Cycle Lanes Scrapped

[libraryguy]

Of course, if motorists had respected cyclists roadspace in the first place, by passing bikes wide and slow, measures like this would never have been necessary - duh!

A bike should be ridden 1m from the kerb, add .5m (width of bike), the all-important 1.5m clearance to car nearside wing-mirror, 2m (width of car). Which puts offside wing-mirror of car about 5m (16ft) from kerb. It can clearly be seen from these figures, that to pass safely, a car needs to encroach into the oncoming lane.

But 9 times out of 10, the car never waits for a break in oncoming traffic as it should. Instead it squeezes past the bike at close-quarters, which is enough to put anyone but the boldest off cycling for good!

Methinks someone is a tad angry that he appears to have lost the argument and his cycle lanes.

I have always given cyclists enough room when passing them and I suggest most motorists do as well. Do you actually have hard statistics to back up you assumption that 90% of motorists squeeze past or pass too close to cyclists?

That'll be a no.

[MICK/GILLY]

PNP Maths says

“A bike should be ridden 1m from the kerb, add .5m (width of bike), the all-important 1.5m clearance to car nearside wing-mirror, 2m (width of car). Which puts offside wing-mirror of car about 5m (16ft) from kerb. It can clearly be seen from these figures, that to pass safely, a car needs to encroach into the oncoming lane”.

1.5m + 2m = 5m. Or 1.5m + 2m (11’.6”) = 16ft , I agree you still would have to go into the opposite lane unless the bike was aware of all around it and for that short time rode closer to the kerb if it was safe to do so as the Highway Code says the police would recommend or stopped out of courtesy to let a long line of traffic pass instead of enjoying holding them up thinking “ look I am a real vehicle like you “.

Motorists don’t want to hurt cyclists .

Measures like these lanes in Southport are not deemed necessary that’s why they will be taken away again after being put in on the quick and the sly without proper consultation. Active travel was dependant on public support and after proper consultation, the vast majority of the people, the businesses and representatives of Southport are against it and want it put back right, as it was.
No more kicking and screaming and crying into your moustaches, it’s all over now baby blue .

[silver fox]

Of course, if motorists had respected cyclists roadspace in the first place, by passing bikes wide and slow, measures like this would never have been necessary - duh!

A bike should be ridden 1m from the kerb, add .5m (width of bike), the all-important 1.5m clearance to car nearside wing-mirror, 2m (width of car). Which puts offside wing-mirror of car about 5m (16ft) from kerb. It can clearly be seen from these figures, that to pass safely, a car needs to encroach into the oncoming lane.

But 9 times out of 10, the car never waits for a break in oncoming traffic as it should. Instead it squeezes past the bike at close-quarters, which is enough to put anyone but the boldest off cycling for good!

This is your constant whine, do you have the slightest evidence to back this up, apart from of course your own personal fixation, in my experience, most motorists stay well away from cyclists, for easy to understand reasons, cyclists have a tendency to be erratic in their direction of travel, no motorists actually wants a cyclist draped on the bonnet or smeared down the side of their vehicle, but then watch your cyclists in slow or temporarily stationary traffic, just who is who seems to wish the closest possible acquaintance with vehicles? then moan as traffic moves off.

[The PNP]

A) Central government promoted urgent measures; Sefton Council Officers made a judgement about what measures would fit the required guidelines — cycle lanes on Hoghton Street and elsewhere, i.e. a north-south route to and through the business district.

B) It appears to be the case that some motorists resent their traditionally preeminent status as road users being questioned by the mere suggestion that other road users are entitled to some space.

A) A route that makes perfect sense. After all, what other choices were there? Albert Rd/Lord St? or St Lukes Rd/Ash St? Both obviously non-starters to serve as the towns main N - S cycle-route.


B) The motoring fraternity will always go up in arms, when one of their 'car sewers' comes under threat - duh!

[MICK/GILLY]

Have you noticed that the two people who have been relentlessly telling us how the cycle lanes introduction was a foregone conclusion, have failed to acknowledge that the proposal is now dead in the water, not a single word.

Exactly there’s nothing more they can say, these accounts are rendered useless, dead in the water as is this subject now. They have argued the best they can as a minority losing voice and the last one left will follow the same path using insults, name calling and bad arguments and over statements until the humiliating day inevitably comes that these lanes and closed roads are put back right as they were and the whole subject fades into Southport history only to be brought back to beat them with when they start with future cycling nonesense. Still no one is laughing … oh wait a minute yes we are ha laughing at them ha ha ha and their stupid bad arguments, insults, bad manners TROLLING and name calling and for what?, only to lose ha ha losers .

[justbecause]

Of course, if motorists had respected cyclists roadspace in the first place, by passing bikes wide and slow, measures like this would never have been necessary - duh!

A bike should be ridden 1m from the kerb, add .5m (width of bike), the all-important 1.5m clearance to car nearside wing-mirror, 2m (width of car). Which puts offside wing-mirror of car about 5m (16ft) from kerb. It can clearly be seen from these figures, that to pass safely, a car needs to encroach into the oncoming lane.

But 9 times out of 10, the car never waits for a break in oncoming traffic as it should. Instead it squeezes past the bike at close-quarters, which is enough to put anyone but the boldest off cycling for good!

Yet another absolutely baseless accusation from someone who we all know hates all car drivers, and would ban all motorised vehicles (with the exception of his smoky old vans and motorhome) from the roads. As other posters have said, come on, provide some evidence to back up your ludicrous rant.

[The PNP]

Still no one is laughing … oh wait a minute yes we are ha laughing at them ha ha ha and their stupid bad arguments, insults, bad manners TROLLING and name calling and for what?, only to lose ha ha losers .

Enjoy it while you can.....In less than eight years and counting, it will be illegal to buy a petrol or diesel car. Guess the humble bike will have the last laugh after all, ha ha!

[justbecause]

Enjoy it while you can.....In less than eight years and counting, it will be illegal to buy a petrol or diesel car. Guess the humble bike will have the last laugh after all, ha ha!

Another absolutely stupid inane rant. Petrol and diesel powered cars are going to be around for decades yet. Even if the Government does manage to stop the production of NEW cars by 2030, there will still be millions of secondhand ones still for sale.
You really should engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear.

[local]

As a real cyclist PNP' and his supporters posts do me no favours at all.

Most motorists give plenty of room and are not hell bent on running me down.

As to the puerile comments about the end of ICE cars clearly as said it will be ten years at the very least after this sale date and these cars will be running around.

There are many 2012 and older cars on the roads now.



What might be useful is for the eco-dunce to campaign for older more polluting vehicles and heaters to be removed I won't hold my breath as he is probably personally responsible for more pollution and Co2 than all the other forum members put together.

[The PNP]

Another absolutely stupid inane rant. Petrol and diesel powered cars are going to be around for decades yet. Even if the Government does manage to stop the production of NEW cars by 2030, there will still be millions of secondhand ones still for sale.
You really should engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear.

Running petrol/diesel bangers after 2030? I doubt there will be an inch of road left in the UK by then, that isn't inside an ultra-low emission zone....Keep hold of your dinosaur if you like, but it'll cost you a £tenner or more in emission charges per day to use it, lol!

[justbecause]

Running petrol/diesel bangers after 2030? I doubt there will be an inch of road left in the UK by then, that isn't inside an ultra-low emission zone....Keep hold of your dinosaur if you like, but it'll cost you a £tenner or more in emission charges per day to use it, lol!

So, you highlighted my comment about “engaging your brain”, and immediately replied with this utter rubbish.
You really ought to consider getting some help, although in reality, you’re probably beyond help.

[sandGroundZero]

1. "…if my access to town is restrictive to me, I simply go elsewhere …"
   
   — This sentiment recurs from time to time. Motor vehicle access to the town centre is an non-issue; cars are not prevented and parking spaces are ample.
   
   
2. "…[a car] would have to go into the opposite lane and “…look I am a real vehicle like you “ …"
   — It's really all about motorists being inconvenienced and their priority questioned!
   
   
3. "…in my experience, most motorists stay well away from cyclists …"
   — While many motorists do behave with courtesy towards other road users, including bicyclists, that is no consolation when discourteous or downright hostile motorists inflict danger!
   
   
4. "…accusation from someone who we all know hates all car drivers, and would ban all motorised vehicles …"
   — Many of these posts appear to reflect personal animosity at The PNP's pro-cyclist campaign.
   Grow up.

Why are motorists hot under the collar?

Southport's bicycle friendly routes were initiated without consultation.
Who is to blame for that?
Prime Minister Johnson's Conservative central government.

Encouraging people to walk and/or bicycle rather than relying on their cars for short journeys is NOT a revolutionary proposal. Yet, a few motorists are irate.
What does that tell you?

[MICK/GILLY]

PNP.
The more you rant on the more they laugh at you, even other cyclists can’t support your nonesense, even your made up accounts be they close friends or relatives or just you with a different name have dropped your argument for fear of further ridicule. You make up facts and figures, add things up to equal whatever number you want thinking no one will notice and all this green rhetoric is just bumph to support your cycling agenda that you are obsessed with because you have nothing else interesting or positive to say about anything, a familiar theme.
This will all blow over once things have been put back right and your position in the Qlocal village will still be there .

Sandgrounder ?.
YOU SAY ….
“Southport's bicycle friendly routes were initiated without consultation.
Who is to blame for that?
Prime Minister Johnson's Conservative central government.

Encouraging people to walk and/or bicycle rather than relying on their cars for short journeys is NOT a revolutionary proposal. Yet, a few motorists are irate.
What does that tell you”?.

It tells me it’s ok to make it up as you go along as long as no one actually reads what is written properly and works out it’s mostly nonesense .

Conservative government asked for cycle routes to be initiated after consultation and approval by the majority, it wasn’t them that ordered them to be just put in without asking the public just to get the funding .
People pay a lot of money for cars, repairs, mots, TAX, insurance and fuel and it’s seen by many as not right for cyclists to cause danger by riding on carriageways instead of bike lanes, ignore lights or ride so as to cause tailbacks or block the road just because they can then spit abuse at the motorist be it on the road or in a public forum . Cars don’t want to hit a bicycle or hurt anyone or have to fill in insurance claim forms only to have the premiums go up, bicycle riders don’t have this problem they can just ride off if they ride into you .
( There are some people that ride sensibly ).

[Stuartli]

Enjoy it while you can.....In less than eight years and counting, it will be illegal to buy a petrol or diesel car. Guess the humble bike will have the last laugh after all, ha ha!

As I've carefully explained to you earlier in the month without, it would seem, and hardly surprising on your abject record, you just haven't bothered to read and properly comprehend what the situation will be in 2030 with regard to petrol and diesel vehicles.

It's the sale of NEW petrol and diesel cars that will be banned from that year (2035 in the case of hybrids); it will be perfectly legal to sell used vehicles for as long as they are in good working order and that could be up to 15 years or more after the new car deadline.

So, in future, before you make such way off the mark comments about "it will be illegal etc", just check the facts first.

You just come across as someone who makes it up as you go along at present although, in fact, that's probably the case anyway.

[sandGroundZero]

The grant funding supports local transport authorities with producing cycling and walking facilities. The funding is in 2 tranches:

• tranche 1 supports the installation of temporary projects for the COVID-19 pandemic
• tranche 2 supports the creation of longer-term projects

?
The funding was announced by the Secretary of State for Transport on 23 May 2020 as part of the work to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you had checked your facts before shooting from the lip, you would have discovered that the controversial cycle lanes (Hoghton St. & elsewhere) were installed as temporary projects for the COVID-19 pandemic — i.e. tranche 1

________________________________________________________________________

Southport's bicycle friendly routes were initiated without consultation.
Who is to blame for that?
Prime Minister Johnson's Conservative central government.

Encouraging people to walk and/or bicycle rather than relying on their cars for short journeys is NOT a revolutionary proposal. Yet, a few motorists are irate.
What does that tell you?

1. It tells me it’s ok to make it up as you go along as long as no one actually reads what is written properly and works out it’s mostly nonesense .
   
   
2. Conservative government asked for cycle routes to be initiated after consultation and approval by the majority, it wasn’t them that ordered them to be just put in without asking the public just to get the funding .
   
   
3. People pay a lot of money for cars, repairs, mots, TAX, insurance and fuel and
   
   
4. it’s seen by many as not right for cyclists to cause danger by riding on carriageways instead of bike lanes, ignore lights or ride so as to cause tailbacks or block the road just because they can then spit abuse at the motorist be it on the road or in a public forum .
   
   
5. Cars don’t want to hit a bicycle or hurt anyone or have to fill in insurance claim forms only to have the premiums go up, bicycle riders don’t have this problem they can just ride off if they ride into you .

( There are some people that ride sensibly ).

1. You evidently do not bother to read details made easily available for you with links.
2. The Conservative central government alarmed by it base supporters' reactions has retrospectively tried to use the lack of consultations to cover its collective backside! Our Damien (Moore, MP) certainly wishes us forget the government's guidelines.
3. £s spent on "…cars, repairs, mots, TAX, insurance and fuel …" do not signify that motor vehicles have exclusive use of the roads.
4. "abuse" flows both ways; verbal abuse as well as abuse of the rights of other road users. Your posts reflect your attitude, namely that motor vehicles deserve priority in all circumstances.
5. Bicyclists lose in any collision with a motor vehicle!

________________________________________________________________________

All in all, this and the several other threads on the topic reflect the attitude of many motorists. That suggests that they are fearful of any questioning of what they perceive as motor vehicles' unqualified priority among road users.