|
-
Can someone point out press articles and evidence to show how dangerous are Southport's roads in relation to bike and car accidents?
While there are always accidents no matter how much saftey recommendations are made, I don't recall any single issue being a problem.
There doesn't appear to be a black spot for bike accidents or motor vehicle accidents. Yes we moan about cyclists going through red lights etc., but I have yet to hear of an accident at one.
Seems to me all road users in the Southport area all flow along pretty easily. So why do we need all these traffic measures for what is still essentially minority transport in cycling.
It's going to cause immense problems when there was never a problem to fix in the first place!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Your Comments:
-
Originally Posted by libraryguy
A) ....why do we need all these traffic measures for what is still essentially minority transport in cycling.
B) It's going to cause immense problems when there was never a problem to fix in the first place!
A) Perhaps the question should be; with the terrain here so flat and obviously ideal for bikes, why are so few people using their bikes? The answer, when you start asking around, is people say they are fearful of riding in traffic, so out of self-preservation will never do it.
B) The 'problem' is lack of personal safety.....For a start, would you let your own youngsters (if you have any) cycle alone on-road across town to school, if it meant they were mixing it twice a day - sometimes in the dark - with assorted juggernauts, speeding cars, busses and who knows what else?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
A) Perhaps the question should be; with the terrain here so flat and obviously ideal for bikes, why are so few people using their bikes? The answer, when you start asking around, is people say they are fearful of riding in traffic, so out of self-preservation will never do it.
B) The 'problem' is lack of personal safety.....For a start, would you let your own youngsters (if you have any) cycle alone on-road across town to school, if it meant they were mixing it twice a day - sometimes in the dark - with assorted juggernauts, speeding cars, busses and who knows what else?
A) Sorry PNP, they haven't come in droves with the new cycle lanes, and they're not going to come.
B) I don't have kids, but if I did I wouldn't be having them going out in the dark at night anyway, depending on age of course. If they needed to be somewhere, I'd take them or have them arranged to be collected.
In my opinion, cycling for those under the age of 13 should be legal on pavements. I would instill in them personal safety, to get off their bike and walk across the road at a crossing. Then they'd take cycling proficiency tests which will give them a good basic grounding in road safety when they later come to take their driving test.
Kids need to have confidence on the road in traffic. If they become fearful of everything they will lose the ability to make compitent and safe judgements. Give kids and people self confidence. Wrapping them up in cotton wool does nothing but instill fear.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by libraryguy
A) Sorry PNP, they haven't come in droves with the new cycle lanes, and they're not going to come.
B) I don't have kids, but if I did I wouldn't be having them going out in the dark at night anyway, depending on age of course. If they needed to be somewhere, I'd take them or have them arranged to be collected.
In my opinion, cycling for those under the age of 13 should be legal on pavements. I would instill in them personal safety, to get off their bike and walk across the road at a crossing. Then they'd take cycling proficiency tests which will give them a good basic grounding in road safety when they later come to take their driving test.
Kids need to have confidence on the road in traffic. If they become fearful of everything they will lose the ability to make compitent and safe judgements. Give kids and people self confidence. Wrapping them up in cotton wool does nothing but instill fear.
A) The 'droves' will only appear - as they have in London - when there's a comprehensive network of safe routes for them to use......Remember the droves of bikes that magically appeared in the first lockdown, because the roads were empty of motor-traffic, meaning people felt safe to venture out?
B) In the depths of Winter, it can be pretty dark at 8am and again by 4pm. In places like DK and NL it's also gloomy at those times of day, yet up to 90% of kids there - even juniors - can cycle safely to/from schools.
Cycling on pavements is in fact tolerated in the UK by the Police, at least in certain circumstances. In lieu of dedicated cycle tarmac, it is indeed a safer option for young riders. After all, what hard-hearted copper is going to direct a small child off an empty pavement and into the crush of deadly rush-hour traffic?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
A) The 'droves' will only appear - as they have in London - when there's a comprehensive network of safe routes for them to use......Remember the droves of bikes that magically appeared in the first lockdown, because the roads were empty of motor-traffic, meaning people felt safe to venture out?
B) In the depths of Winter, it can be pretty dark at 8am and again by 4pm. In places like DK and NL it's also gloomy at those times of day, yet up to 90% of kids there - even juniors - can cycle safely to/from schools.
Cycling on pavements is in fact tolerated in the UK by the Police, at least in certain circumstances. In lieu of dedicated cycle tarmac, it is indeed a safer option for young riders. After all, what hard-hearted copper is going to direct a small child off an empty pavement and into the crush of deadly rush-hour traffic?
Droves in London?
3.1% is hardly droves and for such a busy city it's pretty poor.
https://www.bikes.org.uk/cycle-commu...london-double/
Isn't there anyone competent to champion cyccling?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
Read the full link....
'Car drivers in Hackney: 13,400, Cyclists: 17,300'.
'Car drivers in Islington: 9,800, Cyclists: 10,200'.
And so on across most central London Boroughs, where significant cycle infrastructure has been put in place and cycling has mushroomed as a result. If that isn't 'droves' of bikes, then what is?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
Read the full link....
'Car drivers in Hackney: 13,400, Cyclists: 17,300'.
'Car drivers in Islington: 9,800, Cyclists: 10,200'.
And so on across most central London Boroughs, where significant cycle infrastructure has been put in place and cycling has mushroomed as a result. If that isn't 'droves' of bikes, then what is?
But that's London, which is a wholly different place to Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool.
Southport cannot be compared to London - that's just stupid. The demographic of Southport is largely middle aged with a higher proportion than average of elderly people. While the middle aged might take to a bike the elderly population can't or won't. That also explains why a higher proportion of those aged 50 and over responded to the consultation.
So it aint gonna happen here sunshine!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
Amazingly consistent 'not happy at all' replies to any-and-every proposal to increase safety for the towns pedestrians and cyclists.....Those who responded in that way must lead incredibly sedentary lives, habitually avoiding walking or cycling even for the very shortest of trips.
Now, I don't suppose they were all climate-crisis-denying motorists by any chance?
I disagree with you. I don't like cycling in cycle lanes, they are far more hazardous than cycling freely. There is more water collects in the cycle lanes, there are drains and other slippery items in those regions, and you are far more likely to encounter pedestrians in a cycle lane. It is more hazardous when you are turning right for when on the road you have more time to signal and let the drivers behind you know what you are doing. No - I do not agree with cycle lanes.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Anon liked this post
-
Originally Posted by said
I disagree with you. I don't like cycling in cycle lanes, they are far more hazardous than cycling freely. There is more water collects in the cycle lanes, there are drains and other slippery items in those regions, and you are far more likely to encounter pedestrians in a cycle lane. It is more hazardous when you are turning right for when on the road you have more time to signal and let the drivers behind you know what you are doing. No - I do not agree with cycle lanes.
I see your point, and entirely agree. The average cycle-lane is pathetic, like that stupidly narrow thing painted along PNR - many bikes have handlebars wider than that. It also encourages drivers to pass way too close!
However, things may be on the point of looking up. Hoghton St is a better type of lane, being wide enough to be practical. In fact, with those kerb-like separators along one side, it almost qualifies as a cycle-path. But on other side of town, the new lanes sadly resemble the narrow old-style ones (with some even parked on).
It would be marvellous, if central Govt provided better and definitive guidance to Local Authorities on cycle infrastructure. Standards have to be raised nationwide, particularly re minimum lane width.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by libraryguy
You show us all the evidence they didn't?
How can people be making educated judgements when they vote 'very dissatisfied' to making side roads easier to cross for pedestrians? Surely anyone who was actually reading the questions would be in favour of that?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by libraryguy
But that's London, which is a wholly different place to Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool.
Southport cannot be compared to London - that's just stupid. The demographic of Southport is largely middle aged with a higher proportion than average of elderly people. While the middle aged might take to a bike the elderly population can't or won't. That also explains why a higher proportion of those aged 50 and over responded to the consultation.
So it aint gonna happen here sunshine!
Fyi, plenty of retired folk enjoy cycling, as do they golf and other outdoor activities. And the recent advent of electric bikes, has made cycling even more of a doddle for oldies.....Btw, I'm no spring chicken myself and I still use my bike a lot!
As for it not happening here. CO2 from vehicles must be cut by 50% by 2030, if the 1.5deg target is to be met. And as bikes emit no CO2 at all, what mode of transport is better suited to the task of achieving those cuts? It will take many years to design, consult on, and roll out sufficient mileage of cycleway to make the place cycle-friendly - and scarily we only have nine years left to accomplish that.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by libraryguy
Can someone point out press articles and evidence to show how dangerous are Southport's roads in relation to bike and car accidents?
While there are always accidents no matter how much saftey recommendations are made, I don't recall any single issue being a problem.
There doesn't appear to be a black spot for bike accidents or motor vehicle accidents. Yes we moan about cyclists going through red lights etc., but I have yet to hear of an accident at one.
Seems to me all road users in the Southport area all flow along pretty easily. So why do we need all these traffic measures for what is still essentially minority transport in cycling.
It's going to cause immense problems when there was never a problem to fix in the first place!
How about the problem of Southport sinking below the waves? Some models have most of Southport under water in less than 20yrs! If that happens - and it will happen this century - there will be no cycle lanes to be concerned about. Cars are the problem, and their idiot owners who refuse to walk, cycle or use public transport. The planet is doomed and the proof that there isn't the will to change things is manifest in the attitudes expressed in most of the comments on this thread.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Tunesmith
How about the problem of Southport sinking below the waves? Some models have most of Southport under water in less than 20yrs! If that happens - and it will happen this century - there will be no cycle lanes to be concerned about. Cars are the problem, and their idiot owners who refuse to walk, cycle or use public transport. The planet is doomed and the proof that there isn't the will to change things is manifest in the attitudes expressed in most of the comments on this thread.
This is the problem with people like libraryguy. They can’t see the fuller picture, only referring to their blinkered view of what they think the issue is. We need to travel more actively, cycling or walking, but most won’t cos they are too afraid. Hence with very few cyclists, there will be very few collisions. So he therefore thinks that there isn’t potential for problems.
I’ve read the full report and it’s shocking reading. 60-70% of respondents don’t even want a crossing installed to help people cross the road. 60-70% don’t want rest spots (benches) placing to allow people to rest.
From the report
“ The results of the YSYS survey have been analysed by the Council’s Data Intelligence team. This revealed that there have been a number of respondees that have answered ‘strongly disagree’ to all the questions raised, including ones asking whether the consultees would favour improved crossing points for pedestrians.”
I raised this earlier in this thread, only to be shouted down. But here it is in black and white, lots of very unhappy people just clicking no no no. All very sad and destroys the entire democracy that they’ve all been so fighting for.
These people live among us. WTAF.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Tunesmith
How about the problem of Southport sinking below the waves? Some models have most of Southport under water in less than 20yrs! If that happens - and it will happen this century - there will be no cycle lanes to be concerned about. Cars are the problem, and their idiot owners who refuse to walk, cycle or use public transport. The planet is doomed and the proof that there isn't the will to change things is manifest in the attitudes expressed in most of the comments on this thread.
I've lived in Southport all my life, and I recall 40 years ago we were told that Southport would be underwater by the year 2000. It did not happen. Some of the concern around climate change needs action, but there are so many claims of Armageddon which have not come to pass, leaves me feeling mistrust for the people telling us, without proof, we have to completely change our lives and bankrupt our society or there will be grave consequences.
Back to the subject - the proposed scheme inconveniences the residents it claims to protect. So when lots of the residents within the scheme area oppose the scheme, that is a tipping point that the scheme is not delivering the benefits it intended.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by millsey
A) I've lived in Southport all my life, and I recall 40 years ago we were told that Southport would be underwater by the year 2000. It did not happen. Some of the concern around climate change needs action, but there are so many claims of Armageddon which have not come to pass, leaves me feeling mistrust for the people telling us, without proof, we have to completely change our lives and bankrupt our society or there will be grave consequences.
B) Back to the subject - the proposed scheme inconveniences the residents it claims to protect. So when lots of the residents within the scheme area oppose the scheme, that is a tipping point that the scheme is not delivering the benefits it intended.
A) It did not happen, because a lot of money was spent constructing a huge seawall. Which at what looks to be the best part of 10ft high, is only just up to the task nowadays.....Either raise it more in a few decades, or you'll have the sea coming over the top!
B) Very few from within the scheme area (about a dozen) turned up on the day to oppose it. All the rest of the opposition has come from people living outside the area, who just want to drive through it, i.e. from the towns rat-runners.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 1 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|