£300k cycle scheme gets go ahead

Daily Echo: £300k cycle scheme gets go ahead £300k cycle scheme gets go ahead

UP to £300,000 of taxpayers’ money will be spent on the latest cycle path to be installed in a Hampshire town.

Civic chiefs want to create a network of routes around Eastleigh over the next few years.

And the latest scheme would link Eastleigh Railway Station to the Itchen Navigation road bridge on the Bishopstoke Road.

The cycleway will be in the form of an off-road shared cycleway on the southern side of the busy road and will see the current footway widened in places.

A “pedestrian refuge” will also be provided outside the Hub sports complex as part of the proposals.

The scheme is being designed and managed by Eastleigh Borough Council and has been funded by Hampshire County Council.

It will include some preparation work in the early part of 2014 followed by the construction of the cycleway in two stages from April to September.

A separate plan has also been earmarked for the Woodside Avenue area of Eastleigh which would mean securing extra funding.

This would link the road with Twyford Road, Allbrook Hill and Boyatt Wood.

Much of the work will involve widening and resurfacing to an existing footway along the routes with construction beginning by the end of this year.

Meanwhile there are also plans in the pipeline to convert a footway along the A27 Providence Hill and extend it to the B3397 Hamble Lane at Bursledon.

Construction in this project would begin early next year.

The borough council’s Cabinet member for Transport and Streetscene, David Airey, said: “These are schemes that have been planned for sometime – they are ideas that have gained public support as good things to do and will make safety improvements for cyclists and other road users.

“One of the biggest put-offs for cyclists is that there is not a network of routes. Cycleways are very costly to construct unfortunately and that’s the reason why. These proposals will help to improve the lot for cyclists and help children get to school safely.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:12am Thu 12 Dec 13

fairoak2eastleigh says...

I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.
I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this. fairoak2eastleigh

8:43am Thu 12 Dec 13

Gloster says...

1 - I am a cyclist
2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well.
3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code

The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road.

Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car)

So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be.

Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight. Gloster

9:02am Thu 12 Dec 13

hulla baloo says...

Who's bare in your mind?
That aside, the only point I can see in cycle lanes, is to use up the allocated budget ( or lose it ) and to tick boxes.
Who's bare in your mind? That aside, the only point I can see in cycle lanes, is to use up the allocated budget ( or lose it ) and to tick boxes. hulla baloo

9:14am Thu 12 Dec 13

For pity sake says...

fairoak2eastleigh wrote:
I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.
I agree, and to make it worse, they often narrow the road to make room for these poorly-used cycle paths.
[quote][p][bold]fairoak2eastleigh[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.[/p][/quote]I agree, and to make it worse, they often narrow the road to make room for these poorly-used cycle paths. For pity sake

9:14am Thu 12 Dec 13

Forest Resident says...

Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist
2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well.
3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code

The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road.

Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car)

So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be.

Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians. Forest Resident

9:16am Thu 12 Dec 13

Urbane Forager says...

Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist
2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well.
3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code

The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road.

Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car)

So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be.

Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
Totally agree!
I drive a car when I have to, but normally cycle. Cycling in town is always faster than driving and having to park.
Many times I get overtaken often at stupid points only to catch up and overtake the dangerous driver at the next set of lights/traffic jam. They have gained nothing by risking my life.
Regarding shared cycle pedestrian routes - just try cycling along West End High Street on the pavement! How this was ever designated as a cycle path is beyond me. I stick to the road, it's sometime dangerous (several times drivers have attempted to overtake me over a mini roundabout, on the brow of a hill, on the wrong side of the road and into oncoming traffic!) but still not as risky as the pavement, where elderly people, oblivious texting teenagers and mums with prams amble along.
Another good example would be Gaters hill ("shared path"), try bombing down there on the pavement in the dark and meeting a horse or pushchair coming up the hill.
No, the road is safer, faster and the right place to cycle.
Cycle/Car interaction should follow the Danish model, it works well and many more people cycle safely as a result.
I get fed up with the constant polarisation of views in the UK as well as people who are incapable of holding a sensible discussion or argument on forums.
Toodle pip!
[quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]Totally agree! I drive a car when I have to, but normally cycle. Cycling in town is always faster than driving and having to park. Many times I get overtaken often at stupid points only to catch up and overtake the dangerous driver at the next set of lights/traffic jam. They have gained nothing by risking my life. Regarding shared cycle pedestrian routes - just try cycling along West End High Street on the pavement! How this was ever designated as a cycle path is beyond me. I stick to the road, it's sometime dangerous (several times drivers have attempted to overtake me over a mini roundabout, on the brow of a hill, on the wrong side of the road and into oncoming traffic!) but still not as risky as the pavement, where elderly people, oblivious texting teenagers and mums with prams amble along. Another good example would be Gaters hill ("shared path"), try bombing down there on the pavement in the dark and meeting a horse or pushchair coming up the hill. No, the road is safer, faster and the right place to cycle. Cycle/Car interaction should follow the Danish model, it works well and many more people cycle safely as a result. I get fed up with the constant polarisation of views in the UK as well as people who are incapable of holding a sensible discussion or argument on forums. Toodle pip! Urbane Forager

9:22am Thu 12 Dec 13

p82125 says...

fairoak2eastleigh wrote:
I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.
You plum ! have a listen to yourself would you, after driving along Fair Oak Road and Southampton Road for the last twelve years I am continuously over taken by people walking ! I'd be amazed if you've ever been caught behind a cyclist along that stretch, and if it's not busy why is it not easy to just over take them ? Sounds to me like another case of someone who thinks they own the road, and jumps on the band wagon to have a moan as soon as anything comes along that is not a direct benefit to them ( sound familiar ) ? Also why is it that everyone in a car thinks that it's only them that pay tax ? if you take five minutes to have a little think about what your saying you might just realise that there are one or two more types of tax out there other than car tax. Bit of a light bulb moment for you ?
[quote][p][bold]fairoak2eastleigh[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.[/p][/quote]You plum ! have a listen to yourself would you, after driving along Fair Oak Road and Southampton Road for the last twelve years I am continuously over taken by people walking ! I'd be amazed if you've ever been caught behind a cyclist along that stretch, and if it's not busy why is it not easy to just over take them ? Sounds to me like another case of someone who thinks they own the road, and jumps on the band wagon to have a moan as soon as anything comes along that is not a direct benefit to them ( sound familiar ) ? Also why is it that everyone in a car thinks that it's only them that pay tax ? if you take five minutes to have a little think about what your saying you might just realise that there are one or two more types of tax out there other than car tax. Bit of a light bulb moment for you ? p82125

10:37am Thu 12 Dec 13

Richard 51 says...

Education not segregation it needed, I don't want to ride on a cycle path.
Education not segregation it needed, I don't want to ride on a cycle path. Richard 51

11:26am Thu 12 Dec 13

southamptonadi says...

fairoak2eastleigh wrote:
I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.
These shared routes are so ironic. most people on here complain about cyclists being on the pavement because of pedrestrians yet we make some pavements that are barely two foot wide duel use, how dangerous for bith users. I see they are widening it, that will make it easier for people to spread out with the pushchairs and shout at you to get on the road.

These routes are designed for kids and people who are not confident enough to cycle on the road. they help people who are to scared to get out and use there bikes which will result in having less cars on the road and shortening your journey times.

I bet you dont get held up behind me. i can keep up with city traffic all day long.

I hate seeing my tax money wasted on poorly designed and executed cycle paths that are clearly just dangerous to everyone. I see they have put some thought into this and I hope it is done correctly.

But fining someone for doing something legal? Behave.
[quote][p][bold]fairoak2eastleigh[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry but this is a waste of time! I am fed up with queing behind cyclist in the morning that can't be bothered to use cycle paths that have been put in for them. Stoneham Lane, Southampton Road and the road up to Fair Oak all have cycle paths yet I hardly see cyclists on them instead using the road and causing traffic and often accidents. They are the first to complain about drivers being dangerous and not having safe places to cycle yet us tax payers sit and watch cycle paths go unused. Cyclist should be fined for not using designated cycle paths when available. I am probably not the only one that thinks this.[/p][/quote]These shared routes are so ironic. most people on here complain about cyclists being on the pavement because of pedrestrians yet we make some pavements that are barely two foot wide duel use, how dangerous for bith users. I see they are widening it, that will make it easier for people to spread out with the pushchairs and shout at you to get on the road. These routes are designed for kids and people who are not confident enough to cycle on the road. they help people who are to scared to get out and use there bikes which will result in having less cars on the road and shortening your journey times. I bet you dont get held up behind me. i can keep up with city traffic all day long. I hate seeing my tax money wasted on poorly designed and executed cycle paths that are clearly just dangerous to everyone. I see they have put some thought into this and I hope it is done correctly. But fining someone for doing something legal? Behave. southamptonadi

12:05pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Mary80 says...

Ugh they can afford that yet expects people to pay through the nose for their own care. Load of BS
Ugh they can afford that yet expects people to pay through the nose for their own care. Load of BS Mary80

12:21pm Thu 12 Dec 13

skeptik says...

Eastleigh and the bike - should have seen the people knocking off from the railway works years ago - like a tidal wave coming across the bridge into Southampton road.
Eastleigh and the bike - should have seen the people knocking off from the railway works years ago - like a tidal wave coming across the bridge into Southampton road. skeptik

1:00pm Thu 12 Dec 13

billyboy21 says...

When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........
When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........ billyboy21

1:10pm Thu 12 Dec 13

p82125 says...

billyboy21 wrote:
When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........
Well there's great news for you my friend, there already is, it's called council tax ! which encompasses the area we live in and the services we use.
Also another great idea, why don't we tax pedestrians, there's plenty of those spongers wandering around all over the place without a care in the world for the damage they are doing to the environment !
Oh oh, and another one, what about dogs, yes dogs, I've seen the little blighters on the grass before, the untold damage they do, they could be a massive cash cow to tax them, ah ha ! cows ! e.t.c e.t.c you get my point.
Try to have a little think about how ridiculous your comments sound before you put fingers to keys.
[quote][p][bold]billyboy21[/bold] wrote: When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........[/p][/quote]Well there's great news for you my friend, there already is, it's called council tax ! which encompasses the area we live in and the services we use. Also another great idea, why don't we tax pedestrians, there's plenty of those spongers wandering around all over the place without a care in the world for the damage they are doing to the environment ! Oh oh, and another one, what about dogs, yes dogs, I've seen the little blighters on the grass before, the untold damage they do, they could be a massive cash cow to tax them, ah ha ! cows ! e.t.c e.t.c you get my point. Try to have a little think about how ridiculous your comments sound before you put fingers to keys. p82125

1:18pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Forest Resident wrote:
Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist
2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well.
3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code

The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road.

Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car)

So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be.

Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.
You mean have Dutch style cycle infrastructure? That really would be nice but sadly, in today's Britain, that seems as it's too much to ask for, despite the people asking for it.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.[/p][/quote]You mean have Dutch style cycle infrastructure? That really would be nice but sadly, in today's Britain, that seems as it's too much to ask for, despite the people asking for it. Ginger_cyclist

1:19pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist
2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well.
3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code

The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road.

Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car)

So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be.

Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.
You mean have Dutch style cycle infrastructure? That really would be nice but sadly, in today's Britain, that seems as it's too much to ask for, despite the people asking for it.
*as if it's
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.[/p][/quote]You mean have Dutch style cycle infrastructure? That really would be nice but sadly, in today's Britain, that seems as it's too much to ask for, despite the people asking for it.[/p][/quote]*as if it's Ginger_cyclist

2:16pm Thu 12 Dec 13

sass says...

Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
Your mind seeems pretty bare!
[quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]Your mind seeems pretty bare! sass

2:22pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Gloster says...

sass wrote:
Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
Your mind seeems pretty bare!
"Sigh"
[quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]Your mind seeems pretty bare![/p][/quote]"Sigh" Gloster

6:43pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Richard 51 says...

billyboy21 wrote:
When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........
I pay for roads out of my council tax
I do have insurance
MOT is not needed on a bike
and as for petrol we don't use it
maybe you should get out of your tin box on wheels and try a bike
[quote][p][bold]billyboy21[/bold] wrote: When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........[/p][/quote]I pay for roads out of my council tax I do have insurance MOT is not needed on a bike and as for petrol we don't use it maybe you should get out of your tin box on wheels and try a bike Richard 51

7:39pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
Gloster wrote:
1 - I am a cyclist
2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well.
3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code

The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road.

Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car)

So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be.

Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.
One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.
You mean have Dutch style cycle infrastructure? That really would be nice but sadly, in today's Britain, that seems as it's too much to ask for, despite the people asking for it.
*as if it's
When only 2% of journeys are made on bicycles, the appropriate budget has been allocated to meet the low demand.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gloster[/bold] wrote: 1 - I am a cyclist 2 - I pay tax, therefore for this scheme as well. 3 - The use of cycle paths is not mandatory - check The Highway Code The motivation for using a Cycle path comes from either, the safety of it or the convenience compared with that of the other lawful place to ride i.e. the road. Shared pedestrian routes/cycle ways are dangerous for both cyclist and pedestrians and are disjointed in their layout. (imagine going down the Avenue into Southampton and stopping at ever side road in your car) So for me, a tax paying individual who's speed on the flat is in the high teens -(please bare in mind that in built up areas car drivers are advised that 20 is plenty) The road is the obvious place to be. Deal with it. Or better still check your speed on that stretch of road. This morning in the car -(really frustrating, don't know how you boys do it daily) 8mph and not a cycle in sight.[/p][/quote]One might also add that current Department for Transport and Police guidelines are that cyclists travelling in excess of 17mph should ALWAYS use the road for their own safety and that of pedestrians. Cyclists are regarded as vehicles in the eyes of the law and have every right to be on the road immaterial of whether there is a cycle path provided. This is not the fault of the cyclists but a result of significant under investment in cycling unlike on the continent where cyclists can enjoy fully segregated cycle routes with priority at junctions that prevents any conflict with motorists or pedestrians.[/p][/quote]You mean have Dutch style cycle infrastructure? That really would be nice but sadly, in today's Britain, that seems as it's too much to ask for, despite the people asking for it.[/p][/quote]*as if it's[/p][/quote]When only 2% of journeys are made on bicycles, the appropriate budget has been allocated to meet the low demand. Torchie1

8:32pm Thu 12 Dec 13

100%HANTSBOY says...

Richard 51 wrote:
billyboy21 wrote:
When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........
I pay for roads out of my council tax
I do have insurance
MOT is not needed on a bike
and as for petrol we don't use it
maybe you should get out of your tin box on wheels and try a bike
Not for me! I'd rather be in my dry and warm tin box,with my music playing and my hot cuppa in the cup holder and getting to work in a relaxed warm comfortable state!
[quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billyboy21[/bold] wrote: When will the government catch on to the chance of the cash cow that is cycling?? at the moment they pay nothing to use the roads where motorists have to pay out on tax insurance mot charges not to mention the soaring cost of petrol !!! If they are going to create cycleways surely there must be a way of recouping the cost from the pedal pushers........[/p][/quote]I pay for roads out of my council tax I do have insurance MOT is not needed on a bike and as for petrol we don't use it maybe you should get out of your tin box on wheels and try a bike[/p][/quote]Not for me! I'd rather be in my dry and warm tin box,with my music playing and my hot cuppa in the cup holder and getting to work in a relaxed warm comfortable state! 100%HANTSBOY

9:36pm Thu 12 Dec 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

I would be happy if they spent some cash on a combined cycle pedestrian path in Stoneham Lane!
I would be happy if they spent some cash on a combined cycle pedestrian path in Stoneham Lane! OSPREYSAINT

8:15pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Positively4thStreet says...

"Pedestrian Refuge"...that's about right! I'm sick to death (practically literally)of being nearly run over as a pedestrian every day,on the pavement outside my house;by cyclists riding along it totally illegally,but as if they have an absolute right to do it.
Where do I stand legally if one of these arrogant idiots,with no licence,identificati
on,insurance or certificate of vehicle maintenance,crashes into me? Yes I know...flat on my back!!
"Pedestrian Refuge"...that's about right! I'm sick to death (practically literally)of being nearly run over as a pedestrian every day,on the pavement outside my house;by cyclists riding along it totally illegally,but as if they have an absolute right to do it. Where do I stand legally if one of these arrogant idiots,with no licence,identificati on,insurance or certificate of vehicle maintenance,crashes into me? Yes I know...flat on my back!! Positively4thStreet

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree