SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?

SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?

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

Shoong wrote:

SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?

I would at least double that if I were you.

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...

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

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

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?

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?

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.

fat_doughnut wrote:
Eastleigh have had these for years.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

SotonLad wrote:
How on earth does it cost £1 million?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

SaintM wrote:
how do cyclist carry their shopping home

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SaintM wrote:
how do cyclist carry their shopping home

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

****-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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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!

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!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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!