The Saga of Sefton Cycle Lanes

[MICK/GILLY]

There are intermittent places where cycle lanes are along there, next time you pass holy family primary school on lytham rd A584 just think there’s a bit of aviation history right there where a plane came down on the school so close to the air base and demolished it with the kids inside it, it was the biggest aviation accident of ww2. If you go into the foyer where the receptionist sits there is a big plaque on the wall with the names of all the kids that were killed. They re built the school closer to the road, I used to deliver school fruit to the primary kids and one day years ago I opened the door for 3 really old guys in American Air Force uniforms, 2 with ice cream van style thunderbirds hats on and one with a Warton BAE hat, the receptionist told me they were to do with the plane that had crashed and every year they came back to the school. Interesting story that .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freckleton_air_disaster

[MICK/GILLY]

__________________________________________________________________

"The (so-called) 'common sense ' of too many motorists amounts to relegating …"

— NOT "the general consensus"; NOT "that's what every motorist thinks" — but certainly, enough motorists to make bicycling unnecessarily hazardous!

…and off-putting for millions who might benefit from bicycling their local journeys.

Anyone who thinks relegating cyclists to the gutters, or the footpaths, resolves the dangers for cyclists; or that that settles the disputes that crop up endlessly in this forum is clearly part of the problem.

No it is the general consensus of motorists simple as that, kid yourself if you want but it is .

[sandGroundZero]

No it is the general consensus of motorists simple as that, kid yourself if you want but it is.

It is you (MICK) and others, here, objecting to cyclists claiming road space that are behind the times.
The 20^th century attitude regarding motor vehicle priority is being upended owing to its damaging impacts on numerous fronts. Every adult (of those who can afford the luxury) desiring exclusive access to a private automobile is simply unsustainable. Not that people above the age of 50 years are going to be deprived of their vehicles, of course; but the writing is on the wall — cars §uck!

[MICK/GILLY]

It is you (MICK) and others, here, objecting to cyclists claiming road space that are behind the times.
The 20^th century attitude regarding motor vehicle priority is being upended owing to its damaging impacts on numerous fronts. Every adult (of those who can afford the luxury) desiring exclusive access to a private automobile is simply unsustainable. Not that people above the age of 50 years are going to be deprived of their vehicles, of course; but the writing is on the wall — cars §uck!

No I am just saying what is on everyone’s mind, I can’t help what people think, people don’t like the truth or those that tell it but motorists think you would be better on the pavement that’s why you have been allocated little paved roads called cycle lanes to keep you off the roads and us all safe and you still prefer to ride like grown ups in real vehicles on the road that’s the sort of mentality that motorists regard as childish, selfish and bloody minded, we have already established being entitled to ride on the road and putting safety at risk doesn't justify using a dual carriageway instead of the cycle lanes that run along it.
Bicycles were invented in the year dot and the world has moved on since and they are what is outdated.
I’ll go further, so here it is..you don’t have to have any special psychic skills or be a mind reader to know this .. when a motorist sees a cyclist they instinctively are more careful as they pass as they know let’s say the lady going shopping with her basket on the front may be a bit wobbly or just out of courtesy or safety they will take more care, if she is on a carriageway with a cycle lane on it and she is not using it they may remark distain or disbelief to their passenger who will concur, if they see a Lycra clad moustached 30/40 /50yr old doing the same thing two words usually pop into the heads of the driver and the passenger and they are .. bloody d1ckheads
Yea it’s not just me .

[sandGroundZero]

Who would dispute that too many motorists feel entitled to the road space?

"you would be better on the pavement that’s why you have been allocated little paved roads called cycle lanes to keep you off the roads …to ride like grown ups …the sort of mentality that motorists regard as childish, selfish and bloody minded …"

You may suppose that bicycles are passé; I do not for a moment suggest pedaling everywhere is suitable for everyone.
That is quite beside the point.
Different modes of transportation will necessarily displace the 20^th century default.
Mass automobile ownership became politically expedient for a variety of reasons. Its demise is expedient now. It's just that some old fogies are resistant.

[silver fox]

__________________________________________________________________

"The (so-called) 'common sense ' of too many motorists amounts to relegating …"

— NOT "the general consensus"; NOT "that's what every motorist thinks" — but certainly, enough motorists to make bicycling unnecessarily hazardous!

…and off-putting for millions who might benefit from bicycling their local journeys.

Anyone who thinks relegating cyclists to the gutters, or the footpaths, resolves the dangers for cyclists; or that that settles the disputes that crop up endlessly in this forum is clearly part of the problem.

I have no problem accommodating sensible cyclists, I have plenty of problems with cyclists who behave like lunatics on the road and then expect drivers to be fully aware of their every move and avoid them.

Taking your vulnerability scale, are drivers of HGVs responsible for the actions of wayward car drivers? I don't know of any driver who doesn't care about contact with another vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian, one thing I do find strange to say the least, given the disparity in numbers of vehicles and cyclists, why are you more likely to see a cyclist behaving like an idiot than a driver? that is a sad fact to be witnessed with an almost stupefying regularity.

[MICK/GILLY]

Who would dispute that too many motorists feel entitled to the road space?

"you would be better on the pavement that’s why you have been allocated little paved roads called cycle lanes to keep you off the roads …to ride like grown ups …the sort of mentality that motorists regard as childish, selfish and bloody minded …"

You may suppose that bicycles are passé; I do not for a moment suggest pedaling everywhere is suitable for everyone.
That is quite beside the point.
Different modes of transportation will necessarily displace the 20^th century default.
Mass automobile ownership became politically expedient for a variety of reasons. Its demise is expedient now. It's just that some old fogies are resistant.

Don’t hold your breath .

[The PNP]

I have no problem accommodating sensible cyclists, I have plenty of problems with cyclists who behave like lunatics on the road and then expect drivers to be fully aware of their every move and avoid them.

Taking your vulnerability scale, are drivers of HGVs responsible for the actions of wayward car drivers? I don't know of any driver who doesn't care about contact with another vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian, one thing I do find strange to say the least, given the disparity in numbers of vehicles and cyclists, why are you more likely to see a cyclist behaving like an idiot than a driver? that is a sad fact to be witnessed with an almost stupefying regularity.

Vulnerability and HGV's: Everyone (motorists included) needs to allow HGV's enough space to manoeuvre. E.g. on roundabouts, where they may have to occupy two lanes and when turning at junctions. Where for example, they may baffle a motorist to their rear, by indicating left whilst simultaneously moving over to the right, before swinging sharply left into a tight left turn.

Cyclists that I see on the lanes of W Lancs where I often ride, always seem to be well kitted-out, wear helmets, ride good quality/well-maintained bikes and I've yet to find one being idiotic. A slightly different story in town however, where 'cyclists' (namely kids on bikes) may been seen riding irresponsibly, pulling wheelies, etc. At the same time, there are many everyday cyclists in town who appear to ride perfectly well.

[Stuartli]

Cyclists that I see on the lanes of W Lancs where I often ride, always seem to be well kitted-out, wear helmets, ride good quality/well-maintained bikes and I've yet to find one being idiotic.

A visit to Specsavers is definitely a requirement for you.

Driving at weekends in particular in the leafy narrow lanes of West Lancashire can be some of the most testing when you come across cyclists taking stupid and unnecessary risks.

I've even had one coming downhill in the other direction at speed who hit the nearside front of my car because he lost control of his bike - fortunately I'd realised what was about to happen and had stopped, along with vehicles behind me, by the time the collision occurred.

Those riding with him certainly let their feelings be known about such foolish riding. No doubt his cuts and bruises reminded him for a while of the incident....

[sandGroundZero]

Firstly, we can agree that there are road users, motorised and otherwise, who behave badly ("like lunatics"); simply discourteous or fatally reckless! That is unacceptable. Some get into difficulty owing to momentary lapses of concentration and of course, that is regrettable; deplorable when a collision results.

I have no problem accommodating sensible cyclists, I have plenty of problems with cyclists who behave like lunatics on the road and then expect drivers to be fully aware of their every move and avoid them.

Some on this forum (perhaps yourself, included) assert that "sensible cyclists" do not ride in roadways causing faster vehicles to slow and wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. [I drive a car and encounter slower road users, not limited to bicyclists, it must be reiterated.]

Let's bear in mind that endless controversy on this forum stems from governments' intention to improve provision for pedestrians and cyclists — Active Travel.
More generally, it is necessary to move people away from old habits, notably in terms of local journeys. Bicycling and bicyclists are bêtes noires of individuals who cannot envisage the totality of changing requirements.

___________________________________________________________________________

Taking your vulnerability scale, are drivers of HGVs responsible for the actions of wayward car drivers? I don't know of any driver who doesn't care about contact with another vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian, …

Heirarchy of Road Users (vulnerability scale?) appears in proposed revisions to the Highway Code.
The short answer to your query is HGV drivers, like all of us should observe the guidance of the Code. I suspect in practice it is not a change; any collision or mishap owing to waywardness will be recorded as such. Having said that, HGV drivers do have a duty of care commensurate with the especial lethality of their vehicles.

…one thing I do find strange to say the least, given the disparity in numbers of vehicles and cyclists, why are you more likely to see a cyclist behaving like an idiot than a driver? that is a sad fact to be witnessed with an almost stupefying regularity.

…being encased in steel,

you are evidently inclined to be oblivious to the idiotic behaviour of other motorists.

[MICK/GILLY]

Why do you keep quoting PROPOSED changes to the Highway Code ?, PROPOSED means just that and nothing else, not fact just ideas of what may or may not be suggested some other time , you say you drive a car and encounter slower road users than cyclists?, so what are they then and do you have to be behind them say all the way to town. No it’s not the fact that cyclists are slow moving that is the issue it’s more the vulnerability and danger they cause to themselves and others and the way they weave with disregard on both sides of vehicles in traffic often angrily and without due care and attention, nobody minds that they are slow unless they choose to ride in the middle of the road just because they THINK they can purposely and with a bloody minded attitude. More generally it is necessary to move people away from old habits?, well that’s debatable and I don’t think bicycles are the answer, more likely electric cars will be and the problem cyclist issue will continue they just won’t be able to hear the cars coming.

Other than using fictitious proposed ideas in your argument , you are suggesting there is a hierarchy of road users and I can only imagine that you regard cyclists at the bottom end of this as we all do but I was under the impression that the CURRENT Highway Code is the standard applied to ALL road users equally and find the idea of a hierarchy could only mean in vulnerability and safety

[Alikado]

Why do you keep quoting PROPOSED changes to the Highway Code ?, PROPOSED means just that and nothing else, not fact just ideas of what may or may not be suggested some other time , you say you drive a car and encounter slower road users than cyclists?, so what are they then and do you have to be behind them say all the way to town. No it’s not the fact that cyclists are slow moving that is the issue it’s more the vulnerability and danger they cause to themselves and others and the way they weave with disregard on both sides of vehicles in traffic often angrily and without due care and attention, nobody minds that they are slow unless they choose to ride in the middle of the road just because they THINK they can purposely and with a bloody minded attitude. More generally it is necessary to move people away from old habits?, well that’s debatable and I don’t think bicycles are the answer, more likely electric cars will be and the problem cyclist issue will continue they just won’t be able to hear the cars coming.

Other than using fictitious proposed ideas in your argument , you are suggesting there is a hierarchy of road users and I can only imagine that you regard cyclists at the bottom end of this as we all do but I was under the impression that the CURRENT Highway Code is the standard applied to ALL road users equally and find the idea of a hierarchy could only mean in vulnerability and safety

As far as I know they are regulations that will come into force this month and will create a hierarchy based on vulnerability, there was something on the Echo site a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...e-you-22601573

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding Proposed means just that and NOT fact

Documents laid before Parliament on 1 December 2021, outlining changes proposed to The Highway Code to improve road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.

If you'd followed the links, you would have discovered that the proposed changes to the Highway Code are the current government's policy.

___________________________________________________________________________

I have repeatedly indicated our government has determined that the nation must change its travel patterns.
Fogies on this forum obsess over bicyclists. Step back and look at the bigger picture.

[The PNP]

A) A visit to Specsavers is definitely a requirement for you.

B) Driving at weekends in particular in the leafy narrow lanes of West Lancashire can be some of the most testing when you come across cyclists taking stupid and unnecessary risks.

I've even had one coming downhill in the other direction at speed who hit the nearside front of my car because he lost control of his bike - fortunately I'd realised what was about to happen and had stopped, along with vehicles behind me, by the time the collision occurred.

Those riding with him certainly let their feelings be known about such foolish riding. No doubt his cuts and bruises reminded him for a while of the incident....

A) As it happens, I was at Specsavers for an eye appointment on new Years Eve (afternoon), in order to keep the 'truck' part of my license valid. Result of attending: I was not found to need glasses.

B) That certainly was a rare event, losing control to the extent they ended up almost hitting the kerb on the opposite side of the road. The chance that you were in just the right place at that precise time must be one in a million - you should have bought a lottery ticket, lol! Odd though, that only one from the group came unstuck on their descent, did he/she hit a pothole at speed perhaps?

[MICK/GILLY]

I have followed the links and seen the PROPOSED recommendations that COULD come into force 29th Jan and there is nothing much different in the new rules that MAY be implemented. H1 and H2 are pretty much unchanged and H3 only gives cyclists priority at junctions and the cycle lane red box does that anyway, and cyclists will now have to take more care regarding pedestrians. These new rules that MAY come into force will do nothing to stop cyclists riding at night in dark clothes no handed without lights nor will they protect them from passengers opening doors on them when they try to undertake cars waiting at lights or getting wiped out when swerving into traffic instead of braking for potholes. Rules should include mandatory use of cycle lanes where provided and yearly mots for bicycles and some sort of reprimand for riding like a div.