Originally Posted by libraryguy

That's where you fall down immediately - you readily admit drivers have a licence, and therefore, we have taken a test, and passed it, to get our full driving licence.

When was the last time a cyclist had a licence or even took a test to find out if they're fit to use the roads and know what they're doing?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder!!??

Hmmmmm what makes you think cyclists don’t have a driving licence.?! I do. And I have cycling insurance too. It’s not about them and us, you use the term “we”, so your argument falls down immediately.

Have you read the other news report on here today about the two drivers jailed for dangerous driving and causing injury to innocent third parties.? They were licensed. You think a licence makes drivers perfect? Far from it. The reason a driver needs a licence is directly as a consequence of the amount of damage they can do behind the wheel. A two tonne lump of steel driven at 30mph will do a lot more damage than a 100kg bike and rider at 15mph.
But you think cyclists are the problem.

Originally Posted by justbecause

Sorry, but you’re talking absolute sh**e, SOME, but no means all drivers do ignore red lights, cut corners, ignore signage and treat cyclists with contempt, just like SOME cyclists do exactly the same, and believe it or not, not all drivers exceed the speed limits.

Did I say ALL.? No I didn’t. Read properly before looking stupid.

Originally Posted by local

You could still reasonably call it a road tax, despite its name changes and the central point, I don't pay anything extra to use my cycle is accurate.

Call it whatever you want. It’s charged depending on the basis of how polluting your vehicle is, not for the privilege of using the U.K.’s road network.
Cycles don’t pollute, hence no charge. Get over it.

Originally Posted by lawed143

Did I say ALL.? No I didn’t. Read properly before looking stupid.

Well actually, yes you did, generalising “drivers” as opposed to some drivers. You also stated that no one adheres to the no entry signs at Queens Road, and you also stated that no one obeys the 20mph limit on Queens Road. So perhaps it’s you that should read your own posts properly before looking stupid.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

When was the last time a cyclist had a licence or even took a test to find out if they're fit to use the roads and know what they're doing?

There may well be riders who are less than competent in traffic. The very young fall into that category, along with wobbly or inexperienced riders of any age. All the more reason to provide safe infrastructure - keeping them (and the rest of us) out of harms way!

Originally Posted by justbecause

Well actually, yes you did, generalising “drivers” as opposed to some drivers. You also stated that no one adheres to the no entry signs at Queens Road, and you also stated that no one obeys the 20mph limit on Queens Road. So perhaps it’s you that should read your own posts properly before looking stupid.

I said “drivers regularly”..... this automatically DOES NOT IMPLY ALL.
The No Entry signs ARE completely ignored....but NOT BY ALL DRIVERS.
I stand by my claim of every driver ignores the 20 limit down there.

Getting back to the OP, the need for separation of drivers and cyclists, is solely due to the inability of drivers (not all), to drive in accordance with their licence. That is THE ONLY REASON. If you don’t want cyclists separate, drive properly. If you can’t, why are you complaining about segregation......it’ll help everyone. I don’t get what the issue is when it’s solving a problem to benefit all. Maybe with your superior knowledge, you could enlighten me?

Originally Posted by lawed143

I said “drivers regularly”..... this automatically DOES NOT IMPLY ALL.
The No Entry signs ARE completely ignored....but NOT BY ALL DRIVERS.
I stand by my claim of every driver ignores the 20 limit down there.

Getting back to the OP, the need for separation of drivers and cyclists, is solely due to the inability of drivers (not all), to drive in accordance with their licence. That is THE ONLY REASON. If you don’t want cyclists separate, drive properly. If you can’t, why are you complaining about segregation......it’ll help everyone. I don’t get what the issue is when it’s solving a problem to benefit all. Maybe with your superior knowledge, you could enlighten me?

Let's see... cyclists ignoring red lights, cycling the wrong way on one-way streets, weaving in and out of traffic, cycling up the inside then complaining about get side-swiped by large articulated lorries. Riding on pavements, and the best one yet, using the bollards on Hoghton Street as a slalom course!

There are of course good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists, but in your little world the blame, of course, lies solely on the inability of a person in charge of a motor vehicle.

Is it any wonder cyclists need separating to keep them safe from themselves?

Originally Posted by The PNP

There may well be riders who are less than competent in traffic. The very young fall into that category, along with wobbly or inexperienced riders of any age. All the more reason to provide safe infrastructure - keeping them (and the rest of us) out of harms way!

There may well also be drivers who are less competent in traffic, would you advocate providing safe infrastructure for them as well? No, of course you wouldn’t, you would say they they shouldn’t be on the road until they were competent.

Originally Posted by lawed143

Hmmmmm what makes you think cyclists don’t have a driving licence.?! I do. And I have cycling insurance too. It’s not about them and us, you use the term “we”, so your argument falls down immediately.

You're slipping into the idiots way of lumping ALL drivers together, have you thought that like cyclists there are good and bad drivers and believe it or not some drivers drive without a licence some without Insurance too. I've had some near misses with cyclists who think that they can just ride across my path and that I will brake or steer round them but after 51 years driving I still haven't managed to hit one.
But if you think that narrowing the road to extend cycling lanes on already busy roads is going to improve things then you live in cloud cuckoo land.

1; Local drivers are going to leave the main roads and take alternative routes.

2; They want a safe cycling route from Ainsdale to Crossens, Coastal Road seems a decent alternative.

3; As already pointed out visitors will come once sit in long queues of traffic and make their mind up never to come again.

4; What about the routes for HGV's coming with the goods for supermarkets & shops are they going to sit in large queues too or seek an alternative hence getting heavier vehicles on minor roads.

5; It has been said a million times but it still doesn't sink in Southport is a Victorian Town with Victorian width roads and narrowing them even further to accommodate the few middle aged cyclists who would heed the law and ride in the cycle lanes is madness as the pavements will still be the playground for the couldn't give a sh*t about anyone cyclists.

Originally Posted by Little Londoner

5; It has been said a million times but it still doesn't sink in Southport is a Victorian Town with Victorian width roads.

We better bring back the horse and cart for those who think everything should remain Victorian then. The fact is many of Southport's roads are considerably wider than most towns. You could sail the Titanic down Cambridge Road.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

We better bring back the horse and cart for those who think everything should remain Victorian then. The fact is many of Southport's roads are considerably wider than most towns. You could sail the Titanic down Cambridge Road.

Not for much longer though.

Originally Posted by justbecause

[/B]
Not for much longer though.

Yes, because there's adequate room for cycle lanes along there without affecting traffic.

Originally Posted by justbecause

There may well also be drivers who are less competent in traffic, would you advocate providing safe infrastructure for them as well? No, of course you wouldn’t, you would say they they shouldn’t be on the road until they were competent.

Difference is, the 'L' driver is safely sat ensconced within a large steel box, complete with crumplezones and airbags, whereas the learner cyclist is not. He/she is in amongst cars, busses and jugggernauts, with only a thin layer of clothing between rider and a fatal squishing.

Fact is, many less competent (and many potential) cyclists never ride in traffic, because it frightens the life out of them. Safe separate tarmac is absolutely essential, if they are ever to be tempted out.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

That's where you fall down immediately - you readily admit drivers have a licence, and therefore, we have taken a test, and passed it, to get our full driving licence.

When was the last time a cyclist had a licence or even took a test to find out if they're fit to use the roads and know what they're doing?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder!!??

Ever heard of the cycling proficiency Test, now National Standards for Cycle Training

Originally Posted by salus.populi

Yes, because there's adequate room for cycle lanes along there without affecting traffic.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
(etc)