"As a driver, it's up to you to check your mirrors for filtering cyclists and motorcyclists."

Excuse me, erm NO it isn't solely down to drivers to check our mirrors. It's about everyone, including cyclists, to position themselves on the road so as not to put yourself in danger - never leave it the responsibility of others for your own personal safety. And it's also down to everyone to check for others on the road.

As for cycling on pavements - you're incorrect again...

"To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence, but there is clear guidance that the police are supposed to exercise discretion."

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/wh...-not-your-bike

"...cycle lanes don't always get you where you want to be. They are also poorly maintained on the whole..."

As far as I'm concerned you've just lost your whole argument in that statement. If you get your cycle lanes, the likelihood is they'll be poorly maintained so you're not going to use them. If that's the case, why build them in the first place? Add that to the fact you've narrowed the lanes so you're actually increasing the danger to yourself. And why are the roads cleaner and safer? Because the volume of traffic keeps the roads clear of debris with it being moved to the gutter. Also road sweepers have easier access.

You're too contradictory!

Originally Posted by libraryguy

"As a driver, it's up to you to check your mirrors for filtering cyclists and motorcyclists."

Excuse me, erm NO it isn't solely down to drivers to check our mirrors. It's about everyone, including cyclists, to position themselves on the road so as not to put yourself in danger - never leave it the responsibility of others for your own personal safety. And it's also down to everyone to check for others on the road.

As for cycling on pavements - you're incorrect again...

"To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence, but there is clear guidance that the police are supposed to exercise discretion."

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/wh...-not-your-bike

"...cycle lanes don't always get you where you want to be. They are also poorly maintained on the whole..."

As far as I'm concerned you've just lost your whole argument in that statement. If you get your cycle lanes, the likelihood is they'll be poorly maintained so you're not going to use them. If that's the case, why build them in the first place? Add that to the fact you've narrowed the lanes so you're actually increasing the danger to yourself. And why are the roads cleaner and safer? Because the volume of traffic keeps the roads clear of debris with it being moved to the gutter. Also road sweepers have easier access.

You're too contradictory!

What are you on about.? Have you passed a test.? On that test, you’d have failed if you hadn’t checked your mirrors before pulling away. Nowhere did I say it was drivers sole responsibility. But I’m allowed to filter through traffic, taking the precautions I perceive are needed. It’s up to you to look before you manoeuvre. Go read the Highway Code again.
So you agree that cycling on the pavement is allowed under certain circumstances. So when you see a cyclist on the pavement, you have no idea why they are there, so are unable to comment, cos otherwise you’re just assuming. Answer this, why are cyclists on a pavement dangerous, yet Chapel street now has a two way cycle route mingled with pedestrians.? Cos it’s not inherently unsafe.
Re your final point, you’re just nit-picking. Of course they don’t all go where you want to go, but some do, and of course some will be dirtier than others. But it’s my choice as to which ones I use. Your “heavy fine” rule is as dumb as you. That’s why you’re not in power, you’d never win a seat….?*??
Now calm down a bit, take a breath and have a long hard look at yourself. ?*??

"But it’s my choice as to which ones I use."

So you're advocating having cycle lanes to keep you safe, but even if you have them you still want the choice of whether to use the dedicated cycle lane or the road! But you're quite happy for motor vehicles to be stuck in a tailback causing more pollution.

Talk about wanting your cake and eat it!

I didn't say I agreed with cycling on a pavement, what I said was that under the "law" it is still an offence, but the police are allowed to use discretion. You said it was allowed and was not an offence. As for cycling on Chapel Street, that has only recently been changed to link up with Hoghton Street. Before that, it was illegal to ride on Chapel Street as it had No Cycling signs - but hey, you talk about drivers ignoring the No Entry signs on Queens Road, cyclists ignored the No Cycling signs on Chapel Street for many years.

As for using my mirrors, I always use my mirrors all the time, I am very aware of what is on the road around me. Your use of words suggested it was the motorist's responsibility. And why do you have to filter through the traffic? Left, right, behind, in front, how the hell are we supposed to know where you are when you're all over the place.

I passed my driving test first time and recently took the official online mock theory test and passed very well.

Maybe you'd like to take one? Compare scores? Genuinely?

Edit - Just taken test number one. Took me 20 minutes and I answered 44 out of 50 questions correctly. You?

https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/free-practice-tests/practice-theory-test-for-car-drivers-1-of-2/

Originally Posted by libraryguy

A) So you're advocating having cycle lanes to keep you safe, but even if you have them you still want the choice of whether to use the dedicated cycle lane or the road! But you're quite happy for motor vehicles to be stuck in a tailback causing more pollution.

B) As for cycling on Chapel Street, that has only recently been changed to link up with Hoghton Street. Before that, it was illegal to ride on Chapel Street as it had No Cycling signs - but hey, you talk about drivers ignoring the No Entry signs on Queens Road, cyclists ignored the No Cycling signs on Chapel Street for many years.

A) There are cycle paths and lanes, which are not suitable for their intended purpose. This is not the fault of the cyclist, but of the infrastructure itself and the wallies who designed/installed it.....There are also instances, when common sense dictates using the road instead. E.g. do we really want a squad of twenty lycra-clad enthusiasts belting along the seawall cycle-path, when it's packed with visitors, kids and dogs, etc?

B) Some cyclists ignored the town centre cycling ban on Chapel St - and more than a few of them were fined for doing it too!

Originally Posted by libraryguy

"But it’s my choice as to which ones I use."

So you're advocating having cycle lanes to keep you safe, but even if you have them you still want the choice of whether to use the dedicated cycle lane or the road! But you're quite happy for motor vehicles to be stuck in a tailback causing more pollution.

Talk about wanting your cake and eat it!

I didn't say I agreed with cycling on a pavement, what I said was that under the "law" it is still an offence, but the police are allowed to use discretion. You said it was allowed and was not an offence. As for cycling on Chapel Street, that has only recently been changed to link up with Hoghton Street. Before that, it was illegal to ride on Chapel Street as it had No Cycling signs - but hey, you talk about drivers ignoring the No Entry signs on Queens Road, cyclists ignored the No Cycling signs on Chapel Street for many years.

As for using my mirrors, I always use my mirrors all the time, I am very aware of what is on the road around me. Your use of words suggested it was the motorist's responsibility. And why do you have to filter through the traffic? Left, right, behind, in front, how the hell are we supposed to know where you are when you're all over the place.

I passed my driving test first time and recently took the official online mock theory test and passed very well.

Maybe you'd like to take one? Compare scores? Genuinely?

Edit - Just taken test number one. Took me 20 minutes and I answered 44 out of 50 questions correctly. You?

https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/free-practice-tests/practice-theory-test-for-car-drivers-1-of-2/

Oh do shut up. This isn’t a competition of who’s better than who at the Highway Code.
You obviously struggle on with driving if you can’t properly monitor what’s going on around you. I can honestly say, I don’t have any issues with cyclists around me while I’m driving, so I’m confused why you seem to have so many issues with them.? Maybe the problem is you.?
Give it up. You’re losing it.

Originally Posted by lawed143

Oh do shut up. This isn’t a competition of who’s better than who at the Highway Code.
You obviously struggle on with driving if you can’t properly monitor what’s going on around you. I can honestly say, I don’t have any issues with cyclists around me while I’m driving, so I’m confused why you seem to have so many issues with them.? Maybe the problem is you.?
Give it up. You’re losing it.

Oh I'm far from losing it. I don't have issues with anyone who uses the roads properly. I monitor around me all the time.

I'm just putting an opposing view to your arguments on here.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

I don't have issues with anyone who uses the roads properly. I monitor around me all the time.

Just think of all the misdemeanours you must be missing when you're on here.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

Oh I'm far from losing it. I don't have issues with anyone who uses the roads properly. I monitor around me all the time.

I'm just putting an opposing view to your arguments on here.

48 out of 50.
18 minutes.
Now do bugger off.

As a result in the construction of the new excellent cycle lanes I have now purchased a bike ~ the best thing I have done in years ! Hopefully other motorists will do the same !

Roads are meant to be used by ALL means of transport for getting anyone or anything from A-B,whether they are being used by cars,buses delivery vehicles,motorcyclists,bikes,and now mobility scooters,and IF everyone followed the rules of the road,as in the Highway Code,then there would'nt be any need for ANY roads to be reduced in width by these pointless,costly and underused cycle lanes These cycle lanes have been proved to cause congestion in the towns and city areas,and are also costing businesses money as any prospective shoppers and visitors cannot get into the town centres and park their vehicles,as all these cycle lanes have reduced every parking area which were available for drivers and families to park while out,and every cycle lane that is put in is costing businesses from making any money for their owners,with the drastic fall in customers,and will over time make a lot of businesses and people unemployed,as these stores will have to be closed down..and is all down to councils having these ridiculous cycle lanes fitted and installed,without ANY warnings to the businesses they will be effecting having them installed everywhere..

Originally Posted by SteveandLois

Roads are meant to be used by ALL means of transport for getting anyone or anything from A-B,whether they are being used by cars,buses delivery vehicles,motorcyclists,bikes,and now mobility scooters,and IF everyone followed the rules of the road,as in the Highway Code,then there would'nt be any need for ANY roads to be reduced in width by these pointless,costly and underused cycle lanes

Sounds great, but many drivers don't follow the rules. They simply don't respect a riders roadspace. Time and again, passing us with less than the required 1.5m clearance . Fail to see us at junctions and roundabouts, open car doors in our path, etc, etc. Sort that little lot out and these lanes will become unnecessary......Until then, more lanes will come.

Btw, on average more than 40 kids are injured or killed on the roads in the NW every week. Carnage like this would be totally unacceptable, if it was the result of gun or knife crime, but amazingly has become accepted as the norm on our roads - it has to stop!

Originally Posted by SteveandLois

Roads are meant to be used by ALL means of transport for getting anyone or anything from A-B,whether they are being used by cars,buses delivery vehicles,motorcyclists,bikes,and now mobility scooters,and IF everyone followed the rules of the road,as in the Highway Code,then there would'nt be any need for ANY roads to be reduced in width by these pointless,costly and underused cycle lanes These cycle lanes have been proved to cause congestion in the towns and city areas,and are also costing businesses money as any prospective shoppers and visitors cannot get into the town centres and park their vehicles,as all these cycle lanes have reduced every parking area which were available for drivers and families to park while out,and every cycle lane that is put in is costing businesses from making any money for their owners,with the drastic fall in customers,and will over time make a lot of businesses and people unemployed,as these stores will have to be closed down..and is all down to councils having these ridiculous cycle lanes fitted and installed,without ANY warnings to the businesses they will be effecting having them installed everywhere..

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.

‘ The Department for Transport (DfT) has written to local authorities in England to reinforce its guidance from last year that it will not fund cycle lanes that are marked out with paint and that any applications for funding need to include segregation.’
https://road.cc/content/news/govt-te...e-lanes-284203

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) There are cycle paths and lanes, which are not suitable for their intended purpose. This is not the fault of the cyclist, but of the infrastructure itself and the wallies who designed/installed it.....There are also instances, when common sense dictates using the road instead. E.g. do we really want a squad of twenty lycra-clad enthusiasts belting along the seawall cycle-path, when it's packed with visitors, kids and dogs, etc?

B) Some cyclists ignored the town centre cycling ban on Chapel St - and more than a few of them were fined for doing it too!

Twenty lycra-clad cyclists should like twenty belting along motorists not be using the public roads.



They should be using somewhere safer and appropriate.


I also would condemn 20 runners who thought it appropiate to run in a pack along our streets without specific control for an event.

Their are too many drivers and cyclists who use our streets without consideration for the rest.

Originally Posted by local

Twenty lycra-clad cyclists should like twenty belting along motorists not be using the public roads......They should be using somewhere safer and appropriate..

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.