED goes into the national pot but then go on to say that every other tax going goes into another pot. The truth is their is only one pot and only a fraction of VED is spent on the roads and the rest goes towards other government expenditure. But the issue here isn't about money it's about all living together and all taking responsibility for ourselves and one of the most vulnerable road users are cyclist, other road users are subject to all manner of restrictions which the government enforce on us for our own safety i.e. seat belts / crash helmets M.O.Ts yet the cyclist is free to do what he likes. A bike and a moped can travel at roughly the same speed yet the moped rider has to comply with the law and wear a crash helmet have insurance and VED plus have his bike inspected every year and the only difference is the mode of power.
I said it all goes into the same pot, never mentioned a second one at all and the other difference between a moped and a bicycle is the weight and amount of damage they can cause.

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:13pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ohec wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
Seeing as these cycle lanes are being built for the safety of cyclist how about also passing a local bylaw to enforce the usage so that cyclist refusing to use the lane and using the road can be fined and before the cyclist start ranting it is their right to cycle on the road remember the lanes are being built to keep you SAFE AND ALIVE.
But it is our legal right to use the road, motorists only have the privilege to do so, that's why you can get banned from driving and why you need to have a licence to drive, it's also because cars do a hell of a lot more damage to a body than a cyclists could ever hope to do.
If i may use an example a young lad passes his test and buys a car when he goes to insure that car he can finish up paying more for his insurance than the car is worth why? because of the damage he can do to others the insurance company are not charging him for his old banger but for the damage he can do with it, if he knocked you off your bike and you sustained serious injury it could cost his insurance company millions, by the same token you on your bike could cause an accident and cause serious injury to somebody who would they claim against who would pay for their car, yes the driver would have to claim on his own insurance so don't talk to me about the damage that a car can do to a cyclist it works both ways, have you ever sat in a car while a cyclist squeezes past scrapping his handlebar along your car or smashing your mirror and then ridding off without a care.
They would claim against my insurance IF (and that's the biggest "if" ever) I caused an accident, no, I don't have a car yet, I don't like sitting around like a pillock, no, the driver wouldn't have to claim against his insurance IF I caused damage, if I ever did cause damage, I would stop, exchange details and then carry on, it's only the minority of cyclists who cause damage as they filter, usually because they have no experience of fitting themselves and their bike through tight gaps with out putting a foot down or hitting anything.

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:16pm Wed 23 Jan 13

SaintM wrote:
how do cyclist carry their shopping home
In bags, I have a 45Litre rucksack and am going to get a pannier rack and bags as my loads are set to become heavier and more substantial, also I'm going to get a trailer for night fishing.

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:19pm Wed 23 Jan 13

good-gosh wrote:
Some cyclists may be automatically insured against risks to others under the pubic liability cover of their household insurance.
I have told people this but being a cyclist they don't believe me, at least I have my British cycling membership and free third party insurance.

mickey01 says...
7:21pm Wed 23 Jan 13

bigfella777 wrote:
All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
i am fed up with the brightly coloured twits riding two or three abreast when i am driving

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:26pm Wed 23 Jan 13

mickey01 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
i am fed up with the brightly coloured twits riding two or three abreast when i am driving
It's perfectly legal, it's also recommended by many including the institute of advanced motorists to ride 2 abreast, as long as none of them go against the flow of traffic (unless they're filtering single file) then it's legal to ride 3 abreast too.

mickey01 says...
7:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
mickey01 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
i am fed up with the brightly coloured twits riding two or three abreast when i am driving
It's perfectly legal, it's also recommended by many including the institute of advanced motorists to ride 2 abreast, as long as none of them go against the flow of traffic (unless they're filtering single file) then it's legal to ride 3 abreast too.
then is it against the law to walk 3 abreast through the park on my smartphone no and as for the itchen bridge it now takes so long to get through the tolls that you have to put your foot down to get to work on time , maybe we could reinstate the floating bridge for the bikers and that would mean you get across at your pace and we could get across at ours

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:40pm Wed 23 Jan 13

mickey01 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
mickey01 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge?
It needs a double speed camera right in the middle .
How many more rear shunts do we need to have?
What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park.
Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way.
There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
i am fed up with the brightly coloured twits riding two or three abreast when i am driving
It's perfectly legal, it's also recommended by many including the institute of advanced motorists to ride 2 abreast, as long as none of them go against the flow of traffic (unless they're filtering single file) then it's legal to ride 3 abreast too.
then is it against the law to walk 3 abreast through the park on my smartphone no and as for the itchen bridge it now takes so long to get through the tolls that you have to put your foot down to get to work on time , maybe we could reinstate the floating bridge for the bikers and that would mean you get across at your pace and we could get across at ours
I never said it was illegal to walk 3 abreast on your smart phone in the park, though I wouldn't recommend it due to thieves, also, rather than breaking the law and putting yourself and others in danger, why not take into account the increased delay at the tolls and leave a bit earlier? Reinstating the floating bridge would cost more than the toll bridge as a floating bridge would make a loss over the years due to people preferring to be able to just drive/walk/cycle/rid
e across so the floating bridge will never come back.

Pikey-Biker says...
7:47pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
mickey01 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote: All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge? It needs a double speed camera right in the middle . How many more rear shunts do we need to have? What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park. Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way. There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
i am fed up with the brightly coloured twits riding two or three abreast when i am driving
It's perfectly legal, it's also recommended by many including the institute of advanced motorists to ride 2 abreast, as long as none of them go against the flow of traffic (unless they're filtering single file) then it's legal to ride 3 abreast too.
Legal maybe but quite inconsiderate

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:53pm Wed 23 Jan 13

****-Biker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
mickey01 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote: All this is great but why cant they stop people doing 50mph over Itchen Bridge? It needs a double speed camera right in the middle . How many more rear shunts do we need to have? What I would really like to know is, am I allowed to cycle through the parks or not, all the way from say bottom of London rd,into the park there and then ride all the way to say St Marys through the park. Im fed up with people bumbling about on smartphones or walking 3 abreast telling me I should not be on my bike and that it is their right of way. There is no signage telling me otherwise can someone clear this up?
i am fed up with the brightly coloured twits riding two or three abreast when i am driving
It's perfectly legal, it's also recommended by many including the institute of advanced motorists to ride 2 abreast, as long as none of them go against the flow of traffic (unless they're filtering single file) then it's legal to ride 3 abreast too.
Legal maybe but quite inconsiderate
Depends on the conditions to be honest mate, if they're keeping up with traffic or it's a multi-lane road then no, it's not, same with narrow single carriageways, it's a safety thing, which would you rather try overtaking, a long line of cyclists in single file who are in primary or a group moving as a single unit roughly the width of a bus or even a tractor and not much longer than one?

Lockssmart says...
8:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
SaintM wrote:
how do cyclist carry their shopping home
In bags, I have a 45Litre rucksack and am going to get a pannier rack and bags as my loads are set to become heavier and more substantial, also I'm going to get a trailer for night fishing.
Your loads are getting heavier? Are you eating celery?

Ginger_cyclist says...
8:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Lockssmart wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
SaintM wrote:
how do cyclist carry their shopping home
In bags, I have a 45Litre rucksack and am going to get a pannier rack and bags as my loads are set to become heavier and more substantial, also I'm going to get a trailer for night fishing.
Your loads are getting heavier? Are you eating celery?
No, helping my mum with the shopping and doing stuff like going fishing.

forest hump says...
9:06pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years

Ginger_cyclist says...
9:31pm Wed 23 Jan 13

forest hump wrote:
Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.

good-gosh says...
9:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.

rugbybiker says...
10:22pm Wed 23 Jan 13

This is my first time commenting and i had to as i noticed the usual cyclists blaming car/motorbike owners and saying we need insurance because we are the most dangerous! Well i hate to burst your bubble but there are alot of irresponsible cyclists around as well. I know this as one recently cycled straight out on front of me on a busy roundabout as i approached him from the right meaning he should have given way, he caused me to come off my motorcycle and break my back and various other bones, and i am now off work for a long time with a 9 month old daughter that i somehow have to provide for as this Idiot had no insurance at all (not even house insurance!) And before you all say you are experienced cyclists so was this gentleman as he happens to be a semi-professional road racer! On a separate note i can't take any of southy's arguments seriously when his spelling and grammar is so appalling!

wizard says...
10:26pm Wed 23 Jan 13

forest hump wrote:
Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Lots of good answers already! its always puzzled me why motorists think its ok to park in cycle lanes and on pavements! please dont say you dont do that?

Ginger_cyclist says...
10:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

rugbybiker wrote:
This is my first time commenting and i had to as i noticed the usual cyclists blaming car/motorbike owners and saying we need insurance because we are the most dangerous! Well i hate to burst your bubble but there are alot of irresponsible cyclists around as well. I know this as one recently cycled straight out on front of me on a busy roundabout as i approached him from the right meaning he should have given way, he caused me to come off my motorcycle and break my back and various other bones, and i am now off work for a long time with a 9 month old daughter that i somehow have to provide for as this Idiot had no insurance at all (not even house insurance!) And before you all say you are experienced cyclists so was this gentleman as he happens to be a semi-professional road racer! On a separate note i can't take any of southy's arguments seriously when his spelling and grammar is so appalling!
I understand what you're getting at but statistically, motorists are several times more likely to cause injury BUT being a cyclist myself I do moan at the few bad ones who jump lights and stuff, hell, I've almost hit another cyclist before because the dozy cow didn't stop at the give way line and almost pulled out right in front of me from the Woolston link road, I also cringe when I see people following the "cycle lane"(more like the death lane) round the outside of the roundabout on town side of the toll bridge, motorists may not like it but when I navigate that roundabout, I take primary in the main traffic flow as it then allows me to prevent myself from being squashed by a large vehicle with huge blind spots, such as a bus, especially if I end up coming off the roundabout in the cycle lane next to it and it pulls into the bus stop on central bridge without seeing me, if you followed the cycle lane there, you could easily get killed or seriously injured but I know exactly where you're coming from, I mean yeah there's some right morons on the road who use all sorts of different ways of getting around BUT the majority of the people who use the roads, no matter what method they use, are good... I also know what you mean about southy though there are somethings that he says that make sense though.

Ginger_cyclist says...
10:49pm Wed 23 Jan 13

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.
Exactly, that is what roads are for, to provide the shortest routes possible... At least that was the idea of them when the Romans brought the idea of roads with them, you can always tell if you're following what was once a Roman road because Romans always built roads in straight lines to be the quickest route between 2 points.

rugbybiker says...
11:32pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
rugbybiker wrote:
This is my first time commenting and i had to as i noticed the usual cyclists blaming car/motorbike owners and saying we need insurance because we are the most dangerous! Well i hate to burst your bubble but there are alot of irresponsible cyclists around as well. I know this as one recently cycled straight out on front of me on a busy roundabout as i approached him from the right meaning he should have given way, he caused me to come off my motorcycle and break my back and various other bones, and i am now off work for a long time with a 9 month old daughter that i somehow have to provide for as this Idiot had no insurance at all (not even house insurance!) And before you all say you are experienced cyclists so was this gentleman as he happens to be a semi-professional road racer! On a separate note i can't take any of southy's arguments seriously when his spelling and grammar is so appalling!
I understand what you're getting at but statistically, motorists are several times more likely to cause injury BUT being a cyclist myself I do moan at the few bad ones who jump lights and stuff, hell, I've almost hit another cyclist before because the dozy cow didn't stop at the give way line and almost pulled out right in front of me from the Woolston link road, I also cringe when I see people following the "cycle lane"(more like the death lane) round the outside of the roundabout on town side of the toll bridge, motorists may not like it but when I navigate that roundabout, I take primary in the main traffic flow as it then allows me to prevent myself from being squashed by a large vehicle with huge blind spots, such as a bus, especially if I end up coming off the roundabout in the cycle lane next to it and it pulls into the bus stop on central bridge without seeing me, if you followed the cycle lane there, you could easily get killed or seriously injured but I know exactly where you're coming from, I mean yeah there's some right morons on the road who use all sorts of different ways of getting around BUT the majority of the people who use the roads, no matter what method they use, are good... I also know what you mean about southy though there are somethings that he says that make sense though.
I'm glad you saw the point i was making, at the end of the day we all use the road so we should all look out for each other! And looking down this thread it just seemed to me people were missing the point, if the cyclists use this and the car drivers respect the space then it will be a worthwhile investment. On the flipside if cyclists don't and continue to use the road then it is a pointless waste of cash but also would be very damaging to any further projects for getting people cycling round the city safely! And i'm guessing that's been on other stories because i didn't see anything logical from southy this time! lol

sampton says...
11:38pm Wed 23 Jan 13

As an example of damned if you do damned if you don't with regards to cycling on some of Southampton's cycle lanes...

The Avenue/Bassett Avenue/Winchester Rd - The planning that's into that to 'provide for cyclists' is horrendous.

You can barely use more than 10 metres at a time on Winchester Rd as the cycle section is almost always parked on.

Bassett Avenue is a shared cycle path/footpath which has barely enough width for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. If you go on the road there it's nigh on suicidal as it's a pretty tight bit of road in rush hour and I've had cars beep at me to get off the road, depsite the reason me being on the road was to let an old woman and her shopping trolley thing go past.

The Avenue is, in my opinion, the best bit and that doesn't even have an 'active' cycle path! Oh, except the bit down towards Lodge Rd end on the footpath that most people just walk all over anyway. (Or Domino's try and kill you on)

If something like this goes ahead it will do everyone a favour, rather than the disjointed sections that are randomly splattered across the city at the moment.

There are some decent bits, the boardwalk is good, and the sections of cycle paths that have had more thought than 'that's a wide bit of road, stick some paint down' are good, but there's little continuity in them.

The whole argument about cyclists vs pedestrian vs motorists is really tiresome too. If everyone showed each other some mutual respect we wouldn't have half the issues, but no. There's always someone who knows best/is in more of a hurry/is more important.

I'm not saying cyclists are all angels, far from it, there's loads I see go through red lights/give ways etc without so much as a second look. Having said that, I've seen motorists actively drive AT other people to get their point across. It's the same on both sides of the fence.

Ginger_cyclist says...
12:44am Thu 24 Jan 13

rugbybiker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
rugbybiker wrote:
This is my first time commenting and i had to as i noticed the usual cyclists blaming car/motorbike owners and saying we need insurance because we are the most dangerous! Well i hate to burst your bubble but there are alot of irresponsible cyclists around as well. I know this as one recently cycled straight out on front of me on a busy roundabout as i approached him from the right meaning he should have given way, he caused me to come off my motorcycle and break my back and various other bones, and i am now off work for a long time with a 9 month old daughter that i somehow have to provide for as this Idiot had no insurance at all (not even house insurance!) And before you all say you are experienced cyclists so was this gentleman as he happens to be a semi-professional road racer! On a separate note i can't take any of southy's arguments seriously when his spelling and grammar is so appalling!
I understand what you're getting at but statistically, motorists are several times more likely to cause injury BUT being a cyclist myself I do moan at the few bad ones who jump lights and stuff, hell, I've almost hit another cyclist before because the dozy cow didn't stop at the give way line and almost pulled out right in front of me from the Woolston link road, I also cringe when I see people following the "cycle lane"(more like the death lane) round the outside of the roundabout on town side of the toll bridge, motorists may not like it but when I navigate that roundabout, I take primary in the main traffic flow as it then allows me to prevent myself from being squashed by a large vehicle with huge blind spots, such as a bus, especially if I end up coming off the roundabout in the cycle lane next to it and it pulls into the bus stop on central bridge without seeing me, if you followed the cycle lane there, you could easily get killed or seriously injured but I know exactly where you're coming from, I mean yeah there's some right morons on the road who use all sorts of different ways of getting around BUT the majority of the people who use the roads, no matter what method they use, are good... I also know what you mean about southy though there are somethings that he says that make sense though.
I'm glad you saw the point i was making, at the end of the day we all use the road so we should all look out for each other! And looking down this thread it just seemed to me people were missing the point, if the cyclists use this and the car drivers respect the space then it will be a worthwhile investment. On the flipside if cyclists don't and continue to use the road then it is a pointless waste of cash but also would be very damaging to any further projects for getting people cycling round the city safely! And i'm guessing that's been on other stories because i didn't see anything logical from southy this time! lol
Exactly, the roads to be honest, require a high amount of mutual respect between all road users but because there is a profound lack of it, I now have 2 cameras running while I'm riding, one is for rear view to catch tailgaters and stuff, the other on my helmet is to catch whatever I see or don't see happen in front of me, I've even caught people reading books or doing paperwork while driving, let alone using a mobile device while driving, I also see a disturbing trend of people driving while wearing head/earphones, something which I also see some cyclists, especially those riding fixies doing, anything that is bad, I put on youtube with no discrimination of whether they're pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, bus driver or any other road user, as a motorcyclist yourself, I would recommend a helmet camera as I'm sure you also see just as much bad behavior from other road users as I do, if you get the time, check out my youtube channel called Angry Ginger Cyclist, also I wish you a speedy recovery and I hope the guy responsible likes a good dose of karma because it's a... "Female dog"(We all know that the word for a female dog will get censored).

Ginger_cyclist says...
12:47am Thu 24 Jan 13

sampton wrote:
As an example of damned if you do damned if you don't with regards to cycling on some of Southampton's cycle lanes...

The Avenue/Bassett Avenue/Winchester Rd - The planning that's into that to 'provide for cyclists' is horrendous.

You can barely use more than 10 metres at a time on Winchester Rd as the cycle section is almost always parked on.

Bassett Avenue is a shared cycle path/footpath which has barely enough width for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. If you go on the road there it's nigh on suicidal as it's a pretty tight bit of road in rush hour and I've had cars beep at me to get off the road, depsite the reason me being on the road was to let an old woman and her shopping trolley thing go past.

The Avenue is, in my opinion, the best bit and that doesn't even have an 'active' cycle path! Oh, except the bit down towards Lodge Rd end on the footpath that most people just walk all over anyway. (Or Domino's try and kill you on)

If something like this goes ahead it will do everyone a favour, rather than the disjointed sections that are randomly splattered across the city at the moment.

There are some decent bits, the boardwalk is good, and the sections of cycle paths that have had more thought than 'that's a wide bit of road, stick some paint down' are good, but there's little continuity in them.

The whole argument about cyclists vs pedestrian vs motorists is really tiresome too. If everyone showed each other some mutual respect we wouldn't have half the issues, but no. There's always someone who knows best/is in more of a hurry/is more important.

I'm not saying cyclists are all angels, far from it, there's loads I see go through red lights/give ways etc without so much as a second look. Having said that, I've seen motorists actively drive AT other people to get their point across. It's the same on both sides of the fence.
I've had a guy once who pulled out in front of me onto a main road and stop dead in front of me on purpose before, he was lucky I didn't have a helmet camera and that I have good reflexes and good brakes, especially since I was carrying quite a bit of fishing gear including expensive rods.

rugbybiker says...
4:16am Thu 24 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
rugbybiker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
rugbybiker wrote:
This is my first time commenting and i had to as i noticed the usual cyclists blaming car/motorbike owners and saying we need insurance because we are the most dangerous! Well i hate to burst your bubble but there are alot of irresponsible cyclists around as well. I know this as one recently cycled straight out on front of me on a busy roundabout as i approached him from the right meaning he should have given way, he caused me to come off my motorcycle and break my back and various other bones, and i am now off work for a long time with a 9 month old daughter that i somehow have to provide for as this Idiot had no insurance at all (not even house insurance!) And before you all say you are experienced cyclists so was this gentleman as he happens to be a semi-professional road racer! On a separate note i can't take any of southy's arguments seriously when his spelling and grammar is so appalling!
I understand what you're getting at but statistically, motorists are several times more likely to cause injury BUT being a cyclist myself I do moan at the few bad ones who jump lights and stuff, hell, I've almost hit another cyclist before because the dozy cow didn't stop at the give way line and almost pulled out right in front of me from the Woolston link road, I also cringe when I see people following the "cycle lane"(more like the death lane) round the outside of the roundabout on town side of the toll bridge, motorists may not like it but when I navigate that roundabout, I take primary in the main traffic flow as it then allows me to prevent myself from being squashed by a large vehicle with huge blind spots, such as a bus, especially if I end up coming off the roundabout in the cycle lane next to it and it pulls into the bus stop on central bridge without seeing me, if you followed the cycle lane there, you could easily get killed or seriously injured but I know exactly where you're coming from, I mean yeah there's some right morons on the road who use all sorts of different ways of getting around BUT the majority of the people who use the roads, no matter what method they use, are good... I also know what you mean about southy though there are somethings that he says that make sense though.
I'm glad you saw the point i was making, at the end of the day we all use the road so we should all look out for each other! And looking down this thread it just seemed to me people were missing the point, if the cyclists use this and the car drivers respect the space then it will be a worthwhile investment. On the flipside if cyclists don't and continue to use the road then it is a pointless waste of cash but also would be very damaging to any further projects for getting people cycling round the city safely! And i'm guessing that's been on other stories because i didn't see anything logical from southy this time! lol
Exactly, the roads to be honest, require a high amount of mutual respect between all road users but because there is a profound lack of it, I now have 2 cameras running while I'm riding, one is for rear view to catch tailgaters and stuff, the other on my helmet is to catch whatever I see or don't see happen in front of me, I've even caught people reading books or doing paperwork while driving, let alone using a mobile device while driving, I also see a disturbing trend of people driving while wearing head/earphones, something which I also see some cyclists, especially those riding fixies doing, anything that is bad, I put on youtube with no discrimination of whether they're pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, bus driver or any other road user, as a motorcyclist yourself, I would recommend a helmet camera as I'm sure you also see just as much bad behavior from other road users as I do, if you get the time, check out my youtube channel called Angry Ginger Cyclist, also I wish you a speedy recovery and I hope the guy responsible likes a good dose of karma because it's a... "Female dog"(We all know that the word for a female dog will get censored).
I do have a helmet camera which is how i could prove it was his fault as he initially denied it! And i have noticed the headphones in cars which i don't understand either. I drive a car and cycle also... well i did before the accident so i see it from all sides so understand the different frustrations! And as for Karma it will definitely bite him hard as i have no doubt with his attitude something will happen eventually! I have seen your channel as i use youtube a lot at the moment to alleviate the boredom! haha Thanks for the best wishes and stay safe!!

forest hump says...
8:02am Thu 24 Jan 13

wizard wrote:
forest hump wrote: Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Lots of good answers already! its always puzzled me why motorists think its ok to park in cycle lanes and on pavements! please dont say you dont do that?
I don't do that!

forest hump says...
8:04am Thu 24 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote: Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.
Exactly, that is what roads are for, to provide the shortest routes possible... At least that was the idea of them when the Romans brought the idea of roads with them, you can always tell if you're following what was once a Roman road because Romans always built roads in straight lines to be the quickest route between 2 points.
I asked for rational answers, not a lesson in Roman history! You need to spend less time looking at your helmet camera!

downfader says...
10:34am Thu 24 Jan 13

forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote: Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.
Exactly, that is what roads are for, to provide the shortest routes possible... At least that was the idea of them when the Romans brought the idea of roads with them, you can always tell if you're following what was once a Roman road because Romans always built roads in straight lines to be the quickest route between 2 points.
I asked for rational answers, not a lesson in Roman history! You need to spend less time looking at your helmet camera!
Its already been answered. Your problem is exactly the same as on the last 3 stories you asked it - you didnt like it.

You've been given reasons why cyclists end up in places or positions and chose not to listen.

Ginger_cyclist says...
10:47am Thu 24 Jan 13

rugbybiker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
rugbybiker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
rugbybiker wrote:
This is my first time commenting and i had to as i noticed the usual cyclists blaming car/motorbike owners and saying we need insurance because we are the most dangerous! Well i hate to burst your bubble but there are alot of irresponsible cyclists around as well. I know this as one recently cycled straight out on front of me on a busy roundabout as i approached him from the right meaning he should have given way, he caused me to come off my motorcycle and break my back and various other bones, and i am now off work for a long time with a 9 month old daughter that i somehow have to provide for as this Idiot had no insurance at all (not even house insurance!) And before you all say you are experienced cyclists so was this gentleman as he happens to be a semi-professional road racer! On a separate note i can't take any of southy's arguments seriously when his spelling and grammar is so appalling!
I understand what you're getting at but statistically, motorists are several times more likely to cause injury BUT being a cyclist myself I do moan at the few bad ones who jump lights and stuff, hell, I've almost hit another cyclist before because the dozy cow didn't stop at the give way line and almost pulled out right in front of me from the Woolston link road, I also cringe when I see people following the "cycle lane"(more like the death lane) round the outside of the roundabout on town side of the toll bridge, motorists may not like it but when I navigate that roundabout, I take primary in the main traffic flow as it then allows me to prevent myself from being squashed by a large vehicle with huge blind spots, such as a bus, especially if I end up coming off the roundabout in the cycle lane next to it and it pulls into the bus stop on central bridge without seeing me, if you followed the cycle lane there, you could easily get killed or seriously injured but I know exactly where you're coming from, I mean yeah there's some right morons on the road who use all sorts of different ways of getting around BUT the majority of the people who use the roads, no matter what method they use, are good... I also know what you mean about southy though there are somethings that he says that make sense though.
I'm glad you saw the point i was making, at the end of the day we all use the road so we should all look out for each other! And looking down this thread it just seemed to me people were missing the point, if the cyclists use this and the car drivers respect the space then it will be a worthwhile investment. On the flipside if cyclists don't and continue to use the road then it is a pointless waste of cash but also would be very damaging to any further projects for getting people cycling round the city safely! And i'm guessing that's been on other stories because i didn't see anything logical from southy this time! lol
Exactly, the roads to be honest, require a high amount of mutual respect between all road users but because there is a profound lack of it, I now have 2 cameras running while I'm riding, one is for rear view to catch tailgaters and stuff, the other on my helmet is to catch whatever I see or don't see happen in front of me, I've even caught people reading books or doing paperwork while driving, let alone using a mobile device while driving, I also see a disturbing trend of people driving while wearing head/earphones, something which I also see some cyclists, especially those riding fixies doing, anything that is bad, I put on youtube with no discrimination of whether they're pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, bus driver or any other road user, as a motorcyclist yourself, I would recommend a helmet camera as I'm sure you also see just as much bad behavior from other road users as I do, if you get the time, check out my youtube channel called Angry Ginger Cyclist, also I wish you a speedy recovery and I hope the guy responsible likes a good dose of karma because it's a... "Female dog"(We all know that the word for a female dog will get censored).
I do have a helmet camera which is how i could prove it was his fault as he initially denied it! And i have noticed the headphones in cars which i don't understand either. I drive a car and cycle also... well i did before the accident so i see it from all sides so understand the different frustrations! And as for Karma it will definitely bite him hard as i have no doubt with his attitude something will happen eventually! I have seen your channel as i use youtube a lot at the moment to alleviate the boredom! haha Thanks for the best wishes and stay safe!!
Ah, I see, helmet cameras are very useful things aren't they? That's cool that you've seen my channel, please feel free to subscribe if you haven't already and leave any comments if you want.

aljerram says...
12:54pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Good to hear that Hedge End might be on the radar sometime in the future (although I might be too old to ride a bike by that date!).

All these arguments about using the road and not using the road are futile. I've cycled into work the last few days and, despite there being SOME cycle paths, these have not been clear of ice. My route consists of the paths around Sainsburys/M&S up to Pizza Hut, across into West End (NO cycle paths here), down Mansbridge Road (you're SUPPOSED to be able to cycle on the path but there's no room for you and a pedestrian). Then across from Swaythling towards Portswood...halleluj
ah there's a very short cycle lane up the hill and down Portswood Road, but nothing to write home about.

Until we adopt a separate lane for pedestrians, cycles and motor vehicles, there will also been the doommongers, ne'ersayers and moaners. We can't get our roads right in the first place so how can we expect the government (national or local) to get it right?

I DO pay my council tax, which pays for the upkeep on roads, I DO wear a helmet, I DO wear bright clothing, I DO have lights on my bike. But STILL I have regular close-shaves with car drivers trying to beat the traffic at roundabouts and pulling out on me...a little bit of sense from everyone - Stop, Look, Listen...just be aware of everyone around you and funnily enugh we'll all be able to get on!

ssnaked23 says...
1:13pm Thu 24 Jan 13

sampton wrote:
As an example of damned if you do damned if you don't with regards to cycling on some of Southampton's cycle lanes... The Avenue/Bassett Avenue/Winchester Rd - The planning that's into that to 'provide for cyclists' is horrendous. You can barely use more than 10 metres at a time on Winchester Rd as the cycle section is almost always parked on. Bassett Avenue is a shared cycle path/footpath which has barely enough width for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. If you go on the road there it's nigh on suicidal as it's a pretty tight bit of road in rush hour and I've had cars beep at me to get off the road, depsite the reason me being on the road was to let an old woman and her shopping trolley thing go past. The Avenue is, in my opinion, the best bit and that doesn't even have an 'active' cycle path! Oh, except the bit down towards Lodge Rd end on the footpath that most people just walk all over anyway. (Or Domino's try and kill you on) If something like this goes ahead it will do everyone a favour, rather than the disjointed sections that are randomly splattered across the city at the moment. There are some decent bits, the boardwalk is good, and the sections of cycle paths that have had more thought than 'that's a wide bit of road, stick some paint down' are good, but there's little continuity in them. The whole argument about cyclists vs pedestrian vs motorists is really tiresome too. If everyone showed each other some mutual respect we wouldn't have half the issues, but no. There's always someone who knows best/is in more of a hurry/is more important. I'm not saying cyclists are all angels, far from it, there's loads I see go through red lights/give ways etc without so much as a second look. Having said that, I've seen motorists actively drive AT other people to get their point across. It's the same on both sides of the fence.
Well I have read a lot of the comments and of course we have the usual motorists v cyclists v pedestrians points of few.
I agree with Sampton comments about the cycle lanes he mentioned. I am, like one of the commentators, a 3 dimensional person, in that, I do drive, I cycle to work on a frequent basis, plus being a pedestrian and also, when running, a motorcyclist. As always, alot of the motorists comments are slating cyclists for all the usual reasons, i.e. dont pay any contributions to the maintenance of roads, ignore Highway code, disregard for others etc, the list can go on, but you cant tell me that ALL car drivers adhere to the law and give respect to other road users. In all modes of transport there are good and bad users. As all my old motorcycling friends used to say, a driver needs to ride a bike before driving the car then they would have an appreciation of what 2 wheelers experience with road conditions and other users, whether its powered by an engine or by legs. I have used some of the cycle lanes mentione, especially the one from Totton to Southampton centre and did find that they were,in places dangerous for the cyclist and decided, as is my right to use the road instead. Even at the, now tender age of 52, I can usually average 15 MPH or more and Im not a club cyclist either. I think the scheme to improve cycle lanes is good, its a shame that there arent enough "proper" ones, thereby making it safer for all users. Dont forget drivers, the roads were never originally intended for cars but for horse and carriage and from there it has evolved, so get off your high horse and think about giving respect to ALL road users.

loosehead says...
1:42pm Thu 24 Jan 13

ssnaked23 wrote:
sampton wrote:
As an example of damned if you do damned if you don't with regards to cycling on some of Southampton's cycle lanes... The Avenue/Bassett Avenue/Winchester Rd - The planning that's into that to 'provide for cyclists' is horrendous. You can barely use more than 10 metres at a time on Winchester Rd as the cycle section is almost always parked on. Bassett Avenue is a shared cycle path/footpath which has barely enough width for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. If you go on the road there it's nigh on suicidal as it's a pretty tight bit of road in rush hour and I've had cars beep at me to get off the road, depsite the reason me being on the road was to let an old woman and her shopping trolley thing go past. The Avenue is, in my opinion, the best bit and that doesn't even have an 'active' cycle path! Oh, except the bit down towards Lodge Rd end on the footpath that most people just walk all over anyway. (Or Domino's try and kill you on) If something like this goes ahead it will do everyone a favour, rather than the disjointed sections that are randomly splattered across the city at the moment. There are some decent bits, the boardwalk is good, and the sections of cycle paths that have had more thought than 'that's a wide bit of road, stick some paint down' are good, but there's little continuity in them. The whole argument about cyclists vs pedestrian vs motorists is really tiresome too. If everyone showed each other some mutual respect we wouldn't have half the issues, but no. There's always someone who knows best/is in more of a hurry/is more important. I'm not saying cyclists are all angels, far from it, there's loads I see go through red lights/give ways etc without so much as a second look. Having said that, I've seen motorists actively drive AT other people to get their point across. It's the same on both sides of the fence.
Well I have read a lot of the comments and of course we have the usual motorists v cyclists v pedestrians points of few.
I agree with Sampton comments about the cycle lanes he mentioned. I am, like one of the commentators, a 3 dimensional person, in that, I do drive, I cycle to work on a frequent basis, plus being a pedestrian and also, when running, a motorcyclist. As always, alot of the motorists comments are slating cyclists for all the usual reasons, i.e. dont pay any contributions to the maintenance of roads, ignore Highway code, disregard for others etc, the list can go on, but you cant tell me that ALL car drivers adhere to the law and give respect to other road users. In all modes of transport there are good and bad users. As all my old motorcycling friends used to say, a driver needs to ride a bike before driving the car then they would have an appreciation of what 2 wheelers experience with road conditions and other users, whether its powered by an engine or by legs. I have used some of the cycle lanes mentione, especially the one from Totton to Southampton centre and did find that they were,in places dangerous for the cyclist and decided, as is my right to use the road instead. Even at the, now tender age of 52, I can usually average 15 MPH or more and Im not a club cyclist either. I think the scheme to improve cycle lanes is good, its a shame that there arent enough "proper" ones, thereby making it safer for all users. Dont forget drivers, the roads were never originally intended for cars but for horse and carriage and from there it has evolved, so get off your high horse and think about giving respect to ALL road users.
When I was young we had to take a cycling proficiency test to make sure you were safe on the road & I became a Knight of the road do they still do this?

downfader says...
3:23pm Thu 24 Jan 13

loosehead wrote:
ssnaked23 wrote:
sampton wrote:
As an example of damned if you do damned if you don't with regards to cycling on some of Southampton's cycle lanes... The Avenue/Bassett Avenue/Winchester Rd - The planning that's into that to 'provide for cyclists' is horrendous. You can barely use more than 10 metres at a time on Winchester Rd as the cycle section is almost always parked on. Bassett Avenue is a shared cycle path/footpath which has barely enough width for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. If you go on the road there it's nigh on suicidal as it's a pretty tight bit of road in rush hour and I've had cars beep at me to get off the road, depsite the reason me being on the road was to let an old woman and her shopping trolley thing go past. The Avenue is, in my opinion, the best bit and that doesn't even have an 'active' cycle path! Oh, except the bit down towards Lodge Rd end on the footpath that most people just walk all over anyway. (Or Domino's try and kill you on) If something like this goes ahead it will do everyone a favour, rather than the disjointed sections that are randomly splattered across the city at the moment. There are some decent bits, the boardwalk is good, and the sections of cycle paths that have had more thought than 'that's a wide bit of road, stick some paint down' are good, but there's little continuity in them. The whole argument about cyclists vs pedestrian vs motorists is really tiresome too. If everyone showed each other some mutual respect we wouldn't have half the issues, but no. There's always someone who knows best/is in more of a hurry/is more important. I'm not saying cyclists are all angels, far from it, there's loads I see go through red lights/give ways etc without so much as a second look. Having said that, I've seen motorists actively drive AT other people to get their point across. It's the same on both sides of the fence.
Well I have read a lot of the comments and of course we have the usual motorists v cyclists v pedestrians points of few.
I agree with Sampton comments about the cycle lanes he mentioned. I am, like one of the commentators, a 3 dimensional person, in that, I do drive, I cycle to work on a frequent basis, plus being a pedestrian and also, when running, a motorcyclist. As always, alot of the motorists comments are slating cyclists for all the usual reasons, i.e. dont pay any contributions to the maintenance of roads, ignore Highway code, disregard for others etc, the list can go on, but you cant tell me that ALL car drivers adhere to the law and give respect to other road users. In all modes of transport there are good and bad users. As all my old motorcycling friends used to say, a driver needs to ride a bike before driving the car then they would have an appreciation of what 2 wheelers experience with road conditions and other users, whether its powered by an engine or by legs. I have used some of the cycle lanes mentione, especially the one from Totton to Southampton centre and did find that they were,in places dangerous for the cyclist and decided, as is my right to use the road instead. Even at the, now tender age of 52, I can usually average 15 MPH or more and Im not a club cyclist either. I think the scheme to improve cycle lanes is good, its a shame that there arent enough "proper" ones, thereby making it safer for all users. Dont forget drivers, the roads were never originally intended for cars but for horse and carriage and from there it has evolved, so get off your high horse and think about giving respect to ALL road users.
When I was young we had to take a cycling proficiency test to make sure you were safe on the road & I became a Knight of the road do they still do this?
Google Bikeability. Its the standard used thesedays and is far more comprehensive.

downfader says...
3:24pm Thu 24 Jan 13

ssnaked23 wrote:
sampton wrote:
As an example of damned if you do damned if you don't with regards to cycling on some of Southampton's cycle lanes... The Avenue/Bassett Avenue/Winchester Rd - The planning that's into that to 'provide for cyclists' is horrendous. You can barely use more than 10 metres at a time on Winchester Rd as the cycle section is almost always parked on. Bassett Avenue is a shared cycle path/footpath which has barely enough width for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. If you go on the road there it's nigh on suicidal as it's a pretty tight bit of road in rush hour and I've had cars beep at me to get off the road, depsite the reason me being on the road was to let an old woman and her shopping trolley thing go past. The Avenue is, in my opinion, the best bit and that doesn't even have an 'active' cycle path! Oh, except the bit down towards Lodge Rd end on the footpath that most people just walk all over anyway. (Or Domino's try and kill you on) If something like this goes ahead it will do everyone a favour, rather than the disjointed sections that are randomly splattered across the city at the moment. There are some decent bits, the boardwalk is good, and the sections of cycle paths that have had more thought than 'that's a wide bit of road, stick some paint down' are good, but there's little continuity in them. The whole argument about cyclists vs pedestrian vs motorists is really tiresome too. If everyone showed each other some mutual respect we wouldn't have half the issues, but no. There's always someone who knows best/is in more of a hurry/is more important. I'm not saying cyclists are all angels, far from it, there's loads I see go through red lights/give ways etc without so much as a second look. Having said that, I've seen motorists actively drive AT other people to get their point across. It's the same on both sides of the fence.
Well I have read a lot of the comments and of course we have the usual motorists v cyclists v pedestrians points of few.
I agree with Sampton comments about the cycle lanes he mentioned. I am, like one of the commentators, a 3 dimensional person, in that, I do drive, I cycle to work on a frequent basis, plus being a pedestrian and also, when running, a motorcyclist. As always, alot of the motorists comments are slating cyclists for all the usual reasons, i.e. dont pay any contributions to the maintenance of roads, ignore Highway code, disregard for others etc, the list can go on, but you cant tell me that ALL car drivers adhere to the law and give respect to other road users. In all modes of transport there are good and bad users. As all my old motorcycling friends used to say, a driver needs to ride a bike before driving the car then they would have an appreciation of what 2 wheelers experience with road conditions and other users, whether its powered by an engine or by legs. I have used some of the cycle lanes mentione, especially the one from Totton to Southampton centre and did find that they were,in places dangerous for the cyclist and decided, as is my right to use the road instead. Even at the, now tender age of 52, I can usually average 15 MPH or more and Im not a club cyclist either. I think the scheme to improve cycle lanes is good, its a shame that there arent enough "proper" ones, thereby making it safer for all users. Dont forget drivers, the roads were never originally intended for cars but for horse and carriage and from there it has evolved, so get off your high horse and think about giving respect to ALL road users.
I dont see it as motorist vs cyclist vs pedestrian.

Its just a few ranters who should know better. I've stuck up for pedestrians and drivers just as much as I have cyclists, myself.

forest hump says...
4:30pm Thu 24 Jan 13

downfader wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote: Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.
Exactly, that is what roads are for, to provide the shortest routes possible... At least that was the idea of them when the Romans brought the idea of roads with them, you can always tell if you're following what was once a Roman road because Romans always built roads in straight lines to be the quickest route between 2 points.
I asked for rational answers, not a lesson in Roman history! You need to spend less time looking at your helmet camera!
Its already been answered. Your problem is exactly the same as on the last 3 stories you asked it - you didnt like it. You've been given reasons why cyclists end up in places or positions and chose not to listen.
I've listened and as is my right, disagreed. I believe that some of these expainations are very weak and the true underlying reason for not using cycle lanes is one of seclusion. I do not have to like anything I do not wish to. As do all of the people who post on here and that includes cyclists. So I take exception to people accusing or even telling me what I should believe. I asked for rational responses and I believe these are not. If that sunshine, constitutes not listening so be it

Ginger_cyclist says...
7:07pm Thu 24 Jan 13

forest hump wrote:
downfader wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote: Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.
Exactly, that is what roads are for, to provide the shortest routes possible... At least that was the idea of them when the Romans brought the idea of roads with them, you can always tell if you're following what was once a Roman road because Romans always built roads in straight lines to be the quickest route between 2 points.
I asked for rational answers, not a lesson in Roman history! You need to spend less time looking at your helmet camera!
Its already been answered. Your problem is exactly the same as on the last 3 stories you asked it - you didnt like it. You've been given reasons why cyclists end up in places or positions and chose not to listen.
I've listened and as is my right, disagreed. I believe that some of these expainations are very weak and the true underlying reason for not using cycle lanes is one of seclusion. I do not have to like anything I do not wish to. As do all of the people who post on here and that includes cyclists. So I take exception to people accusing or even telling me what I should believe. I asked for rational responses and I believe these are not. If that sunshine, constitutes not listening so be it
I gave a rational response, most cycle lanes/paths are complete bull, full of potholes, never gritted in weather like we've just had, you find cars parked in them, pedestrians walking on them, even sometimes motorcycles going along them, granted a motorcycle is allowed into advisory cycle lanes to filter but only if there aren't any cyclists, then there's the fact that many cycle lanes/paths dump you into the road at stupid places or they vanish when traffic islands appear, and even when you DO use cycle infrastructure like ASL's, you STILL get people telling you to move or hurling abuse at you because you've crossed THEIR stop line and stopped at yours in front of them, while on the subject of ASL's, you regularly find funny looking bikes with four wheels, engine, roof, windows and air-con sat in them, next time I see a car stop at an ASL when they had plenty of time to stop, I'll pull alongside and say "Nice bike, never seen one like that before".

downfader says...
1:35pm Fri 25 Jan 13

forest hump wrote:
downfader wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote: Can I get a rational answer? Why do cyclists (some) insist on using roads when there are perfectly good cycle path alternatives? It's puzzled me for many years
Because they're NOT perfectly good, also it is a legal right for cyclists to be able to use the road without harassment, intimidation and/or being put in danger.
And it's about the shortest route, to save time and peddling effort. It’s the same for pedestrians. Nobody is going to detour to a cycle track unless it is going to be a short cut.
Exactly, that is what roads are for, to provide the shortest routes possible... At least that was the idea of them when the Romans brought the idea of roads with them, you can always tell if you're following what was once a Roman road because Romans always built roads in straight lines to be the quickest route between 2 points.
I asked for rational answers, not a lesson in Roman history! You need to spend less time looking at your helmet camera!
Its already been answered. Your problem is exactly the same as on the last 3 stories you asked it - you didnt like it. You've been given reasons why cyclists end up in places or positions and chose not to listen.
I've listened and as is my right, disagreed. I believe that some of these expainations are very weak and the true underlying reason for not using cycle lanes is one of seclusion. I do not have to like anything I do not wish to. As do all of the people who post on here and that includes cyclists. So I take exception to people accusing or even telling me what I should believe. I asked for rational responses and I believe these are not. If that sunshine, constitutes not listening so be it
See again.... fingers in ears. You're nothing more than a troll on these stories.

charn9 says...
9:36pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Plum Pudding wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
southy wrote:
bernard7 wrote:
Hold on there you plum, so why don't car users pay for all of the roads then? They use the roads so why don't they pay for all the repairs and new roads etc?

What a stupid argument
Its not really when you open up your mind and think about it, you may or may not personally drive on the roads, but we all use them in some form of away, like how would your food get into the shops ect, you need these service so you need roads so that means we all need to pay for the roads because we all use the roads directly or indirectly, just that motorise vehcicals pay more, none motorise and people on foot don't.
Thats not strictly true. The 2011 IPPR review of road economics found that

a) non drivers out number drivers by about 2:1

and b) the extra costs of running and maintaining a road infratructure is vastly more expensive than any motoring taxes raised.

I completely agree that food needs to get to shops, but that really has to come as a haulage industry investment in rail to lessen the impact to our country and environment
The fact still remains that motorise vehcicals do pay more for up keep of roads, though the cost of keeping a motorise vehcical road worthly and on the road.
I have to come back on this one. I fail to see that asking cyclists to pay for infrastructure can be regarded as a stupid argument. Motorists paid about £33bn last year in road fulel taxes and vehicle excise duty, of that, about £9bn was spent by the government on roads and infrastructure. And that excludes VAT paid by motorists, as well as parking fees and any other associated revenue streams. How much do cyclists pay, absolutely nothing!
i feel i have to comment here as there are a few key facts being missed. i am a car driver who chooses to cycle to work, so am paying all of the taxes etc but cycling instead. i am sure many cyclists are the same, so that kind of stomps on your deluded comments. also, it is a fact that cars etc cause much more damage to the roafs than bicycles, so they should pay more!!!! in fact, if you choose to cycle rather than drive you should get a discount on vehicle related taxes!!!! i was hit by a car and badly injured last tuesday whilst cycling home from work by a moron driver who pulled out of a side road and hit me. it was in an area that is proposed to be improved in these plans so as a cyclist and a driver who pays for the privilsge of having a car that i rarely use, am all for the new plans!!!!

More Echo News