As the consultation on plans for liveable streets and increased cycle provision lumbers on, John Pugh has called for a healthy dose of commonsense to be injected into the process.

"No consultation on plans to limit access to streets can be ideal in current circumstances where neighbours cannot get together and public meetings are impossible.

There’s a fear out there that because there’s plenty of government money to do these schemes,any responses from the public will be interpreted in a very selective way. Everyone wants safer roads and a cleaner environment but some actions that a Council might do are seen as impractical, pointless or worse -even by cyclists themselves."

"I think it's important therefore that we get everyone to sign up to two very basic principles. The first is that clear neighbourhood majority consent for any changes must be won and the second is that the objectives- whether cleaner air, greener transport or public safety are spelt out in advance and measured.

I personally hate token gestures where things are done simply because they sound good -especially if the real time effects are quite different from what was intended. We are already seeing that in part with the pop-up cycle routes the government rushed the council into doing in reaction to Covid.”

Cllr. Pugh has set up a petition to get the public’s backing for these two basic principles. “ If enough people back the petition and we can demonstrate widespread support for the two principles, the Council will be obliged to embrace the same principles too and commonsense will prevail. Schemes shouldn’t just proceed because the government flash the cash”.

The petition can be found here https://tinyurl.com/5ddbnqav

“Lockdown or not”, says Cllr Pugh ,” the public voice needs to be unambiguous forceful and clear, and hopefully behind the petition.”

The Council formally and constitutionally is pledged to respond to petitions.

I’ll get the popcorn ready and prepare for the same usual comments to crop up.....

Yes, I'd support this. Provided that, at end of day our cyclists are shielded from the motor traffic on these routes. Otherwise, not only will the casualties continue, but new people will not be attracted to cycling, due the usual safety fears. And that cyclists aren't forced to ride in the gutter along impossibly narrow lanes like on Preston New Rd, or in Covid-unsafe proximity to where pedestrians walk.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Yes, I'd support this. Provided that, at end of day our cyclists are shielded from the motor traffic on these routes. Otherwise, not only will the casualties continue, but new people will not be attracted to cycling, due the usual safety fears. And that cyclists aren't forced to ride in the gutter along impossibly narrow lanes like on Preston New Rd, or in Covid-unsafe proximity to where pedestrians walk.

You'd support it as long as you come out on top, what about me being able to walk on pavements without cyclists taking the urine and flying along the pavements even on quiet roads. You seem to forget that in Southport the feral inbreeds do as they like on cycles.
If Theresa May hadn't got the same empty space between her ears that you have and we had enough Police to enforce existing laws the problem could be solved on both sides. The intolerant motorists, motor cyclists and cyclists all being rewarded for their belligerence by being hit hard in the wallet or worse but I won't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Little Londoner

You'd support it as long as you come out on top, what about me being able to walk on pavements without cyclists taking the urine and flying along the pavements even on quiet roads. You seem to forget that in Southport the feral inbreeds do as they like on cycles.

There is a problem with yobbish youths, on bikes or otherwise.....But I don't see that as any reason to deny the sensible majority of residents, the opportunity to get from A to B in safety on a bike if they so choose.

Cyclists are shielded from vehicles.


Why should we be ?
it simply doesn't make sense that I should have my own zil lane at others expense on a road network.
Why not skateboarders, skaters, disabled vehicle users,people who want to run instead of walk or even cartwheel.

Cycle facilities away from roads, great safer and healthy .

I can't expect to disrupt at great expense to others because I use my bike its just selfish.

Originally Posted by local

A) Cyclists are shielded from vehicles....Why should we be ?
it simply doesn't make sense that I should have my own zil lane at others expense on a road network....Why not skateboarders, skaters, disabled vehicle users,people who want to run instead of walk or even cartwheel.

B) Cycle facilities away from roads, great safer and healthy .....I can't expect to disrupt at great expense to others because I use my bike its just selfish.

A) Why shield cyclists from motor traffic? Because on roads without separation of the two modes, riders are being regularly injured and worse. Btw, separate tarmac is also used by disabled buggies, stand-up scooters etc, keeping them out of the way of pedestrians and out of the traffic.

B) You may be prepared to brave it in live traffic, but many are not....The major reason people give for driving rather than cycling - is fear of traffic!

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) Why shield cyclists from motor traffic? Because on roads without separation of the two modes, riders are being regularly injured and worse. Btw, separate tarmac is also used by disabled buggies, stand-up scooters etc, keeping them out of the way of pedestrians and out of the traffic.

B) You may be prepared to brave it in live traffic, but many are not....The major reason people give for driving rather than cycling - is fear of traffic!

Firstly the words common sense and cyclist cannot be used in the same sentence as most don't have any.

Secondly cyclists have ben provided lanes/paths in many locations but choose not to use them and dice it with motor vehicles instead.

Thirdly has anyone noticed that certain posters who may be the same person have a do as we say not as we do attitude and expect everyone to tow the line with them.

Originally Posted by Ric

Firstly the words common sense and cyclist cannot be used in the same sentence as most don't have any.

Secondly cyclists have ben provided lanes/paths in many locations but choose not to use them and dice it with motor vehicles instead.

Thirdly has anyone noticed that certain posters who may be the same person have a do as we say not as we do attitude and expect everyone to tow the line with them.

Well as a cyclist please remember we are not all the same.
I appreciate the cycle paths and occasionally stop and move things off them.
The idiots who don't use them should have their cycles crushed.
I do not expect my minority activity to inhibit the majority at their expense especially when I pay nothing to use the roads.

Originally Posted by Ric

Firstly the words common sense and cyclist cannot be used in the same sentence as most don't have any.

Secondly cyclists have ben provided lanes/paths in many locations but choose not to use them and dice it with motor vehicles instead.

Thirdly has anyone noticed that certain posters who may be the same person have a do as we say not as we do attitude and expect everyone to tow the line with them.

Thanks for that Ric. If I said everyone with the name Ric was a (P)rick you wouldn’t like that would you? Well don’t claim that I have no common sense. If you can’t have a debate without slinging insults around, then you lose your right to be listened to.

Southport has many wide streets, 99% of which is allocated to motorised vehicles. Pavements are wide too, plenty of space for pedestrians. But cyclists are given less than 1% of the road space allocation, and there is uproar by the drivists. Whinging and moaning about how ‘their’ space is being taken away from them, and how they are delayed and inconvenienced.

What they don’t realise is that most of the time, they are driving around with an empty armchair and an empty sofa, taking upto 10 times the amount of space that a lone cyclist takes up. If those cyclists decided to drive rather than cycle, there would be more delays, more pollution, more frustration. But no, what devises see is someone in their way, forcing them to brake, manoeuvre, accelerate. So what? That’s what drivers do all the time, at lights, give ways, corners, roadworks, milk floats etc. But they’re not whinging about them.

At the end of the day, we’re living in a climate crisis and we have to do something to repair this planet we call home. It’s the only one we’ve got. So if we have to make sustainable travel easier, and make life ‘difficult’ for motorists, so they make better choices, then so be it. If that means providing a few segregated cycle lanes as a tentative first step towards a new future travel plan, then so be it.

Don’t be on the wrong side of history. Don’t be that fool, that kicks up a selfish fuss with a me me me attitude. We all have to come together to make a future. You know it makes sense, you know it’s the right thing to do.