Originally Posted by The PNP

Even just one lone enthusiast carving a swathe through visitors at 20 - 25mph on the seawall cycle-path, would be inappropriate. Of course, visitors should always keep to their own side of the white line and not wander all over the cyclists bit - but they do.

Any serious rider would choose to ignore the cycle-path in those circumstances and ride on-road with the traffic. Which is the point I'm making, i.e. that some cycle-paths, although perfectly good, are sometimes avoided by cyclists.

The pedestrian and cycle paths are separated along the Seawall and Marine Drive, the pedestrians should be responsible for their own safety and stick to their own area just as they do crossing the road.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Even just one lone enthusiast carving a swathe through visitors at 20 - 25mph on the seawall cycle-path, would be inappropriate. Of course, visitors should always keep to their own side of the white line and not wander all over the cyclists bit - but they do.

Any serious rider would choose to ignore the cycle-path in those circumstances and ride on-road with the traffic. Which is the point I'm making, i.e. that some cycle-paths, although perfectly good, are sometimes avoided by cyclists.

The one cyclist should slow down and ride appropriately to the conditions.

A selfish speeding cyclist is as bad as a speeding motorist.

Originally Posted by local

The one cyclist should slow down and ride appropriately to the conditions.

A selfish speeding cyclist is as bad as a speeding motorist.

I would hardly call 20mph 'speeding', far from it......People should be able to make journeys in a reasonable time, at a 'legal' speed. Infrastructure that requires cyclists to creep along at 3mph (walking pace) because it's crowded with slow-moving pedestrians, simply isn't fit for purpose. Besides which, Govt advice is for riders who do 18mph or more, to use the road not the cycle-paths.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter, cycle-path design. In NL for example, the paths are designed to support speeds up to 30mph. Here that is rarely the case, with sub-standard surfaces, right-angle bends, lamp-posts and all sorts of poles, obstructions etc, planted in the pathway. Not to mention numerous give-ways where paths cross side-roads......It's high time a national design standard was established, based on experience gained elsewhere (e.g. in NL).

Originally Posted by The PNP

I would hardly call 20mph 'speeding', far from it......People should be able to make journeys in a reasonable time, at a 'legal' speed. Infrastructure that requires cyclists to creep along at 3mph (walking pace) because it's crowded with slow-moving pedestrians, simply isn't fit for purpose. Besides which, Govt advice is for riders who do 18mph or more, to use the road not the cycle-paths.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter, cycle-path design. In NL for example, the paths are designed to support speeds up to 30mph. Here that is rarely the case, with sub-standard surfaces, right-angle bends, lamp-posts and all sorts of poles, obstructions etc, planted in the pathway. Not to mention numerous give-ways where paths cross side-roads......It's high time a national design standard was established, based on experience gained elsewhere (e.g. in NL).

I didn't say speeding I said "riding appropriately for the conditions" if the designated paths are busy then the cyclist should use their common sense and slow down.

Your constant and unhelpful references to another country with entirely different conditions are at best unhelpful and antagonistic.

Originally Posted by local

A) I didn't say speeding I said "riding appropriately for the conditions" if the designated paths are busy then the cyclist should use their common sense and slow down.

B) Your constant and unhelpful references to another country with entirely different conditions are at best unhelpful and antagonistic.

A) Nothing wrong with slowing down for the occasional pedestrian when using a shared path, I do so myself.

However, the seawall between Pleasureland and the Pier gets packed with people at weekends in Summer. The only 'appropriate' speed then is 3mph, as you follow in the wake of umpteen fat-a$$ed visitors licking ice-cream, oblivious to the bike wobbling along behind. You might enjoy trying to ride along there, but I'll take to the road in those circumstances, as would most cyclists.

B) Conditions are identical here as in NL. In both cases, the ground is flat as a pancake and with a sandy subsoil. The Dutch construct excellent cycle infrastructure, based on their many years of experience. Here, planners are way behind, some probably don't even have a bike themselves. UK cycle infrastructure, where it exists, is of highly variable quality and in many cases seems to be added as an afterthought.

Councils are free to put in whatever mickey-mouse cycle facilities they want. Then cyclists have to suffer the consequences of that, or ignore the path and use the road. Meanwhile, on-road you can find cycle-lanes as narrow as a set of handlebars - which is hardly practical....To avoid such shortcomings, we badly need a national set of properly thought-out design standards.

"In NL..."; "NL do it this way..."; "Conditions are identical here as in NL..."

If you like NL so much why don't you just go live there instead of bothering us all the time?

As for badly thought out UK cycle infrastructure... you don't even use it when it's provided. You are not going to get infrastructure built here as we don't have the space to provide your utopia

Originally Posted by The PNP

I would hardly call 20mph 'speeding', far from it......People should be able to make journeys in a reasonable time, at a 'legal' speed. Infrastructure that requires cyclists to creep along at 3mph (walking pace) because it's crowded with slow-moving pedestrians, simply isn't fit for purpose.

So you wouldn't call 20mph speeding, yet you expect cars to do it on roads where 30mph would be 'fit for purpose'.

I could provide examples but there are too many to list.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

A) "In NL..."; "NL do it this way..."; "Conditions are identical here as in NL..."

If you like NL so much why don't you just go live there instead of bothering us all the time?

B) As for badly thought out UK cycle infrastructure... you don't even use it when it's provided. You are not going to get infrastructure built here as we don't have the space to provide your utopia

A) Live in NL? I have and I did, lived there and worked there for some years. Which is precisely why I know cycle infra doesn't have to be second rate/unusable.......Those here who design our cycle-paths, would do well to spend a week in NL on a bike, before they commit yet more design blunders!

B) Wrong, I'm the first one to take to a cycle-path where it's provided - only not the cr@ppy ones. As for space, there are 17 million currently living in tiny NL. That country has one of the highest population densities on the planet, yet very probably the best cycle-network around. If they can do it there, with all their limitations of space - so can we.

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) Nothing wrong with slowing down for the occasional pedestrian when using a shared path, I do so myself.

However, the seawall between Pleasureland and the Pier gets packed with people at weekends in Summer. The only 'appropriate' speed then is 3mph, as you follow in the wake of umpteen fat-a$$ed visitors licking ice-cream, oblivious to the bike wobbling along behind. You might enjoy trying to ride along there, but I'll take to the road in those circumstances, as would most cyclists.

B) Conditions are identical here as in NL. In both cases, the ground is flat as a pancake and with a sandy subsoil. The Dutch construct excellent cycle infrastructure, based on their many years of experience. Here, planners are way behind, some probably don't even have a bike themselves. UK cycle infrastructure, where it exists, is of highly variable quality and in many cases seems to be added as an afterthought.

Councils are free to put in whatever mickey-mouse cycle facilities they want. Then cyclists have to suffer the consequences of that, or ignore the path and use the road. Meanwhile, on-road you can find cycle-lanes as narrow as a set of handlebars - which is hardly practical....To avoid such shortcomings, we badly need a national set of properly thought-out design standards.

That is simply untrue we are not identical to the Netherlands in our country, which streets would you demolish to make us identical.

You must without doubt be the worst cycling advocate in the country.

As a real world cyclist I am sick of your misleading claptrap alienating people.

Originally Posted by local

The one cyclist should slow down and ride appropriately to the conditions.

A selfish speeding cyclist is as bad as a speeding motorist.

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.

Originally Posted by local

A) That is simply untrue we are not identical to the Netherlands in our country,

B) which streets would you demolish to make us identical.

C) You must without doubt be the worst cycling advocate in the country.

As a real world cyclist I am sick of your misleading claptrap alienating people.

A) Well, admittedly we do drive on the wrong side of the road and speak a different language. But apart from that I don't see any difference....Do tell, what is it that's so different here, that it prevents us having decent NL-style cycle infra?

B) No need for demolition, unless you're planning to put a motorway through!....but back to earth. Our 20mph zones are ok as they are - they just need a few mobile speed-traps to bring wayward motorists to heel. Bigger roads with 30mph limits do need remodelling. This will require kerbs to be moved, so a separate kerb-protected cycle-path can be introduced along each side.

Junctions and roundabouts all need individual treatments. However, a green bike-button at lights, giving cyclists a separate phase would certainly be welcome. Where funds permit, cycle underpasses and flyovers can have their place, e.g. to get cyclists safely across dual carriageways.

Out of town, the solution would be the purchasing of strips of farmland alongside main routes. Proper cross country cycle-paths can then be constructed, on the far side of field hedges.

C) At least I support change for the better. Your peculiar solution of doing nothing except to oppose every single scheme, will get us nowhere!

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.

I and many others would not only support, but would welcome separate cycle if only to get the cycling elitists to shut up, but the big problem in so many towns and cities, where to put them, the concept promoted by cycling advocates of restrictions, reducing road width, placing additional obstacles in roads, trying to drive away the motorists, is entirely self defeating.

All the blabber about exhaust emissions etc, motor vehicles will change, in fact are changing, they won't disappear, for many cyclists more and more electric vehicles is another hazard, with virtually silent traffic, cyclists might just start to look before making some nonsensical change of direction, without warning.

Originally Posted by silver fox

I and many others would not only support, but would welcome separate cycle if only to get the cycling elitists to shut up, but the big problem in so many towns and cities, where to put them, the concept promoted by cycling advocates of restrictions, reducing road width, placing additional obstacles in roads, trying to drive away the motorists, is entirely self defeating.

All the blabber about exhaust emissions etc, motor vehicles will change, in fact are changing, they won't disappear, for many cyclists more and more electric vehicles is another hazard, with virtually silent traffic, cyclists might just start to look before making some nonsensical change of direction, without warning.

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 have nothing against cycling and cyclists, it is a healthy form of transport and exercise. If my health permitted it I would go cycling too, but sadly I can't, unless I can seek further advice. Why should my health issues, which are genetic, and my favoured form of transport be pushed away from the roads I need to travel down? I never asked to be ill, I wish I didn't have it, but I do. And such is my health issues they don't entitle me to a blue badge.

Everybody is entitled to use the roads, and yes I'm in favour of "sensible" cycling lanes. Yes I know I'm a motorist, but I feel you cannot force motor vehicles out of a town in favour of what is still, (compared to motorised transport) a minority form of transport.

What angers me the most is the comments from others, who appear to feel because they are cyclists, they have some sort of entitlement to have roads devoid of motor vehicles just for them, when most of the time there'd be more tumbleweed rolling down the cycle lanes than cyclists.

Only today, I had cause to drive down a one-way street, and guess what..... well need I say more. However, I placed my car in the road where it should be forcing the said cyclist to have to awkwardly get off their bike and get around me. And don't you dare tell me I was in the wrong.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

I have nothing against cycling and cyclists, it is a healthy form of transport and exercise. If my health permitted it I would go cycling too, but sadly I can't, unless I can seek further advice. Why should my health issues, which are genetic, and my favoured form of transport be pushed away from the roads I need to travel down? I never asked to be ill, I wish I didn't have it, but I do. And such is my health issues they don't entitle me to a blue badge.

Everybody is entitled to use the roads, and yes I'm in favour of "sensible" cycling lanes. Yes I know I'm a motorist, but I feel you cannot force motor vehicles out of a town in favour of what is still, (compared to motorised transport) a minority form of transport.

What angers me the most is the comments from others, who appear to feel because they are cyclists, they have some sort of entitlement to have roads devoid of motor vehicles just for them, when most of the time there'd be more tumbleweed rolling down the cycle lanes than cyclists.

Only today, I had cause to drive down a one-way street, and guess what..... well need I say more. However, I placed my car in the road where it should be forcing the said cyclist to have to awkwardly get off their bike and get around me. And don't you dare tell me I was in the wrong.

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.