Originally Posted by lawed143

But we’re not elitists at all. We are just ordinary people, mums, dads, children, brothers, sisters...... just wanting to go about our business in safety.
No one is trying to drive away motorists, far from it. We need to travel and personal motorised transport will always exist. Roads aren’t being closed to traffic, merely a small amount of capacity (less than .5%) is being re-purposed for cycling..... .5% is a tiny amount.
There will always be idiot cyclists, idiot drivers too. But don’t blame all for the stupidity of a few, and don’t refuse safety to those who need it. I know of a number of people that refuse to cycle through fear of serious injury or death - FROM DRIVERS. Not from their own abilities.....what does that say about the poor infrastructure we have.

Pedestrians are separated from roads, but it’s ok for cyclists to be intermingled with traffic? How does that work? How is that acceptable? Surely cyclists are just as vulnerable to vehicles as peds are? So why shouldn’t we create safe infrastructure? Why are so many so against it when it would benefit all? I seriously don’t get the anger directed towards cyclists when attempts are made to help everyone? Cyclist-bashing is a scourge of modern society fed by social media, when in fact on the whole cycling is great for those that do it, and benefits those that don’t as it’s one less vehicle holding you up.

Come on......get with it. Be on the right side of history. The planet needs saving.

I am as well aware as anyone that the problems mainly lie with our road infrastructure, but this tactic of restrictions, obstacles, reducing traffic lanes, is not anything remotely close to an answer, would love to see cyclists with their own space, the question should be where and how can we make our roads better for all users.

Originally Posted by silver fox

I am as well aware as anyone that the problems mainly lie with our road infrastructure, but this tactic of restrictions, obstacles, reducing traffic lanes, is not anything remotely close to an answer, would love to see cyclists with their own space, the question should be where and how can we make our roads better for all users.

A)'Closed' roads. Provided residents can access their property, I don't see what's so bad about 'closing' the odd road to through traffic, provided there's a usable alternative route. Personally, if I lived on such a road, I'd be pleased to see the back of through-traffic whizzing past my front door.

B) Reducing lanes. Width-wise, as long as the lane remains wide enough to get a bus through, what's the problem? Wanting streets like Lord St to be a defacto dual-carriageway for cars is pure greediness. One good traffic-lane each way is enough, particularly so with town-centre shopping being less popular now, due to internet, retail parks, etc.

C) Obstacles. Only ones I know of, are speed humps/tables. These appeared in certain 20mph zones, to bring vehicle speeds down to the posted limit. If people drove at the correct speed, they wouldn't have been necessary.

Originally Posted by lawed143

On the same note, why should someone fit and healthy be denied the option of cycling to town.? This isn’t about you or me. It’s about doing the right thing for everyone, for the longer term.
Sorry you have health issues. I don’t understand how you can’t cycle tbh. But access to town is not being removed from you. I’ll bet you manage to get into the pedestrianised areas of town centres at the moment, albeit by parking elsewhere and walking the remainder? Well if there are some more closed roads, surely you just do the same.?
I still don’t get what the big issue is….

Regarding delays and queues, we already have them. There is already too much traffic on the road. Unless we provide alternatives, things will only get worse with population growth. We can’t fit any more traffic on existing roads, so the only solution is alternative choices like walking and cycling - freeing up space for those that need to drive. But that means, safe segregated space. We have pavements already, now we need cycle routes to get more people cycling.

I think we’ve done this discusssion over and over.
Have a good day.

I can't cycle because, due to my coeliac disease, my blood sugar drops and I feel ill VERY quickly. Even exerting myself to do housework can make it drop, so exerting myself to ride a bike will do exactly the same. Hypo symptoms, sweating, rapid heart rate, dizziness, anxiety. And that's not going to be nice if cycling in traffic.

Sitting in my car I don't get that as I'm not exerting myself and I have my medical supplies with me, namely sugar and blood sugar testing meter.

Originally Posted by Alikado

Absolute rubbish the cycle lanes have only taken a few parking spaces, no roads have been reduced in width in fact Hoghton St has probably been widened as the Cycle Lane is not as wide as the parking area was, visibility has been improved for pedestrians and motorists turning onto or crossing Hoghton St so it is probably a Win Win. It is Government Policy to install these Cycle Lanes the Council are only implementing it. The effect on Businesses will be neglible, it is very rare to find a parking space very close to where you want to go 9/10 a car park will be nearer and cheaper.
You will have to get used to it and more, Low Emission Zones & Ultra Low Emission Zones are on the horizon, then you will be looking back to the days when you could drive to town never mind park.

Plans to charge high-polluting vehicles to drive across Greater Manchester are expected to come into force next year.

Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone plans move forward https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...ester-57556918

Originally Posted by lawed143

You claim you didn’t say Speeding Cyclist, but here it is - a quote of your statement.
You don’t have a clue what you said a few posts earlier… ffs you tool.

Give it up PNP. These numpty nimby’s on here who’ve probably never left southport ever, aren’t worth wasting your time on. They just want everything to themselves with no progress and no thought for anyone else but themselves. Idiots.

Your getting mixed up with your posts.

I suppose you could apologise but won't.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

Sitting in my car I don't get that as I'm not exerting myself .

Then it won't do you any harm if "quiet streets" mean you have to drive a little bit further to get to your destination.

sadly it will just push more car traffic to the outskirts of the town affecting the poor people living on these roads....the current cycle paths are already a disgrace with many bollards missing, no cyclists on them, they use the roadway instead....its all a complete farce....southport will never be like holland because of the weather.....its a lovely dream for cyclists, but the cold reality is the town centre needs shoppers in cars not a lonely oap on a bike buying nothing

Originally Posted by The PNP

A)'Closed' roads. Provided residents can access their property, I don't see what's so bad about 'closing' the odd road to through traffic, provided there's a usable alternative route. Personally, if I lived on such a road, I'd be pleased to see the back of through-traffic whizzing past my front door.

B) Reducing lanes. Width-wise, as long as the lane remains wide enough to get a bus through, what's the problem? Wanting streets like Lord St to be a defacto dual-carriageway for cars is pure greediness. One good traffic-lane each way is enough, particularly so with town-centre shopping being less popular now, due to internet, retail parks, etc.

C) Obstacles. Only ones I know of, are speed humps/tables. These appeared in certain 20mph zones, to bring vehicle speeds down to the posted limit. If people drove at the correct speed, they wouldn't have been necessary.

Bottom line, if anyone wants the town centre to thrive, you need people visiting, doing business, shopping, using the facilities, spending money, instead you lot want a ghost town, deserted at night or poor weather, frequented only by the occasional visitor, apart from commuters cycling to the railway station, just how many actually cycle into the town centre for anything which brings income to the town centre?

Originally Posted by silver fox

A) Bottom line, if anyone wants the town centre to thrive, you need people visiting, doing business, shopping, using the facilities, spending money, instead you lot want a ghost town, deserted at night or poor weather, frequented only by the occasional visitor, apart from commuters cycling to the railway station,

B) just how many actually cycle into the town centre for anything which brings income to the town centre?

A) Providing a North-South cycle route isn't going to turn the place into a ghost town. It may bring more residents into the centre on bikes, but apart from that, it will be business as usual.

B) A person has the same spending power, whatever mode of transport they happen to choose on the day. Only businesses to suffer, will be petrol stations!

Originally Posted by muddyboots

sadly it will just push more car traffic to the outskirts of the town affecting the poor people living on these roads....the current cycle paths are already a disgrace with many bollards missing, no cyclists on them, they use the roadway instead....its all a complete farce....southport will never be like holland because of the weather.....its a lovely dream for cyclists, but the cold reality is the town centre needs shoppers in cars not a lonely oap on a bike buying nothing

Weather in Holland is pretty much the same as UK, it's certainly no better.

As I said to silver fox, I don't see why providing a joined-up cycle route should mean motorists vanish in droves. Let's face it, the temperamental ones are long gone - they scarpered years ago when pay & display came in!

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) Providing a North-South cycle route isn't going to turn the place into a ghost town. It may bring more residents into the centre on bikes, but apart from that, it will be business as usual.

B) A person has the same spending power, whatever mode of transport they happen to choose on the day. Only businesses to suffer, will be petrol stations!

Absolute rubbish, the least adverse weather cyclists vanish, anyone wishing to arrive in town looking presentable will not be travelling by bike, cyclists can simply not carry any weight of shopping on a bike, we know all about your panniers, trailers etc, most simply don't want to know about those, in any case those bloody trailers are a hazard, my son-in-law is a moderately keen cyclist, bought one of those buggy type trailers when our granddaughter was little, guess who managed to run into the trailer, another careful cyclist, fortunately the little girl wasn't in it at the time with the outfit stationary.

As far as spending power is concerned, sure anyone has the same opportunity, but it doesn't happen like that.

You are hoping to change peoples habits entirely and everyone becomes happy, smiley cyclists, won't happen, during covid restrictions so many businesses in large towns and cities have suffered due to lack of commuters, the majority of those commuters would have been travelling by public transport or car, not on bikes, the bike is not an alternative for the majority.

Sure it's possible to restrict or hinder car use, but that won't in any way turn people into cyclists, they just go elsewhere.

I'm not anti cyclist as such, but our roads are overloaded as it is, shutting off parts of those roads, reducing lanes at junctions for a tiny minority use, is not an answer

Originally Posted by silver fox

A) Absolute rubbish, the least adverse weather cyclists vanish, anyone wishing to arrive in town looking presentable will not be travelling by bike, cyclists can simply not carry any weight of shopping on a bike

B) the bike is not an alternative for the majority.

C) Sure it's possible to restrict or hinder car use, but that won't in any way turn people into cyclists, they just go elsewhere.

D) I'm not anti cyclist as such, but our roads are overloaded as it is, shutting off parts of those roads, reducing lanes at junctions for a tiny minority use, is not an answer

A) Cyclists who don't like riding in bad weather, like myself, will use other means of transport on wet days - simple! Not every trip (by whatever transport means) involves carrying large or heavy loads. People go out for the hairdresser, chiropodist, bank, doctor, optician, podiatrist, meet friend for a coffee, meal, etc.

Myself, I do a number of small shops by bike per week for essentials like fresh bread, milk, meat, etc. I choose dry days for this, or will nip between showers if weather remains fickle. Maybe once a week, I use a motor vehicle to stock up on bulky stuff like kitchen/bog rolls, water, soft drinks, washing powder, etc.

B) That is probably true, but it is a real alternative for a sizeable minority. In countries with decent bike infrastructure, 30% to 40% of all trips will be made by bike.

C) It's not about hindering car use, it's about increasing bike use.

D) The best way to reduce 'overloading', is to turn every third car into a bike, getting them off the roads and onto separate tarmac. That way, you reduce demand for parking by a third, reduce length of tailbacks by a third - and speed up journey times.

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) Cyclists who don't like riding in bad weather, like myself, will use other means of transport on wet days - simple! Not every trip (by whatever transport means) involves carrying large or heavy loads. People go out for the hairdresser, chiropodist, bank, doctor, optician, podiatrist, meet friend for a coffee, meal, etc.

Myself, I do a number of small shops by bike per week for essentials like fresh bread, milk, meat, etc. I choose dry days for this, or will nip between showers if weather remains fickle. Maybe once a week, I use a motor vehicle to stock up on bulky stuff like kitchen/bog rolls, water, soft drinks, washing powder, etc.

B) That is probably true, but it is a real alternative for a sizeable minority. In countries with decent bike infrastructure, 30% to 40% of all trips will be made by bike.

C) It's not about hindering car use, it's about increasing bike use.

D) The best way to reduce 'overloading', is to turn every third car into a bike, getting them off the roads and onto separate tarmac. That way, you reduce demand for parking by a third, reduce length of tailbacks by a third - and speed up journey times.

The current proposals are all about restricting vehicles, tell the truth, any increase in cycle use will be very much an individual choice, taking in to account the numbers of elderly in Southport, the idea that hordes of locals will take to the bike is a pipe dream.

Visitors using bikes will in all probability arrive by car with bikes on top or strapped to the back.

Your continued comparison with the Netherlands is a fallacy, just how do you think that the system with clear routes for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles is going to be accommodated in most of our towns? The only way this sort of system can be built would require wholesale demolition and rebuild, fine in new build areas otherwise a none starter.