"One way street"

[Anon]

In their fiercely self-interested defence of the primacy of motor vehicles versus other modes of transport, posters complaining about so-called 'pop-up' cycle lanes are fighting a rearguard action.

Do you think that people are going to swap their cars for bikes to get to town just because we have these new cycle lanes?

I personally can't use a bike due to arthritis.How do you propose I use the cycle lane?

[sandGroundZero]

"Do you think that people are going to swap their cars for bikes to get to town just because we have these new cycle lanes?" — post #64

It is a bit of a leap from providing cycle lanes to supposing all will be obliged to use them.

• Motor vehicles notably at present those with internal combustion engines, do damage to our town (& other towns).
• The fuss over Southport's Emergency Active Travel Routes is out of proportion.
• The detriment to retailers' businesses of a few less street parking spaces is unproven and (I think) improbable.

Instead of whinging about the supposed damage, get on with life and visit Lord Street & vicinity as you always have (— benefit of my doubt in the case of many posters opposed to cycle lanes!)

[Anon]

[*] The fuss over Southport's Emergency Active Travel Routes is out of proportion.
[*] The detriment to retailers' businesses of a few less street parking spaces is unproven and (I think) improbable.[/LIST]Instead of whinging about the supposed damage, get on with life and visit Lord Street & vicinity as you always have (— benefit of my doubt in the case of many posters opposed to cycle lanes!)

It's not just the new cycle routes people are complaining about, it's the combination of a number of things over the years, of which this is just the latest.

As for the detriment to retailers's businesses being unproven, a friend of mine had a shop in what is now the pedestrianised area. He had the shop before it was pedestrianised.

On the day the pedestrianisation work started, his takings dropped by 25% and never recovered, even after the work was completed. He knows it was the pedestrianisation that did that to his business (his words not mine), plus the reduction of parking spaces in town (again his words).

His shop is no longer there, as he couldn't afford to keep it open.

In my opinion, with the hindsight of the effects of the previous pedestrianisation and reduction of parking, the latest changes will only make things worse for shops in town.

[said]

It's not just the new cycle routes people are complaining about, it's the combination of a number of things over the years, of which this is just the latest.

As for the detriment to retailers's businesses being unproven, a friend of mine had a shop in what is now the pedestrianised area. He had the shop before it was pedestrianised.

On the day the pedestrianisation work started, his takings dropped by 25% and never recovered, even after the work was completed. He knows it was the pedestrianisation that did that to his business (his words not mine), plus the reduction of parking spaces in town (again his words).

His shop is no longer there, as he couldn't afford to keep it open.

In my opinion, with the hindsight of the effects of the previous pedestrianisation and reduction of parking, the latest changes will only make things worse for shops in town.

The deterioration of the beach, the gradual depletion of leisure facilities - including the proposed council plan to remove the fairground, the lack of attention to motorists leading to shop closures, the huge number of housing projects close to the town, the permission granted for a huge number of old car lots and growing number of car dealerships central to town, only supports one theory. That Southport will cease to be a resort and is intended to become a commuter area to serve Liverpool, Preston and Manchester. Sad days.

[The PNP]

It's not just the new cycle routes people are complaining about, it's the combination of a number of things over the years, of which this is just the latest.....In my opinion, with the hindsight of the effects of the previous pedestrianisation and reduction of parking, the latest changes will only make things worse for shops in town.

I'm sure anyone with health issues/a disabled Blue Badge, will continue to be catered for re parking in town.

With foresight, by reducing car usage/CO2 emmissions across the UK, sealevel rise is slowed down.....Giving traders more years grace - before pilot whales and basking sharks come cruising through!

N.B. Perhaps if motorists had showed some respect for cyclists, by allowing 1.5m clearance when passing, measures like pop-up cycle lanes would not have been necessary.

[local]

We need to get with it and remove the luddites and their unused cycle lanes we are rapidly moving towards self-driving low or no emission vehicles.

Narrowing the streets for the few occasional cyclists like me is a waste of space and money.

A system that may well work in some busy cities is pointless here.

[The PNP]

A) We need to get with it and remove the luddites and their unused cycle lanes we are rapidly moving towards self-driving low or no emission vehicles.

B) Narrowing the streets for the few occasional cyclists like me is a waste of space and money.....A system that may well work in some busy cities is pointless here.

A) Self-driving cars and trucks may soon be made to work ok on 'simple' roads like motorways. Where their cameras can track a white/dotted line, or detect an obstruction ahead. But autonomous/self-drive vehicles are nowhere near being able to safely handle the vast multitude of scenarios encountered on normal roads. Reason: computers do not possess that most basic of human qualities i.e. common sense.

A world where we all drive electric cars and trucks is also some way off, I'd guess it's about 20 years away. Even then, what's to stop a 30ton 'leccy juggernaut from crushing riders whilst turning left? Only the provision of better infrastructure can eliminate that, by separating riders from traffic with a kerb or similar.

B) Maybe you should ask why there's only 'a few occasional cyclists' about? Imo, it's because we only had a few occasional safe pieces of tarmac to ride on! Btw, if creating better cycle infrastructure saves lives - which it does - then it's money well spent.

[silver fox]

B) Maybe you should ask why there's only 'a few occasional cyclists' about? Imo, it's because we only had a few occasional safe pieces of tarmac to ride on! Btw, if creating better cycle infrastructure saves lives - which it does - then it's money well spent.

This is a totally circular argument, you feel that provide the infrastructure and hordes of cyclists will magically appear.

The rather more pragmatic don't see the point of excluding and restricting traffic to serve something that doesn't exist and is highly unlikely to do so.

Chasing traffic from Queens Rd is a form of lunacy, anyone from the North end of town , Queens Rd is the usual and most direct route, which ever way your No Entry signs finish up it will mean a diversion probably involving increased traffic on other roads, more congestion, or more likely go elsewhere.

[sandGroundZero]

I witnessed a motorist turning right out of Hoghton Street into Manchester Road. The driver only 'saw ' a cyclist — coming straight through the junction from Queens Road — well into her/his turn; the reaction was to swerve (no time to brake!) Fortunately, the cyclist survived unscathed. It was early afternoon.

Many objections to cycle lanes discount the ever present danger cyclists face vis-à-vis motor vehicles. Posters who claim to be cyclist, yet disparage safety measures, cannot be cycling far or often. Otherwise, they would have experienced 'close shaves ' enough to know the value.

Except for some reflective bollards in Hoghton Street, this Emergency Active Travel Route strikes me as no great shakes. Those who assert cyclists are too few to warrant safety measures are oblivious to the fact that many who would cycle further afield than their neighbourhood shop do not do so precisely because they fear the dangers posed. Collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists or pedestrians may be distressing for the motorists, but potentially fatal for the others! Welcome thought they are, these measures are unlikely to encourage many new cyclists.

Petrolheads will squeal, but additional measures

• smaller, lighter vehicles;
• reduced maximum speed /power; etc.

— will need to be introduced in urban streets.

[The PNP]

This is a totally circular argument, you feel that provide the infrastructure and hordes of cyclists will magically appear.

One thing's for certain, do nothing to encourage more to ride - and more won't ride.

We all saw, inc the Govt, how the absence of motor traffic this Spring (during lockdown) brought so many more out on their bikes. We also saw, how once the traffic returned, most of those cyclists vanished back into the safety of the woodwork.....That surely, is an open and shut case for better cycling provision.

N.B. Could it be, that the motoring fraternity don't want more people encouraged to cycle - because they regard cyclists as a nuisance?

[silver fox]

The deterioration of the beach,.

You're never going to stop the force of nature, sometime in the dim and distant past (no I wasn't around) the beach was in Rufford, if the climate change predictions come true, it may well return.

[local]

You're never going to stop the force of nature, sometime in the dim and distant past (no I wasn't around) the beach was in Rufford, if the climate change predictions come true, it may well return.

It certainly wasn't anything much to do with "the force of nature" as thousands of lorry loads of golden sand were stripped from the beach every year.
Rainfords dumped the spoil from the process as an ideal medium for grass to take hold and here we are a big green beach.

The much lower beach was then more liable for silt deposition and that's what we have.

There are plenty of examples around the world of exactly the same happening.

[silver fox]

It certainly wasn't anything much to do with "the force of nature" as thousands of lorry loads of golden sand were stripped from the beach every year.
Rainfords dumped the spoil from the process as an ideal medium for grass to take hold and here we are a big green beach.

The much lower beach was then more liable for silt deposition and that's what we have.

There are plenty of examples around the world of exactly the same happening.

Certainly the removal of so much clean sand did not contribute in a good way, accelerating what was already happening.

[Alikado]

It certainly wasn't anything much to do with "the force of nature" as thousands of lorry loads of golden sand were stripped from the beach every year.
Rainfords dumped the spoil from the process as an ideal medium for grass to take hold and here we are a big green beach.

The much lower beach was then more liable for silt deposition and that's what we have.

There are plenty of examples around the world of exactly the same happening.

If that sand had not been removed would not the silt have been spread thicker elsewhere on the beach?

[Anon]

This is what the businesses in that area think:-

https://standupforsouthport.com/busi...o-be-scrapped/

One comment was:-

“Yesterday, I only saw one cyclist in this area all day – and they were riding past along the pavement! "

Sums it up really.