The Saga of Sefton Cycle Lanes

[Stuartli]

I don’t share your viewpoint because I always look right and left before crossing any roads or cycle ways.

If you read my comment again, you'll find it says cyclists coming from behind.

I also mentioned in a news item recently that whilst waiting for a bus I came within inches of being knocked down by a cyclist outside Holy Trinity Church, who was riding on the pavement towards Queen's Road.

I had just moved towards the bus stop as the bus approached and the cyclist swerved round me at speed, oblivious to the cycle lanes he should have been using.

The bus driver commented I'd had a lucky escape when I got on.

[libraryguy]

To be really pedantic, both forms are acceptable.
The plural of bus is buses. A variant plural, busses, is also given in the dictionary, but has become so rare that it seems like an error to many people. ... Until 1961, 'busses' was the preferred plural of 'bus' in Merriam-Webster dictionaries. But the word 'buss' is a synonym of 'kiss'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word.../plural-of-bus

I don’t share your viewpoint because I always look right and left before crossing any roads or cycle ways.

BTW, try using an English Dictionary, not a US one.

bus
noun [ C ]


plural buses or US also busses

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...lish/bus?q=Bus

[The PNP]

If you read my comment again, you'll find it says cyclists coming from behind.

I also mentioned in a news item recently that whilst waiting for a bus I came within inches of being knocked down by a cyclist outside Holy Trinity Church, who was riding on the pavement towards Queen's Road.

I had just moved towards the bus stop as the bus approached and the cyclist swerved round me at speed, oblivious to the cycle lanes he should have been using.

The bus driver commented I'd had a lucky escape when I got on.

Lucky he/she was sufficiently skilled to avoid you, as you stepped towards the bus. Of course, if riders weren't constantly being freaked out by cars 'buzzing' them at close-quarters, they wouldn't develop a pavement habit in the first place.

Btw, I prefer 'busses' to 'buses', I also prefer 'waggon' to 'wagon'. In literature, there are many examples of both. Whereas, in the context that you used it, that is not the case with your incorrect 'whose'.

[Stuartli]

Lucky he/she was sufficiently skilled to avoid you, as you stepped towards the bus. Of course, if riders weren't constantly being freaked out by cars 'buzzing' them at close-quarters, they wouldn't develop a pavement habit in the first place.

As usual, you side with those who break the law rather than those who follow its guidance.

"Sufficiently skilled to avoid...."

Has it not registered with you that the cyclist in question was riding at speed on the pavement, even though new cycle lanes had been provided at considerable expense on the adjacent road?

Thought not.

[The PNP]

As usual, you side with those who break the law rather than those who follow its guidance.

"Sufficiently skilled to avoid...."

Has it not registered with you that the cyclist in question was riding at speed on the pavement, even though new cycle lanes had been provided at considerable expense on the adjacent road?

Thought not.

I never said I approved of him/her riding on the pavement, simply that I understand why it's being done. I myself ride on-road along Queens Road, but find cars still use it as a through-route at 30mph. A practice which in itself is doubly illegal.....1) It's a NO ENTRY. 2) It's 20mph!

[Stuartli]

I never said I approved of him/her riding on the pavement, simply that I understand why it's being done. I myself ride on-road along Queens Road, but find cars still use it as a through-route at 30mph. A practice which in itself is doubly illegal.....1) It's a NO ENTRY. 2) It's 20mph!

No, you condone law breaking.

As for Queen's Road, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that traffic can legally access it via the various side roads such as Leyland Road, Alexandra Road, Hawkshead Street etc...

How else do you think residents and those staying at hotels access these properties?

[The PNP]

A) No, you condone law breaking.

B) As for Queen's Road, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that traffic can legally access it via the various side roads such as Leyland Road, Alexandra Road, Hawkshead Street etc...

How else do you think residents and those staying at hotels access these properties?

A) When it comes to the motoring fraternity, there's a lot of it about....I recall one motorist poster who even had a fave motto, which was: 'speed in the right place at the right time'!

B) Yes, I know about the side-street access thing. What I'm on about, is cars forever running the NO ENTRY to zoom right through from one end to the other. It really is not on, and unsurprisingly leads to some riders continuing to feel safer on the pavement.

[justbecause]

A) When it comes to the motoring fraternity, there's a lot of it about....I recall one motorist poster who even had a fave motto, which was: 'speed in the right place at the right time'!

B) Yes, I know about the side-street access thing. What I'm on about, is cars forever running the NO ENTRY to zoom right through from one end to the other. It really is not on, and unsurprisingly leads to some riders continuing to feel safer on the pavement.

A) Yes, very similar to another poster who freely admits that he drives at +/- 10% of the speed limit. Any idea who that may be?

B) So, I’m assuming that cyclists feel safe being passed by vehicles that have entered Queens Road legally from one of the side roads.

[Stuartli]

A) When it comes to the motoring fraternity, there's a lot of it about....I recall one motorist poster who even had a fave motto, which was: 'speed in the right place at the right time'!

B) Yes, I know about the side-street access thing. What I'm on about, is cars forever running the NO ENTRY to zoom right through from one end to the other. It really is not on, and unsurprisingly leads to some riders continuing to feel safer on the pavement.

A) You continue to blindly misconstrue standard rules of the road to suit your twisted lines of thinking.

Speed in the right place at the right time almost certainly means adjusting your speed to suit the road and weather conditions prevailing at any given time. It doesn't, as I would understand it and you incorrectly assume, mean excessive speed or breaking speed limits.

B) So even with all the expensive and mainly unnecessary measures taken in Queen's Road (and Hoghton Street) to accommodate cyclists, you still think the poor dears should threaten the safety of the rest of us by cycling on the pavements?

You also seem to think that side road residents are happy at additional unwanted traffic using their area and the increased risks that result because of your selfish attitude to the rest of the population.

You truly beggar belief.

[The PNP]

A) Yes, very similar to another poster who freely admits that he drives at +/- 10% of the speed limit. Any idea who that may be?

B) So, I’m assuming that cyclists feel safe being passed by vehicles that have entered Queens Road legally from one of the side roads.

A) Not to mention cars in 30mph areas, that flash-up figures like 48mph on roadside 'YOUR SPEED' devices!

B) Provided they pass wide (1.5m or more clearance) and drive with regard to the speed limit (20mph +/- 10%) I see very little problem.

[justbecause]

A) Not to mention cars in 30mph areas, that flash-up figures like 48mph on roadside 'YOUR SPEED' devices!

B) Provided they pass wide (1.5m or more clearance) and drive with regard to the speed limit (20mph +/- 10%) I see very little problem.

With a reply like that, it proves you’re going to be as stupid in 2022 as you were last year.

[silver fox]

Lucky he/she was sufficiently skilled to avoid you, as you stepped towards the bus. Of course, if riders weren't constantly being freaked out by cars 'buzzing' them at close-quarters, they wouldn't develop a pavement habit in the first place.

Btw, I prefer 'busses' to 'buses', I also prefer 'waggon' to 'wagon'. In literature, there are many examples of both. Whereas, in the context that you used it, that is not the case with your incorrect 'whose'.

I suppose I should know by now, but those comments are ridiculous, firstly you excuse a cyclist for illegal riding, then go on to praise the idiot for having the skill to avoid the pedestrian who was behaving in a totally correct manner.

How about praising the skills of drivers who somehow avoid squishing errant cyclists, but of course in your particular "rule book" it would be the motorist driving too fast, too close, or not being aware that the cyclist in front was a bone headed, suicide jockey, likely to make the most idiotic manoeuvres without warning.

[The PNP]

I suppose I should know by now, but those comments are ridiculous, firstly you excuse a cyclist for illegal riding, then go on to praise the idiot for having the skill to avoid the pedestrian who was behaving in a totally correct manner.

How about praising the skills of drivers who somehow avoid squishing errant cyclists, but of course in your particular "rule book" it would be the motorist driving too fast, too close, or not being aware that the cyclist in front was a bone headed, suicide jockey, likely to make the most idiotic manoeuvres without warning.

I myself sometimes make 'manoeuvres without warning', due needing to avoid a deep pothole/particularly bad road defect. Of course, I do have my ears open for following traffic
and will look round (if there's time to) before swerving out....That a rider may have to dodge something that the driver behind is unaware of, is one good reason why leaving a 1.5m+ overtaking clearance is wise.

[MICK/GILLY]

Could you imagine this being a statement of defence in court.

3 main rules of 2 wheels = look back, look back and look back. Should you not use brakes and stop instead of swerving out into traffic without looking?, overtaking cycles at 1.5m means driving on the other side of the road or 2.5m out from the curb.

“I myself sometimes make 'manoeuvres without warning'”, It would cost a lot to chisel that on a headstone .my front and rear dash cam cost me £35, money well spent .

[The PNP]

Could you imagine this being a statement of defence in court.

3 main rules of 2 wheels = look back, look back and look back. Should you not use brakes and stop instead of swerving out into traffic without looking, overtaking cycles at 1.5m means driving on the other side of the road or 2.5m out from the curb.

I myself sometimes make 'manoeuvres without warning', It would cost a lot to chisel that on a headstone .

Yes, braking is a valuable tool in the cyclists possession. For it to be effective whenever bad defects appears ahead, requires enough stopping distance (which of course depends on a bikes speed).

However, expecting every rider to spot every hole in time and 'slam on', then wait at the side e.g. for traffic to clear, at every pothole is asking a lot. After all, there may be no traffic behind, so stopping at every hole (if that's what you're hinting at) would be extremely time-consuming!

Myself, I scan the surface well head constantly, invariably moving out into the centre of the lane in good time. I may remain in the centre for some distance, depending on length of any particular series of defects. Whilst traffic behind might not appreciate my doing so, it does keep me safe. Having said that, I can still get caught out on occasions (e.g. going fast downhill) and will have to swerve at the last moment.