Bike friendly junction on Itchen Bridge 'has made things worse' say Southampton cyclists

Bike friendly junction 'has made things worse' say cyclists

The new bike-friendly junction at the Itchen Bridge/Saltmarsh road junction in Southampton

The new bike-friendly junction at the Itchen Bridge/Saltmarsh road junction in Southampton

The new bike-friendly junction at the Itchen Bridge/Saltmarsh road junction in Southampton

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

“THIS isn’t the way it was supposed to be.”

That is the message from cyclists in Southampton, who say a new junction designed to make it safer for them on a busy city route has actually done the opposite.

A man was knocked off his bike in a hit-and-run incident yesterday morning at the new junction of Itchen Bridge and Saltmarsh Road, while a number of other near misses have been reported.

And some of the very cyclists who helped to put together the plans now say the final result is not what they expected and have called on the council to make improvements.

The work at the site, which has resulted in more lane markings and traffic lights being installed and the old roundabout disappear, was part of a £1.7 million project to create a new cycle superhighway running from Woolston to the city centre.

The plans were put together by Southampton City Council, cyclists and designers Urban Movement and the construction work was carried out by Balfour Beatty.

But some cyclists – including those who worked on the original plans – say the end result is different to what they thought would happen to the site.

They say there are no lights specifically for cyclists, as included in the original plans, and “advance stop lines” (ASLs) designed to allow cyclists to cross junctions are not in the right place.

And they say that some of the lanes are too narrow while cyclists travelling towards the city centre from Itchen Bridge are at risk of being hit by cars turning left towards Ocean Village.

Dilys Gartside, from cycle training company Cyclewise, was one of those involved in drawing the plans up but said there are “teething problems” at the site after using it herself over the weekend.

She said: “I think the council have been courageous in doing something that’s not run of the mill but I’m not convinced we’ve got exactly what we were told.

“I think the cycle lanes need to be highlighted more for motorists to see and there aren’t enough signs.

“I don’t think they’ve got it right yet, they need to make tweaks and I think they should put the speed limit down to 20mph for cars.”

And Michael Andrews, from Thornhill, said: “I remember when the plans were first revealed that there would be separate cycle lights to allow cyclists at the originally planned ASLs to cross the junction or make turns ahead of motorised traffic and then wide, shared, paths going from one end of the Itchen Bridge to the other, on both sides of the road, which would have been a semi-Dutch design.

“What we have ended up with instead is death waiting to happen.”

A 44-year-old cyclist suffered minor injuries after being knocked off his bike by a car turning left during the rush hour yesterday morning.

The driver of the car, a dark blue or black Mercedes estate, drove off after hitting the cyclist and police are urging anyone with information or anyone who witnessed what happened to contact the Totton Roads Policing Unit on 101.

A commuter from Netley, who witnessed the incident, said: “This shows the new junction doesn’t work – it’s absolutely treacherous.”

The man, who did not want to give his name, said he witnessed a similar incident just 15 minutes later, although that time no one was injured.

He added: “This needs to be dealt with, it’s really dangerous.”

Dan Fitzhenry, transport spokesman for the council’s Conservative opposition, said: “This is madness as it’s discouraging people from cycling, rather than encouraging them.

This is such a major route for both cyclists and motorists that it has to be right and I would ask the council to look at this to make sure it is safe.”

Daily Echo: The new bike-friendly junction at the Itchen Bridge/Saltmarsh road junction in Southampton

New layout did not cause accident, says councillor

SOUTHAMPTON City Council apologised for the cyclist’s injuries – but claims the new junction layout did not contribute towards the accident.

The new junction at Itchen Bridge was designed to make it safer for cyclists following a £1.7m investment.

But it has come under fire from cyclists in Southampton after a man was knocked off his bike in a hit-andrun incident yesterday morning.

Councillor Jacqui Rayment, Cabinet member for environment and transport, said: “This is an open investigation with Hampshire Constabulary and therefore the details cannot be discussed.

“However, early indications from the investigation show that the new layout of the junction is not a contributory factor in the accident.

“We invest in new designs and work with our partners to improve routes and safety for cyclists in the city.

“The design of this junction has been taken from a tried and tested Continental-style junction and passed several safety audits with one more taking place on the 10th.

“As with all new road layouts both cyclists and drivers should take extra care when approaching and crossing through this junction and we have placed signs to warn drivers and cyclists to proceed with caution.”

Daily Echo: The new bike-friendly junction at the Itchen Bridge/Saltmarsh road junction in Southampton

Cyclists and motorists are united in condemnation

MOTORIST Rachel Cleverley, from Sholing, said she witnessed a near-miss at the same spot where the cyclist was hit yesterday.

Luckily that time the car in front of her stopped before hitting the cyclist, but she said: “Is this how this new junction is supposed to work? I thought this new junction was supposed to make it better for both car driver and cyclist.”

Cyclist John Grant, from Woolston, said: “Approaching the junction it’s very unsafe to head towards the lights if there is a vehicle waiting to turn left stopped at the lights. The lights can change at any time and they wouldn’t see me coming up the inside on the cycle path.”

Speaking after the accident, he said: “If I hadn’t been vigilant I could also have been knocked off this morning. It seems like an awful waste of money for very little, if any, gain.”

Another cyclist, Mark Stinchcombe, said: “To turn right at the junction to go onto Itchen Bridge, from any direction, means I have to fight across four lanes of traffic coming from two different directions and wanting to head off in four different directions.

“As a cyclist this junction has become, in my view, extremely dangerous and I much preferred the previous roundabout.”

Michael Andrews, a cyclist from Thornhill, said the new lanes are not as wide as 1.5metre Government guidelines, adding: “The cycle lanes encourage cyclists to go up the inside of queuing traffic but there aren’t any ASLs at any of the lights to allow cyclists to get into a much safer and more visible position to prevent what is known as a left hook where someone overtakes and immediately turns left.

“For more experienced cyclists such as myself this is often a nuisance but it doesn’t usually result in a collision. However, it often results in a collision when a less experienced cyclist, such as those who are new to cycling or children, are involved but can still be deadly to all cyclists.”

Daily Echo readers left a number of comments on our website.

Dand_uk, said: “New junction is hardly bike-friendly. If you approach the junction on a green light the design encourages conflict between left turning motor vehicles and people on bikes going straight on. Motors will rush to overtake before they cut left and people on bikes will try to scoot past before the motors with signal on move off.”

A reader called Dazman 67 said: “I cycled over it for the first time this morning. Cycle friendly it isn’t.

“As I approached it, I sensed that exactly this could happen so I hung back until there was an obvious gap in the traffic before proceeding across the junction.

“I was happier with the old roundabout. Traffic lights and green paint are not the answer.”

And another reader, Ronnie G, said: “Southampton City Council have given us a 99p version of a super cycle highway. It’s not suitable for cyclists or motorists.”

Comments (104)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:17am Thu 27 Feb 14

townieboy says...

Looks like a board game. Joke planning total waste of time. Wasted money as usual.
Looks like a board game. Joke planning total waste of time. Wasted money as usual. townieboy
  • Score: 43

11:33am Thu 27 Feb 14

elvisimo says...

slow news day - rehash
slow news day - rehash elvisimo
  • Score: -26

11:34am Thu 27 Feb 14

Dragons8mycat says...

Since the new junction has been put in I have had a near miss on my commute through here almost every day. It is not the motorists fault, or the cyclists, there is no way to for either party to see each other in the "crossing" zones.

Where a car has to cross lanes onto one of the other roads, there are no markings to indicate that they need to be aware of cyclists and there is no way to the cyclists past the new traffic lights which block the view of the cycle lanes.
Furthermore I note that no mention has been made of the poor cycle lane construction, where grates and double yellow lines (which take up 50% of the cycle lane) become slippery and dangerous in the wet, making it harder to stop.

The solution is simple, the traffic lights need to be staged better and perhaps an intermittent stage for traffic crossing lanes to prevent these dangerous incidents.
Since the new junction has been put in I have had a near miss on my commute through here almost every day. It is not the motorists fault, or the cyclists, there is no way to for either party to see each other in the "crossing" zones. Where a car has to cross lanes onto one of the other roads, there are no markings to indicate that they need to be aware of cyclists and there is no way to the cyclists past the new traffic lights which block the view of the cycle lanes. Furthermore I note that no mention has been made of the poor cycle lane construction, where grates and double yellow lines (which take up 50% of the cycle lane) become slippery and dangerous in the wet, making it harder to stop. The solution is simple, the traffic lights need to be staged better and perhaps an intermittent stage for traffic crossing lanes to prevent these dangerous incidents. Dragons8mycat
  • Score: 20

11:41am Thu 27 Feb 14

Mr E says...

I just want to paint a couple of big 'O' and X' s on it.
I just want to paint a couple of big 'O' and X' s on it. Mr E
  • Score: 28

11:42am Thu 27 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

Is Councillor Rayment involved with everything that goes wrong in the city? Her name pops up everywhere!
Is Councillor Rayment involved with everything that goes wrong in the city? Her name pops up everywhere! sotonboy84
  • Score: 36

11:43am Thu 27 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

Mr E wrote:
I just want to paint a couple of big 'O' and X' s on it.
They'll cost another £1.7m.
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: I just want to paint a couple of big 'O' and X' s on it.[/p][/quote]They'll cost another £1.7m. sotonboy84
  • Score: 33

11:44am Thu 27 Feb 14

leanne baker says...

May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ?
Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths.
Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ?
Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.
May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ? Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths. Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ? Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made. leanne baker
  • Score: 23

11:46am Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

leanne baker wrote:
May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ?
Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths.
Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ?
Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.
If they ever admit to screwing it up big time.
[quote][p][bold]leanne baker[/bold] wrote: May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ? Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths. Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ? Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.[/p][/quote]If they ever admit to screwing it up big time. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 7

11:55am Thu 27 Feb 14

Zootopian says...

leanne baker wrote:
May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ?
Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths.
Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ?
Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.
You don't need signs to tell you who has right of way - anyone going straight on or turning left has right of way over anyone turning right as it says in the Highway Code. In this instance, it's just a normal junction.
[quote][p][bold]leanne baker[/bold] wrote: May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ? Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths. Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ? Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.[/p][/quote]You don't need signs to tell you who has right of way - anyone going straight on or turning left has right of way over anyone turning right as it says in the Highway Code. In this instance, it's just a normal junction. Zootopian
  • Score: 23

12:13pm Thu 27 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

leanne baker wrote:
May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ? Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths. Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ? Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.
It sounds like a complete mess of a job ('teething problems' is not a good enough reason as a traffic professional was paid to design a road system) but two things to point out;

1 - the funding was given for this cycle route & for this only so could not have been used for youth clubs etc.

2 - you can't blame road works for 'loss of earnings' because if you use this route daily then you would have seen the signs advising of delays. It's your responsibility to leave home earlier or take another route.
[quote][p][bold]leanne baker[/bold] wrote: May I also say that if coming from Northam to enter the bridge, meaning turning left onto the bridge, it is also a danger to both cars and cyclists as there are no filter lights, therefore the traffic coming from Ocean villiage (Saltmarsh Road) could collide as they are turning right across the traffic turning left onto the bridge or turning right across traffic going straight over to Saltmarsh Road. Again there is no signs to state who has the right of way ? Typical of Southampton City Council they have yet again wasted an extreme amount of tax payers money to which could have been used to improve roads, run down neighbourhoods, build community centers for children and youths. Why try to fix something that to me was not a priority ? Oh and not to mention the total chaos, time wasted and loss of earnings due to time wasted in traffic that it has caused to commuters for god knows how many Months. I am now guessing we will be experiencing another lot of chaos when they try to rectify the mess they have just made.[/p][/quote]It sounds like a complete mess of a job ('teething problems' is not a good enough reason as a traffic professional was paid to design a road system) but two things to point out; 1 - the funding was given for this cycle route & for this only so could not have been used for youth clubs etc. 2 - you can't blame road works for 'loss of earnings' because if you use this route daily then you would have seen the signs advising of delays. It's your responsibility to leave home earlier or take another route. sotonboy84
  • Score: 8

12:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

robich says...

This junction reconstruction is a travesty.
We were promised a cycle friendly "Dutch style" road junction. Have any of those responsible for this dangerous junction ever cycled in Holland?
Nothing here has been done to make it safer for cyclists whilst much has been done that actually makes it far more dangerous.

Cycling from Central Bridge onto Itchen Bridge my narrow cycle lane is pushed to the left of the lane for cars turning left - so cycling straight ahead puts me at risk of turning drivers. A short piece of advanced stop area the width of the cycle lane to the left of the left turn lane is not advanced enough to put the cyclist in view of a motorist who, watching the lights, will start and turn left putting him in immediate conflict with a poor cyclist who has the misfortune to have been placed there by this ridiculous arrangement.
This is one of the most dangerous and common causes of conflicts between drivers turning left and cyclists on their nearside progressing straight forwards. I am not the only cyclist who has been knocked off my bike in a collision of this sort.

And if I want to turn right, the signage painted on the road seems to indicate I should move to the left before sweeping across oncoming traffic!
The narrow painted cycle lanes cross an acre of tarmac where motor vehicles can run wild. At the moment the green lines show up but, as seen all over Southampton, they will soon fade and be easily ignored (or not seen) by drivers who, with so much going on in a vast open road space, have much to watch out for in addition to cyclists.

We were also promised wider cycle lanes segregated form traffic on the Itchen Bridge - which hasn't happened (and, cynically, I suspect will not happen to save cost). The only "segregated" bit is the bus stop at the start of the eastbound bridge approach where the cycle lane has actually been taken through the bus waiting area - and carrying double yellow "no parking" lines within it!
This junction reconstruction is a travesty. We were promised a cycle friendly "Dutch style" road junction. Have any of those responsible for this dangerous junction ever cycled in Holland? Nothing here has been done to make it safer for cyclists whilst much has been done that actually makes it far more dangerous. Cycling from Central Bridge onto Itchen Bridge my narrow cycle lane is pushed to the left of the lane for cars turning left - so cycling straight ahead puts me at risk of turning drivers. A short piece of advanced stop area the width of the cycle lane to the left of the left turn lane is not advanced enough to put the cyclist in view of a motorist who, watching the lights, will start and turn left putting him in immediate conflict with a poor cyclist who has the misfortune to have been placed there by this ridiculous arrangement. This is one of the most dangerous and common causes of conflicts between drivers turning left and cyclists on their nearside progressing straight forwards. I am not the only cyclist who has been knocked off my bike in a collision of this sort. And if I want to turn right, the signage painted on the road seems to indicate I should move to the left before sweeping across oncoming traffic! The narrow painted cycle lanes cross an acre of tarmac where motor vehicles can run wild. At the moment the green lines show up but, as seen all over Southampton, they will soon fade and be easily ignored (or not seen) by drivers who, with so much going on in a vast open road space, have much to watch out for in addition to cyclists. We were also promised wider cycle lanes segregated form traffic on the Itchen Bridge - which hasn't happened (and, cynically, I suspect will not happen to save cost). The only "segregated" bit is the bus stop at the start of the eastbound bridge approach where the cycle lane has actually been taken through the bus waiting area - and carrying double yellow "no parking" lines within it! robich
  • Score: 16

12:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Smartiepants says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Is Councillor Rayment involved with everything that goes wrong in the city? Her name pops up everywhere!
Yes, its funny that isn't it!
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Is Councillor Rayment involved with everything that goes wrong in the city? Her name pops up everywhere![/p][/quote]Yes, its funny that isn't it! Smartiepants
  • Score: 16

12:21pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Paul M says...

They say the new design isn't responsible for this accident. Possibly so - after all, left-hook incidents can happen in any situation where traffic can turn left at any speed (where the turn radius is wide enough to permit that) and a car or van can overtake a cyclist and then cut left across its path. I am sure the old design had a left-hook risk and the new design would have one by default, unless designed out.

Which is precisely the point - the campaigners say the original design had separate cyclists lights which would permit cyclists to proceed while other traffic held, so they could get beyond the area of danger before a left-hooker could catch them up. This was broadly the solution applied at the notorious Bow Roundabout in east London, although that doesn't seem to have worked perfectly as yet.
They say the new design isn't responsible for this accident. Possibly so - after all, left-hook incidents can happen in any situation where traffic can turn left at any speed (where the turn radius is wide enough to permit that) and a car or van can overtake a cyclist and then cut left across its path. I am sure the old design had a left-hook risk and the new design would have one by default, unless designed out. Which is precisely the point - the campaigners say the original design had separate cyclists lights which would permit cyclists to proceed while other traffic held, so they could get beyond the area of danger before a left-hooker could catch them up. This was broadly the solution applied at the notorious Bow Roundabout in east London, although that doesn't seem to have worked perfectly as yet. Paul M
  • Score: 12

12:27pm Thu 27 Feb 14

motorizer says...

the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons ..... motorizer
  • Score: -9

12:30pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
[quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

1:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Mavis Barlow says...

Youtube video for your perusal - Eastern Cycle Route, Southampton-Junction of Itchen Bridge and Saltmarsh Road.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=aAGXn2g7N
mM
Youtube video for your perusal - Eastern Cycle Route, Southampton-Junction of Itchen Bridge and Saltmarsh Road. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=aAGXn2g7N mM Mavis Barlow
  • Score: 4

1:07pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RomseyKeith says...

It sounds like the Council have done the usual public sector thing of spending the budget before the end of the financial year, and cut corners in order to claim a saving on the original quote (so it looks good on paper, yet the reality is the shoddy outcome we have at this junction). Unfortunately there is nothing new here, and even if auditted, all the bookkeeping will look right, even if the actual end result is a risk to public safety. In other words, money is more important than people's lives.
It seems you can put a price on lives, and it isn't a very high price.
It sounds like the Council have done the usual public sector thing of spending the budget before the end of the financial year, and cut corners in order to claim a saving on the original quote (so it looks good on paper, yet the reality is the shoddy outcome we have at this junction). Unfortunately there is nothing new here, and even if auditted, all the bookkeeping will look right, even if the actual end result is a risk to public safety. In other words, money is more important than people's lives. It seems you can put a price on lives, and it isn't a very high price. RomseyKeith
  • Score: 5

1:08pm Thu 27 Feb 14

S Pance says...

Hold on.

Jaqui Rayment is quoted in the paper as saying she can't comment because there is an open investigation and thus it's too early to say what the conclusion of that investigation is.

However, she goes on to say that the new junction is not a contributory factor!!

I mean, how does she know if the investigation is still at the early stages?!

The sooner the people of Southampton get rid of Ms raiment, the better, IMHO!!
Hold on. Jaqui Rayment is quoted in the paper as saying she can't comment because there is an open investigation and thus it's too early to say what the conclusion of that investigation is. However, she goes on to say that the new junction is not a contributory factor!! I mean, how does she know if the investigation is still at the early stages?! The sooner the people of Southampton get rid of Ms raiment, the better, IMHO!! S Pance
  • Score: 15

1:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

daaannorris says...

Personally I prefer the old roundabout. Perhaps adding in the traffic lights for cyclists and the ASL's might help.
I don't think dropping the speed limit to 20mph won't make a blind bit of difference unless it actually gets enforced. Just this morning I saw a Astra speed over this junction from central bridge - must of been doing at least 45mph! Perhaps the addition of speed cameras will be a good addition to these 'post launch' teething amendments?

I think it might also exist, but a rotating or fixed traffic camera might also help the developers/police to see what goes wrong at this junction - similar to the camera at the function of The Ave & Burgess Rd
Personally I prefer the old roundabout. Perhaps adding in the traffic lights for cyclists and the ASL's might help. I don't think dropping the speed limit to 20mph won't make a blind bit of difference unless it actually gets enforced. Just this morning I saw a Astra speed over this junction from central bridge - must of been doing at least 45mph! Perhaps the addition of speed cameras will be a good addition to these 'post launch' teething amendments? I think it might also exist, but a rotating or fixed traffic camera might also help the developers/police to see what goes wrong at this junction - similar to the camera at the function of The Ave & Burgess Rd daaannorris
  • Score: 5

1:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

chris_westall says...

So it's an open investigation, but she can say definitively within 24 hours that the council were definitely not to blame? Interesting....

Obvious questions:
1. Why were the cycle-specific lights from the original plan not included in the final build? Who took this decision and why?
2. Why aren't the ASLs the correct length? Who took this decision and why?
3. Why aren't the cycle lanes the correct width? Who took this decision and why?
4. Why wasn't something as simple and standard as marking the edges of the green cycle lanes with white paint done, to increase their overall visibilty?
So it's an open investigation, but she can say definitively within 24 hours that the council were definitely not to blame? Interesting.... Obvious questions: 1. Why were the cycle-specific lights from the original plan not included in the final build? Who took this decision and why? 2. Why aren't the ASLs the correct length? Who took this decision and why? 3. Why aren't the cycle lanes the correct width? Who took this decision and why? 4. Why wasn't something as simple and standard as marking the edges of the green cycle lanes with white paint done, to increase their overall visibilty? chris_westall
  • Score: 9

1:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

bigfella777 says...

I cycled over there this morning in high wind across the bridge from Woolston, I wanted to turn right towards the stadium, I don't understand where I'm supposed to go, do I stay in the green cycle lane or go into the normal lane?
I couldn't turn right because cars were coming past me at speed to go straight on, I just ended up stranded at the side until the lights went red and I could go right, which I suppose was illegal.
It's a joke, we were supposed to have priority lights.
I cycled over there this morning in high wind across the bridge from Woolston, I wanted to turn right towards the stadium, I don't understand where I'm supposed to go, do I stay in the green cycle lane or go into the normal lane? I couldn't turn right because cars were coming past me at speed to go straight on, I just ended up stranded at the side until the lights went red and I could go right, which I suppose was illegal. It's a joke, we were supposed to have priority lights. bigfella777
  • Score: 6

1:41pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Burt HInkler says...

A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT Burt HInkler
  • Score: -11

1:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
[quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mr.southampton says...

Just how much incompetence do we have to put up with from this council. It took me one look to figure out that this was a disaster of a scheme.

John Grant is bang on the money. Drivers stopped and waiting to turn left towards Ocean Village at the lights are going to catch cyclists using the green lane.

As a driver the whole thing is confusing and while local people may get used to it there will always be plenty of people from out-of-town encountering it for the first time.

As for Cllr Rayment's comments that "The design of this junction has been taken from a tried and tested Continental-style junction" this completely ignores the fact that an important factor is the local context - not just the local geography and road layout, but the attitudes of road users.
Just how much incompetence do we have to put up with from this council. It took me one look to figure out that this was a disaster of a scheme. John Grant is bang on the money. Drivers stopped and waiting to turn left towards Ocean Village at the lights are going to catch cyclists using the green lane. As a driver the whole thing is confusing and while local people may get used to it there will always be plenty of people from out-of-town encountering it for the first time. As for Cllr Rayment's comments that "The design of this junction has been taken from a tried and tested Continental-style junction" this completely ignores the fact that an important factor is the local context - not just the local geography and road layout, but the attitudes of road users. mr.southampton
  • Score: 6

2:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

soton-mike80 says...

I was led to believe that this cycle way was supposed to have segregated lanes for cyclists in the Dutch road layout style? Did I misinterpret this?

I used to cycle along the old route all the time and always felt confident with the roundabout. Since Southampton City Council decided to make a complete pigs ear out of the junction I do not want to use the route as it looks and feels dangerous.

Every morning my partner drives over this bridge and tells me how motorists are left blind to cyclists turning left as they leave the bridge. Why did the council waste so much time and money trying to fix something that wasn't broken? it is a complete shambles and MORE DANGEROUS than it ever was.

I would also like to know why Southampton City Council decided to cripple the city in TWO places causing endless misery for commuters. They could have waited for the Town Quay improvements to be completed before messing this junction up.

But then what do I know... its not like I use that route every day, five days a week and sometimes on the weekend!
I was led to believe that this cycle way was supposed to have segregated lanes for cyclists in the Dutch road layout style? Did I misinterpret this? I used to cycle along the old route all the time and always felt confident with the roundabout. Since Southampton City Council decided to make a complete pigs ear out of the junction I do not want to use the route as it looks and feels dangerous. Every morning my partner drives over this bridge and tells me how motorists are left blind to cyclists turning left as they leave the bridge. Why did the council waste so much time and money trying to fix something that wasn't broken? it is a complete shambles and MORE DANGEROUS than it ever was. I would also like to know why Southampton City Council decided to cripple the city in TWO places causing endless misery for commuters. They could have waited for the Town Quay improvements to be completed before messing this junction up. But then what do I know... its not like I use that route every day, five days a week and sometimes on the weekend! soton-mike80
  • Score: 11

2:03pm Thu 27 Feb 14

muzzer says...

Well this is Southampton Council doing its best top waste OUR cash- look at toll, Barriers that are not use because of them hitting bikers, toll readers that were at wrong height, lamp posts along bridge that cost ten times the norm. Now this- well look at the bus stop a cyclist is going to knock a bus passenger over when the go to embark on bus -5 months of wasted cash
Well this is Southampton Council doing its best top waste OUR cash- look at toll, Barriers that are not use because of them hitting bikers, toll readers that were at wrong height, lamp posts along bridge that cost ten times the norm. Now this- well look at the bus stop a cyclist is going to knock a bus passenger over when the go to embark on bus -5 months of wasted cash muzzer
  • Score: 5

2:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

soton_cyclist says...

This mess cost a fortune for no improvements. I used to cycling over this everyday to and from work and felt safe with the roundabout as I could take the normal position of going around, but now im meant to stick to the left hand side, stop and wait for a gap all the while hoping a car doesnt want to turn left and hit me let along with the cars racing to catch the lights and flying past me at 30mph plus

Do I feel safe....no!! waste of time and it only a matter of time before a someone gets seriously hurt

Perhaps I will take to riding on the path, ill feel safe there!
This mess cost a fortune for no improvements. I used to cycling over this everyday to and from work and felt safe with the roundabout as I could take the normal position of going around, but now im meant to stick to the left hand side, stop and wait for a gap all the while hoping a car doesnt want to turn left and hit me let along with the cars racing to catch the lights and flying past me at 30mph plus Do I feel safe....no!! waste of time and it only a matter of time before a someone gets seriously hurt Perhaps I will take to riding on the path, ill feel safe there! soton_cyclist
  • Score: 7

2:08pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Forest Resident says...

muzzer wrote:
Well this is Southampton Council doing its best top waste OUR cash- look at toll, Barriers that are not use because of them hitting bikers, toll readers that were at wrong height, lamp posts along bridge that cost ten times the norm. Now this- well look at the bus stop a cyclist is going to knock a bus passenger over when the go to embark on bus -5 months of wasted cash
In the main I agree entirely, however regarding your final remark it would invariably be the bus passengers fault for stepping into the cyle lane without looking.
[quote][p][bold]muzzer[/bold] wrote: Well this is Southampton Council doing its best top waste OUR cash- look at toll, Barriers that are not use because of them hitting bikers, toll readers that were at wrong height, lamp posts along bridge that cost ten times the norm. Now this- well look at the bus stop a cyclist is going to knock a bus passenger over when the go to embark on bus -5 months of wasted cash[/p][/quote]In the main I agree entirely, however regarding your final remark it would invariably be the bus passengers fault for stepping into the cyle lane without looking. Forest Resident
  • Score: -2

2:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

City Final says...

In summary, someone has *@%$ed up big time designing this. Junction not fit for purpose. I wonder how much more money and time will be wasted when they put it right - probably reverting back to a roundabout again.
In summary, someone has *@%$ed up big time designing this. Junction not fit for purpose. I wonder how much more money and time will be wasted when they put it right - probably reverting back to a roundabout again. City Final
  • Score: 4

2:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

kevinchandler100@talktalk.net says...

motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
Yes I agree some of the cyclists need to learn the high way code, as do some of the drivers no hand signals is the most common one it's a guessing game to where these people are going. And drivers on their mobile phones that is lorry drivers as well.I Think it would be a good idea before new cycles are sold that the person should go through a high way code test and make it compulsory to wear a helmet as do motor cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]Yes I agree some of the cyclists need to learn the high way code, as do some of the drivers no hand signals is the most common one it's a guessing game to where these people are going. And drivers on their mobile phones that is lorry drivers as well.I Think it would be a good idea before new cycles are sold that the person should go through a high way code test and make it compulsory to wear a helmet as do motor cyclists. kevinchandler100@talktalk.net
  • Score: 4

2:41pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
So you know what he was referring to. So his attempt to communicate was successful. So what value did your tedious nit-pick add, exactly?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]So you know what he was referring to. So his attempt to communicate was successful. So what value did your tedious nit-pick add, exactly? gilbertratchet
  • Score: -7

2:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

kevinchandler100@tal
ktalk.net
wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
Yes I agree some of the cyclists need to learn the high way code, as do some of the drivers no hand signals is the most common one it's a guessing game to where these people are going. And drivers on their mobile phones that is lorry drivers as well.I Think it would be a good idea before new cycles are sold that the person should go through a high way code test and make it compulsory to wear a helmet as do motor cyclists.
Would you also be testing children? Also, helmets won't do anything if you're hit by 2 tonnes of steel traveling at 30+mph because invariably, it's not the head that takes most of the impact unless it's a large vehicle, won't even do anything against a wing mirror, as we saw with the tragic death of David Irving, who was struck on the back of the head by the wing mirror of a minibus, bicycle helmets are only able to protect you in low speed impacts, they can also CAUSE injuries.
[quote][p][bold]kevinchandler100@tal ktalk.net[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]Yes I agree some of the cyclists need to learn the high way code, as do some of the drivers no hand signals is the most common one it's a guessing game to where these people are going. And drivers on their mobile phones that is lorry drivers as well.I Think it would be a good idea before new cycles are sold that the person should go through a high way code test and make it compulsory to wear a helmet as do motor cyclists.[/p][/quote]Would you also be testing children? Also, helmets won't do anything if you're hit by 2 tonnes of steel traveling at 30+mph because invariably, it's not the head that takes most of the impact unless it's a large vehicle, won't even do anything against a wing mirror, as we saw with the tragic death of David Irving, who was struck on the back of the head by the wing mirror of a minibus, bicycle helmets are only able to protect you in low speed impacts, they can also CAUSE injuries. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

2:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
So you know what he was referring to. So his attempt to communicate was successful. So what value did your tedious nit-pick add, exactly?
no, pretty sure he was making an attempt at the old "no pay, no say" which is complete bull and stupid.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]So you know what he was referring to. So his attempt to communicate was successful. So what value did your tedious nit-pick add, exactly?[/p][/quote]no, pretty sure he was making an attempt at the old "no pay, no say" which is complete bull and stupid. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

3:07pm Thu 27 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
And people wonder why cyclists get annoyed.
[quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]And people wonder why cyclists get annoyed. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

3:07pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Battered Cyclist says...

So who exactly have Southampton City Council apologized to? It's not the cyclist to whom this article applies!
So who exactly have Southampton City Council apologized to? It's not the cyclist to whom this article applies! Battered Cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
So you know what he was referring to. So his attempt to communicate was successful. So what value did your tedious nit-pick add, exactly?
no, pretty sure he was making an attempt at the old "no pay, no say" which is complete bull and stupid.
Precisely what most people are referring to when they bring up road tax. A useless and void argument.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]So you know what he was referring to. So his attempt to communicate was successful. So what value did your tedious nit-pick add, exactly?[/p][/quote]no, pretty sure he was making an attempt at the old "no pay, no say" which is complete bull and stupid.[/p][/quote]Precisely what most people are referring to when they bring up road tax. A useless and void argument. camerajuan
  • Score: 4

3:17pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mickey01 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
the day i see all motorists using indicators and obeying the speed limit staying in the left lane and being patient is even more far away
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.[/p][/quote]the day i see all motorists using indicators and obeying the speed limit staying in the left lane and being patient is even more far away mickey01
  • Score: 2

3:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

mickey01 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
the day i see all motorists using indicators and obeying the speed limit staying in the left lane and being patient is even more far away
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.[/p][/quote]the day i see all motorists using indicators and obeying the speed limit staying in the left lane and being patient is even more far away[/p][/quote]Exactly. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SotonNorth says...

As I have said in the past, not sure what part of Holland the council went to, because I've never seen anything like this junction over in Holland. In most situations over there cycleways are completely segregated from roadways and traffic lights operate differently. This junction is a typical hair-brained British fudge. Give it a few years of the council licking their wounds and I suspect the junction will be rebuilt as a standard signalised junction, no doubt with the standard "everybody sat on a red light" four way sequencing that cripples the city.
As I have said in the past, not sure what part of Holland the council went to, because I've never seen anything like this junction over in Holland. In most situations over there cycleways are completely segregated from roadways and traffic lights operate differently. This junction is a typical hair-brained British fudge. Give it a few years of the council licking their wounds and I suspect the junction will be rebuilt as a standard signalised junction, no doubt with the standard "everybody sat on a red light" four way sequencing that cripples the city. SotonNorth
  • Score: 6

3:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Motorboatmaggie says...

I have been driving across the Itchen Bridge twice a day for the last 19 years and it has always been fine with the old roundabout, the new road layout is horrible - I have given it a couple of weeks and can't believe there hasn't been a terrible accident yet. Morons who can't read the road still believe it is a roundabout when in fact it is a plain and simpe cross roads now - they should look and observe the old Highway Code. Just be observant and always look out for cyclists as we always have done - sadly accidents have and always will happen. Open your eyes guys and just drive (and cycle) safely.
I have been driving across the Itchen Bridge twice a day for the last 19 years and it has always been fine with the old roundabout, the new road layout is horrible - I have given it a couple of weeks and can't believe there hasn't been a terrible accident yet. Morons who can't read the road still believe it is a roundabout when in fact it is a plain and simpe cross roads now - they should look and observe the old Highway Code. Just be observant and always look out for cyclists as we always have done - sadly accidents have and always will happen. Open your eyes guys and just drive (and cycle) safely. Motorboatmaggie
  • Score: 4

3:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

SotonNorth wrote:
As I have said in the past, not sure what part of Holland the council went to, because I've never seen anything like this junction over in Holland. In most situations over there cycleways are completely segregated from roadways and traffic lights operate differently. This junction is a typical hair-brained British fudge. Give it a few years of the council licking their wounds and I suspect the junction will be rebuilt as a standard signalised junction, no doubt with the standard "everybody sat on a red light" four way sequencing that cripples the city.
Surely the simplest solution would be to have a "cycling only"phase indicated by a green or red cycle icon similar to the walking man on pedestrian crossings,so that cycles and motorist would never actually be moving at the the same time,eliminating the possibility of collision.
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: As I have said in the past, not sure what part of Holland the council went to, because I've never seen anything like this junction over in Holland. In most situations over there cycleways are completely segregated from roadways and traffic lights operate differently. This junction is a typical hair-brained British fudge. Give it a few years of the council licking their wounds and I suspect the junction will be rebuilt as a standard signalised junction, no doubt with the standard "everybody sat on a red light" four way sequencing that cripples the city.[/p][/quote]Surely the simplest solution would be to have a "cycling only"phase indicated by a green or red cycle icon similar to the walking man on pedestrian crossings,so that cycles and motorist would never actually be moving at the the same time,eliminating the possibility of collision. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 4

3:35pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ladyinred says...

I have noticed that the traffic signals are not in synch the green lght on saltmarsh road is on at the same time as the green light on the opposite junction therefore both sets of traffic are truing to get round each other
I have noticed that the traffic signals are not in synch the green lght on saltmarsh road is on at the same time as the green light on the opposite junction therefore both sets of traffic are truing to get round each other ladyinred
  • Score: 1

3:53pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

ladyinred wrote:
I have noticed that the traffic signals are not in synch the green lght on saltmarsh road is on at the same time as the green light on the opposite junction therefore both sets of traffic are truing to get round each other
The traffic lights at the Leigh Rd Passfield Avenue crossroads in Eastleigh were staggered to start with,and there were so many accidents,it was changed to a one at a time phase,which works perfectly,and there are no accidents any more,and also includes cyclist bays.
[quote][p][bold]ladyinred[/bold] wrote: I have noticed that the traffic signals are not in synch the green lght on saltmarsh road is on at the same time as the green light on the opposite junction therefore both sets of traffic are truing to get round each other[/p][/quote]The traffic lights at the Leigh Rd Passfield Avenue crossroads in Eastleigh were staggered to start with,and there were so many accidents,it was changed to a one at a time phase,which works perfectly,and there are no accidents any more,and also includes cyclist bays. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 2

4:16pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
Still taking the bait after all these years.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.[/p][/quote]Still taking the bait after all these years. charrlee
  • Score: 2

4:26pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free. charrlee
  • Score: -4

4:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

4:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Richard 51 says...

Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Ther is no such thing as road tax - we now pay council and we all have to pay that
[quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Ther is no such thing as road tax - we now pay council and we all have to pay that Richard 51
  • Score: 4

4:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -4

4:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

4:53pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

4:54pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

4:58pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

5:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

chestnuts90 says...

So here we go again with Soton City Council Transport Department yet another major disaster designed and constructed without competent and intelligent planning. This is, make no mistake,a fatality in the waiting and the Council will have blood on their hands .Jacqui Rayment should resign now, as quite clearly she is not up to the mark, before the Council waste even more money on so called road improvement schemes. I cycle on occasions and quite frankly this junction scares me to death and I for one will not cycle over the bridge any more. 1.7 million pounds of totally wasted taxpayers money.As a beside just how much money was wasted on the toll drop barriers that are now redundant.
So here we go again with Soton City Council Transport Department yet another major disaster designed and constructed without competent and intelligent planning. This is, make no mistake,a fatality in the waiting and the Council will have blood on their hands .Jacqui Rayment should resign now, as quite clearly she is not up to the mark, before the Council waste even more money on so called road improvement schemes. I cycle on occasions and quite frankly this junction scares me to death and I for one will not cycle over the bridge any more. 1.7 million pounds of totally wasted taxpayers money.As a beside just how much money was wasted on the toll drop barriers that are now redundant. chestnuts90
  • Score: 5

5:21pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

6:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

6:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tootle says...

bigfella777 wrote:
I cycled over there this morning in high wind across the bridge from Woolston, I wanted to turn right towards the stadium, I don't understand where I'm supposed to go, do I stay in the green cycle lane or go into the normal lane?
I couldn't turn right because cars were coming past me at speed to go straight on, I just ended up stranded at the side until the lights went red and I could go right, which I suppose was illegal.
It's a joke, we were supposed to have priority lights.
Priority lights or not it was my understanding that cyclists were to be separated from motorists and have their own lights ie they were safe from us and we didn't have to double guess them(waving two fingers at saddle height to turn right was not an accepted signal in my young days). Also there is no seperation - not even a white line. Been waiting for it to appear. Daughter loves the pedestrian lights and thought the crossing of the bike lane to get the bus wasn't a problem - something oviously not shared by the family with buggy half ready to get on bus and half yet to cross the lane because there wan't room on the actual pavement bit of the bus stop nearest the road!. Ill thought out, waste of money, plenty of other cheaper options available.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: I cycled over there this morning in high wind across the bridge from Woolston, I wanted to turn right towards the stadium, I don't understand where I'm supposed to go, do I stay in the green cycle lane or go into the normal lane? I couldn't turn right because cars were coming past me at speed to go straight on, I just ended up stranded at the side until the lights went red and I could go right, which I suppose was illegal. It's a joke, we were supposed to have priority lights.[/p][/quote]Priority lights or not it was my understanding that cyclists were to be separated from motorists and have their own lights ie they were safe from us and we didn't have to double guess them(waving two fingers at saddle height to turn right was not an accepted signal in my young days). Also there is no seperation - not even a white line. Been waiting for it to appear. Daughter loves the pedestrian lights and thought the crossing of the bike lane to get the bus wasn't a problem - something oviously not shared by the family with buggy half ready to get on bus and half yet to cross the lane because there wan't room on the actual pavement bit of the bus stop nearest the road!. Ill thought out, waste of money, plenty of other cheaper options available. tootle
  • Score: 2

6:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SOULJACKER says...

Oh well bugger me, Southampton council balls it up again, well done!
This is a classic case of some idiot sitting at his desk with too much time on his hands.
Not fit for purpose as usual :(
Oh well bugger me, Southampton council balls it up again, well done! This is a classic case of some idiot sitting at his desk with too much time on his hands. Not fit for purpose as usual :( SOULJACKER
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you? charrlee
  • Score: 3

6:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SteveinTotton says...

What they need here is a roundabout, 1.5m of cycle lane on each side of the bridge. Also have a 20mph variable speed limit from the toll all the way to the other end.
What they need here is a roundabout, 1.5m of cycle lane on each side of the bridge. Also have a 20mph variable speed limit from the toll all the way to the other end. SteveinTotton
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tootle says...

Irrespective of the expectations of drivers and cyclists for this new junction, nothing will help a cyclist who "jumps the Lights" You can paint whatever colour paint you like on this junction but the only way for this road to be safe for cyclists is if they themselves obey the Highway Code-not like the several lycra clad riders who "zipped" over the junction against the lights whilst I was stopped
Irrespective of the expectations of drivers and cyclists for this new junction, nothing will help a cyclist who "jumps the Lights" You can paint whatever colour paint you like on this junction but the only way for this road to be safe for cyclists is if they themselves obey the Highway Code-not like the several lycra clad riders who "zipped" over the junction against the lights whilst I was stopped tootle
  • Score: 1

7:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

Well we should have known it would turn to crap the sea city museum the Eastpoint Centre is all proof our council p!ss away money like its going out of style
Well we should have known it would turn to crap the sea city museum the Eastpoint Centre is all proof our council p!ss away money like its going out of style Mary80
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

7:58pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?
Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?[/p][/quote]Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

8:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

8:15pm Thu 27 Feb 14

downfader says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected.

If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected. If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do. downfader
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Thu 27 Feb 14

loosehead says...

So we have the people who worked with the council saying this isn't what they planned for.
We have cyclists saying it's dangerous we have car drivers saying it's dangerous & both sets of road users are blaming the lay out & lack of lights.
Rayment on the other hand says it's not the lay out so who's right?
this is what she says
“However, early indications from the investigation show that the new layout of the junction is not a contributory factor in the accident.

“We invest in new designs and work with our partners to improve routes and safety for cyclists in the city.

“The design of this junction has been taken from a tried and tested Continental-style junction and passed several safety audits with one more taking place on the 10th.

“As with all new road layouts both cyclists and drivers should take extra care when approaching and crossing through this junction and we have placed signs to warn drivers and cyclists to proceed with caution.”
so is it safe for cyclists? is it accident prone who's right this woman who's a proven liar or the cyclists & drivers?
So we have the people who worked with the council saying this isn't what they planned for. We have cyclists saying it's dangerous we have car drivers saying it's dangerous & both sets of road users are blaming the lay out & lack of lights. Rayment on the other hand says it's not the lay out so who's right? this is what she says “However, early indications from the investigation show that the new layout of the junction is not a contributory factor in the accident. “We invest in new designs and work with our partners to improve routes and safety for cyclists in the city. “The design of this junction has been taken from a tried and tested Continental-style junction and passed several safety audits with one more taking place on the 10th. “As with all new road layouts both cyclists and drivers should take extra care when approaching and crossing through this junction and we have placed signs to warn drivers and cyclists to proceed with caution.” so is it safe for cyclists? is it accident prone who's right this woman who's a proven liar or the cyclists & drivers? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dand_uk says...

everyone has a right to use the roads by bike or car. Roads are paid for out of general taxation (inc. council tax). Does this mean people with bigger houses have more rights on the road? No.

Back to topic - this route was supposed to ENCOURAGE new people to try cycling. To do this it has to FEEL safe (not just be statistically safe), and be a place where people of all ages can cycle leisurely and calmly.

As you can see by the comments from people who use this junction the council have achieved the complete opposite.
everyone has a right to use the roads by bike or car. Roads are paid for out of general taxation (inc. council tax). Does this mean people with bigger houses have more rights on the road? No. Back to topic - this route was supposed to ENCOURAGE new people to try cycling. To do this it has to FEEL safe (not just be statistically safe), and be a place where people of all ages can cycle leisurely and calmly. As you can see by the comments from people who use this junction the council have achieved the complete opposite. dand_uk
  • Score: 1

9:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

seven777. says...

This not a cyclist vs car issue it should be about the safety of all road users and a not fit for purpose council who couldn’t plan and run a way of crossing the road let alone a whole city.
This not a cyclist vs car issue it should be about the safety of all road users and a not fit for purpose council who couldn’t plan and run a way of crossing the road let alone a whole city. seven777.
  • Score: 1

9:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Zexagon says...

downfader wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected.

If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.
Yes all cyclists are toned Adonis 's
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected. If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.[/p][/quote]Yes all cyclists are toned Adonis 's Zexagon
  • Score: 3

9:56pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?
Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.
I've ben reading these forums for some time, but not felt inclined to join the battle, as I always seemed to agree with someone or other. Pretty redundant to chip in with "I agree", don't you think?
I just remember you talking about living at home, that's all. Nothing wrong with that, is there? However, if I've offended you I apologise, and I'll explain why I mentioned it. You make some very good points most times - you're almost like the cyclists "duty solicitor" here!

Now. Whatever it's called - road tax, VED, council tax - motorists are making a contribution towards the maintenance of the roads, one way or another. Cyclists do not, as far as I know. Because they are in the majority, you have to like it or lump it if 4-wheel+ vehicle drivers see the roads as principally for them. Remember that, for the most part, cycle lanes have been added long after the original construction of most roads. The pavements that have been given dual status with cyclists were originally for pedestrians only.
Britain used to be cycling mad years ago - everybody had a bike. Didn't we invent it? Don't know. I used to love riding out round Fair Oak. And hurtling down Cutbush Lane, and the newly-built Townhill Park Way. Most "Thorny's" and Pirelli's workers rode bikes, and you dare not drive in Woolston or over town when the 5 o'clock whistle blew!
I suppose as the roads steadily got busier and busier through the 70's and 80's, and the docks, Pirellis and Thornycrofts closed down, the bicycle disappeared, to a great extent, off the roads of Southampton.
Cycling has made a comeback at a very difficult time when Southampton's roads are already massively congested with traffic. Drivers see cyclists as adding to an already difficult situation.
Cameron and Johnson have been almost childishly over-zealous in encouraging cyclists, particularly young and inexperienced people, onto a road system that is for the most part ill-prepared for them.
The new breed of cyclist is not like the old "workie", slowly coaxing a single-speed machine along at about 5mph. They are young, healthy men and women, wizzing around on racing cycles at between 15 and 25mph - often much faster.
The fact that a good 50% of cyclists and drivers would not pass any test at all if they did what they do most days they go out, means we have a very dangerous situation.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?[/p][/quote]Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.[/p][/quote]I've ben reading these forums for some time, but not felt inclined to join the battle, as I always seemed to agree with someone or other. Pretty redundant to chip in with "I agree", don't you think? I just remember you talking about living at home, that's all. Nothing wrong with that, is there? However, if I've offended you I apologise, and I'll explain why I mentioned it. You make some very good points most times - you're almost like the cyclists "duty solicitor" here! Now. Whatever it's called - road tax, VED, council tax - motorists are making a contribution towards the maintenance of the roads, one way or another. Cyclists do not, as far as I know. Because they are in the majority, you have to like it or lump it if 4-wheel+ vehicle drivers see the roads as principally for them. Remember that, for the most part, cycle lanes have been added long after the original construction of most roads. The pavements that have been given dual status with cyclists were originally for pedestrians only. Britain used to be cycling mad years ago - everybody had a bike. Didn't we invent it? Don't know. I used to love riding out round Fair Oak. And hurtling down Cutbush Lane, and the newly-built Townhill Park Way. Most "Thorny's" and Pirelli's workers rode bikes, and you dare not drive in Woolston or over town when the 5 o'clock whistle blew! I suppose as the roads steadily got busier and busier through the 70's and 80's, and the docks, Pirellis and Thornycrofts closed down, the bicycle disappeared, to a great extent, off the roads of Southampton. Cycling has made a comeback at a very difficult time when Southampton's roads are already massively congested with traffic. Drivers see cyclists as adding to an already difficult situation. Cameron and Johnson have been almost childishly over-zealous in encouraging cyclists, particularly young and inexperienced people, onto a road system that is for the most part ill-prepared for them. The new breed of cyclist is not like the old "workie", slowly coaxing a single-speed machine along at about 5mph. They are young, healthy men and women, wizzing around on racing cycles at between 15 and 25mph - often much faster. The fact that a good 50% of cyclists and drivers would not pass any test at all if they did what they do most days they go out, means we have a very dangerous situation. charrlee
  • Score: 1

10:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

downfader wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected.

If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.
Still the worst ambassador the cycling fraternity ever had, eh, downfader?

Your comment is extremely personal, rude, arrogant and pompous in no more than 50 words, which you will, of course, deny. Why do you do it?
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected. If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.[/p][/quote]Still the worst ambassador the cycling fraternity ever had, eh, downfader? Your comment is extremely personal, rude, arrogant and pompous in no more than 50 words, which you will, of course, deny. Why do you do it? charrlee
  • Score: -3

10:17pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUTRoad tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?That's what a new "Cyclist's TaxBut you made the decision to buy a car and accept the various costs related to that. Why should some ones have to pay something because you do.

Where do you all think the money from VED, dvla, mots etc goes?
How do you think the roads are paid for?

None of what you pay goes directly to roads it all goes into one big pot and mr Cameron and his mates decide how that big pot is allocated.

If you feel so passionately about cyclists paying the same then you should start having a to at prious drivers too because they pay the same amount of VED as cyclists do.

Also I suggest you start lobbying your local councilor to see if he can raise in parliament, don't have a go at ginger he does not write the law

Does my two year daughter need a number plate and tax on her tricycle. Or my 7 year old on his bike as he goes on your road too and he does not pay council tax either, he's a proper freeloader.

I personage pay as much as you do in running my car and in council tax. I cycle on the road free of charge as allowed by law. Complain to government not cyclists.

There's more to life than worrying about who pays what.

My father in law pays 20 quid year to tax his I must remind him to offer to pay more so it's fairer to you
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's TaxBut you made the decision to buy a car and accept the various costs related to that. Why should some ones have to pay something because you do. Where do you all think the money from VED, dvla, mots etc goes? How do you think the roads are paid for? None of what you pay goes directly to roads it all goes into one big pot and mr Cameron and his mates decide how that big pot is allocated. If you feel so passionately about cyclists paying the same then you should start having a to at prious drivers too because they pay the same amount of VED as cyclists do. Also I suggest you start lobbying your local councilor to see if he can raise in parliament, don't have a go at ginger he does not write the law Does my two year daughter need a number plate and tax on her tricycle. Or my 7 year old on his bike as he goes on your road too and he does not pay council tax either, he's a proper freeloader. I personage pay as much as you do in running my car and in council tax. I cycle on the road free of charge as allowed by law. Complain to government not cyclists. There's more to life than worrying about who pays what. My father in law pays 20 quid year to tax his I must remind him to offer to pay more so it's fairer to you southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?
Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.
I've ben reading these forums for some time, but not felt inclined to join the battle, as I always seemed to agree with someone or other. Pretty redundant to chip in with "I agree", don't you think?
I just remember you talking about living at home, that's all. Nothing wrong with that, is there? However, if I've offended you I apologise, and I'll explain why I mentioned it. You make some very good points most times - you're almost like the cyclists "duty solicitor" here!

Now. Whatever it's called - road tax, VED, council tax - motorists are making a contribution towards the maintenance of the roads, one way or another. Cyclists do not, as far as I know. Because they are in the majority, you have to like it or lump it if 4-wheel+ vehicle drivers see the roads as principally for them. Remember that, for the most part, cycle lanes have been added long after the original construction of most roads. The pavements that have been given dual status with cyclists were originally for pedestrians only.
Britain used to be cycling mad years ago - everybody had a bike. Didn't we invent it? Don't know. I used to love riding out round Fair Oak. And hurtling down Cutbush Lane, and the newly-built Townhill Park Way. Most "Thorny's" and Pirelli's workers rode bikes, and you dare not drive in Woolston or over town when the 5 o'clock whistle blew!
I suppose as the roads steadily got busier and busier through the 70's and 80's, and the docks, Pirellis and Thornycrofts closed down, the bicycle disappeared, to a great extent, off the roads of Southampton.
Cycling has made a comeback at a very difficult time when Southampton's roads are already massively congested with traffic. Drivers see cyclists as adding to an already difficult situation.
Cameron and Johnson have been almost childishly over-zealous in encouraging cyclists, particularly young and inexperienced people, onto a road system that is for the most part ill-prepared for them.
The new breed of cyclist is not like the old "workie", slowly coaxing a single-speed machine along at about 5mph. They are young, healthy men and women, wizzing around on racing cycles at between 15 and 25mph - often much faster.
The fact that a good 50% of cyclists and drivers would not pass any test at all if they did what they do most days they go out, means we have a very dangerous situation.
Another cracking post Charrlee!
And I well remember Eastleigh when Caustons,Pirellis, the railway works and Fords workers were all turning out on their bikes.If you were going in the opposite direction to the flow,you felt a bit like a salmon,trying to swim upstream.Southampton road looked more like a street in Amsterdam or Bejing!
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?[/p][/quote]Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.[/p][/quote]I've ben reading these forums for some time, but not felt inclined to join the battle, as I always seemed to agree with someone or other. Pretty redundant to chip in with "I agree", don't you think? I just remember you talking about living at home, that's all. Nothing wrong with that, is there? However, if I've offended you I apologise, and I'll explain why I mentioned it. You make some very good points most times - you're almost like the cyclists "duty solicitor" here! Now. Whatever it's called - road tax, VED, council tax - motorists are making a contribution towards the maintenance of the roads, one way or another. Cyclists do not, as far as I know. Because they are in the majority, you have to like it or lump it if 4-wheel+ vehicle drivers see the roads as principally for them. Remember that, for the most part, cycle lanes have been added long after the original construction of most roads. The pavements that have been given dual status with cyclists were originally for pedestrians only. Britain used to be cycling mad years ago - everybody had a bike. Didn't we invent it? Don't know. I used to love riding out round Fair Oak. And hurtling down Cutbush Lane, and the newly-built Townhill Park Way. Most "Thorny's" and Pirelli's workers rode bikes, and you dare not drive in Woolston or over town when the 5 o'clock whistle blew! I suppose as the roads steadily got busier and busier through the 70's and 80's, and the docks, Pirellis and Thornycrofts closed down, the bicycle disappeared, to a great extent, off the roads of Southampton. Cycling has made a comeback at a very difficult time when Southampton's roads are already massively congested with traffic. Drivers see cyclists as adding to an already difficult situation. Cameron and Johnson have been almost childishly over-zealous in encouraging cyclists, particularly young and inexperienced people, onto a road system that is for the most part ill-prepared for them. The new breed of cyclist is not like the old "workie", slowly coaxing a single-speed machine along at about 5mph. They are young, healthy men and women, wizzing around on racing cycles at between 15 and 25mph - often much faster. The fact that a good 50% of cyclists and drivers would not pass any test at all if they did what they do most days they go out, means we have a very dangerous situation.[/p][/quote]Another cracking post Charrlee! And I well remember Eastleigh when Caustons,Pirellis, the railway works and Fords workers were all turning out on their bikes.If you were going in the opposite direction to the flow,you felt a bit like a salmon,trying to swim upstream.Southampton road looked more like a street in Amsterdam or Bejing! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

10:35pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southamptonadi says...

I'll apologise to the grammar police, I did not realise the iPad had auto correct next time I will proof read it.

In my head it was polite, subjective and reasoned did not come across like that, sorry.
I'll apologise to the grammar police, I did not realise the iPad had auto correct next time I will proof read it. In my head it was polite, subjective and reasoned did not come across like that, sorry. southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Thu 27 Feb 14

drakey says...

I Cycle this daily, its not safe, the green paint and arrows that don't make sense, its unclear to motorists and cyclist, council sort it out, before someone gets seriously injured or worse!
I Cycle this daily, its not safe, the green paint and arrows that don't make sense, its unclear to motorists and cyclist, council sort it out, before someone gets seriously injured or worse! drakey
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUTRoad tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?That's what a new "Cyclist's TaxBut you made the decision to buy a car and accept the various costs related to that. Why should some ones have to pay something because you do.

Where do you all think the money from VED, dvla, mots etc goes?
How do you think the roads are paid for?

None of what you pay goes directly to roads it all goes into one big pot and mr Cameron and his mates decide how that big pot is allocated.

If you feel so passionately about cyclists paying the same then you should start having a to at prious drivers too because they pay the same amount of VED as cyclists do.

Also I suggest you start lobbying your local councilor to see if he can raise in parliament, don't have a go at ginger he does not write the law

Does my two year daughter need a number plate and tax on her tricycle. Or my 7 year old on his bike as he goes on your road too and he does not pay council tax either, he's a proper freeloader.

I personage pay as much as you do in running my car and in council tax. I cycle on the road free of charge as allowed by law. Complain to government not cyclists.

There's more to life than worrying about who pays what.

My father in law pays 20 quid year to tax his I must remind him to offer to pay more so it's fairer to youThat's all right!

Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's TaxBut you made the decision to buy a car and accept the various costs related to that. Why should some ones have to pay something because you do. Where do you all think the money from VED, dvla, mots etc goes? How do you think the roads are paid for? None of what you pay goes directly to roads it all goes into one big pot and mr Cameron and his mates decide how that big pot is allocated. If you feel so passionately about cyclists paying the same then you should start having a to at prious drivers too because they pay the same amount of VED as cyclists do. Also I suggest you start lobbying your local councilor to see if he can raise in parliament, don't have a go at ginger he does not write the law Does my two year daughter need a number plate and tax on her tricycle. Or my 7 year old on his bike as he goes on your road too and he does not pay council tax either, he's a proper freeloader. I personage pay as much as you do in running my car and in council tax. I cycle on the road free of charge as allowed by law. Complain to government not cyclists. There's more to life than worrying about who pays what. My father in law pays 20 quid year to tax his I must remind him to offer to pay more so it's fairer to you[/p][/quote]That's all right! Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you? charrlee
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dolomiteman says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
Yes like the cyclist who think that they can go straight ahead whilst passing on the nearside of a car turning left, if a car is indicating left and you are behind that car common sense (and the highway code) says don't undertake.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.[/p][/quote]Yes like the cyclist who think that they can go straight ahead whilst passing on the nearside of a car turning left, if a car is indicating left and you are behind that car common sense (and the highway code) says don't undertake. dolomiteman
  • Score: 3

11:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

charrlee says...

How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post?

My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is :

Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?
How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post? My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is : Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you? charrlee
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?
Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.
I've ben reading these forums for some time, but not felt inclined to join the battle, as I always seemed to agree with someone or other. Pretty redundant to chip in with "I agree", don't you think?
I just remember you talking about living at home, that's all. Nothing wrong with that, is there? However, if I've offended you I apologise, and I'll explain why I mentioned it. You make some very good points most times - you're almost like the cyclists "duty solicitor" here!

Now. Whatever it's called - road tax, VED, council tax - motorists are making a contribution towards the maintenance of the roads, one way or another. Cyclists do not, as far as I know. Because they are in the majority, you have to like it or lump it if 4-wheel+ vehicle drivers see the roads as principally for them. Remember that, for the most part, cycle lanes have been added long after the original construction of most roads. The pavements that have been given dual status with cyclists were originally for pedestrians only.
Britain used to be cycling mad years ago - everybody had a bike. Didn't we invent it? Don't know. I used to love riding out round Fair Oak. And hurtling down Cutbush Lane, and the newly-built Townhill Park Way. Most "Thorny's" and Pirelli's workers rode bikes, and you dare not drive in Woolston or over town when the 5 o'clock whistle blew!
I suppose as the roads steadily got busier and busier through the 70's and 80's, and the docks, Pirellis and Thornycrofts closed down, the bicycle disappeared, to a great extent, off the roads of Southampton.
Cycling has made a comeback at a very difficult time when Southampton's roads are already massively congested with traffic. Drivers see cyclists as adding to an already difficult situation.
Cameron and Johnson have been almost childishly over-zealous in encouraging cyclists, particularly young and inexperienced people, onto a road system that is for the most part ill-prepared for them.
The new breed of cyclist is not like the old "workie", slowly coaxing a single-speed machine along at about 5mph. They are young, healthy men and women, wizzing around on racing cycles at between 15 and 25mph - often much faster.
The fact that a good 50% of cyclists and drivers would not pass any test at all if they did what they do most days they go out, means we have a very dangerous situation.
You know that cyclists were the ones who brought about the idea for modern, paved, dust free roads right? Yet cyclists never claimed ownership, the car was the late comer to the road party, infact, the roads were NEVER designed to take weights of several tonnes up to several hundred tonnes that they see these days, the only roads that have EVER been exclusively designed for cars, are the motorways and a number of A-roads, it's cars that towns and cities(including the roads), weren't ever prepared for, ESPECIALLY at the vast volumes that they see today.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]But YOU don't pay council tax, do you, Ginger? Cos you live at home with your Mum, don't you?[/p][/quote]Be careful with making assumptions, they can quite easily back fire on you.[/p][/quote]I've ben reading these forums for some time, but not felt inclined to join the battle, as I always seemed to agree with someone or other. Pretty redundant to chip in with "I agree", don't you think? I just remember you talking about living at home, that's all. Nothing wrong with that, is there? However, if I've offended you I apologise, and I'll explain why I mentioned it. You make some very good points most times - you're almost like the cyclists "duty solicitor" here! Now. Whatever it's called - road tax, VED, council tax - motorists are making a contribution towards the maintenance of the roads, one way or another. Cyclists do not, as far as I know. Because they are in the majority, you have to like it or lump it if 4-wheel+ vehicle drivers see the roads as principally for them. Remember that, for the most part, cycle lanes have been added long after the original construction of most roads. The pavements that have been given dual status with cyclists were originally for pedestrians only. Britain used to be cycling mad years ago - everybody had a bike. Didn't we invent it? Don't know. I used to love riding out round Fair Oak. And hurtling down Cutbush Lane, and the newly-built Townhill Park Way. Most "Thorny's" and Pirelli's workers rode bikes, and you dare not drive in Woolston or over town when the 5 o'clock whistle blew! I suppose as the roads steadily got busier and busier through the 70's and 80's, and the docks, Pirellis and Thornycrofts closed down, the bicycle disappeared, to a great extent, off the roads of Southampton. Cycling has made a comeback at a very difficult time when Southampton's roads are already massively congested with traffic. Drivers see cyclists as adding to an already difficult situation. Cameron and Johnson have been almost childishly over-zealous in encouraging cyclists, particularly young and inexperienced people, onto a road system that is for the most part ill-prepared for them. The new breed of cyclist is not like the old "workie", slowly coaxing a single-speed machine along at about 5mph. They are young, healthy men and women, wizzing around on racing cycles at between 15 and 25mph - often much faster. The fact that a good 50% of cyclists and drivers would not pass any test at all if they did what they do most days they go out, means we have a very dangerous situation.[/p][/quote]You know that cyclists were the ones who brought about the idea for modern, paved, dust free roads right? Yet cyclists never claimed ownership, the car was the late comer to the road party, infact, the roads were NEVER designed to take weights of several tonnes up to several hundred tonnes that they see these days, the only roads that have EVER been exclusively designed for cars, are the motorways and a number of A-roads, it's cars that towns and cities(including the roads), weren't ever prepared for, ESPECIALLY at the vast volumes that they see today. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

dolomiteman wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
Yes like the cyclist who think that they can go straight ahead whilst passing on the nearside of a car turning left, if a car is indicating left and you are behind that car common sense (and the highway code) says don't undertake.
What about the motorist that overtakes that cyclist only to emediately turn left across that cyclists path and then try saying that the cyclist was trying to undertake while their indicators were going even though they know it's total bull?
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.[/p][/quote]Yes like the cyclist who think that they can go straight ahead whilst passing on the nearside of a car turning left, if a car is indicating left and you are behind that car common sense (and the highway code) says don't undertake.[/p][/quote]What about the motorist that overtakes that cyclist only to emediately turn left across that cyclists path and then try saying that the cyclist was trying to undertake while their indicators were going even though they know it's total bull? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post?

My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is :

Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?
Well, one of those things you'll LEGALLY be allowed to do soon anyway.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post? My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is : Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?[/p][/quote]Well, one of those things you'll LEGALLY be allowed to do soon anyway. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

12:12am Fri 28 Feb 14

george h says...

S Pance wrote:
Hold on.

Jaqui Rayment is quoted in the paper as saying she can't comment because there is an open investigation and thus it's too early to say what the conclusion of that investigation is.

However, she goes on to say that the new junction is not a contributory factor!!

I mean, how does she know if the investigation is still at the early stages?!

The sooner the people of Southampton get rid of Ms raiment, the better, IMHO!!
So the Fat Controller, Cllr Jaqui Rayment, the proven liar, is up to her old tricks of avoiding responsibility again.

First she wrongly states that because there is an active police inquiry we cannot discuss the accident. WRONG AGAIN JACQUI. No one has been arrested or charged. The usual rules are that the matter becomes sub judice only when a suspect is charged. So who benefits from closing down discussion. Why, none other than Fat Controller Jacqui Rayment herself. Now there's a surprise.

Then she states "“However, early indications from the investigation show that the new layout of the junction is not a contributory factor in the accident.".

WOW! Now is that merely quixotic or just plain stupid. She comments on the investigation in the sentence following the one where she urged others not to comment. To be scrupulously fair to the Fat Controller, she has never been noted for her intellect. Always a brain-cell short of a matching pair.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Hold on. Jaqui Rayment is quoted in the paper as saying she can't comment because there is an open investigation and thus it's too early to say what the conclusion of that investigation is. However, she goes on to say that the new junction is not a contributory factor!! I mean, how does she know if the investigation is still at the early stages?! The sooner the people of Southampton get rid of Ms raiment, the better, IMHO!![/p][/quote]So the Fat Controller, Cllr Jaqui Rayment, the proven liar, is up to her old tricks of avoiding responsibility again. First she wrongly states that because there is an active police inquiry we cannot discuss the accident. WRONG AGAIN JACQUI. No one has been arrested or charged. The usual rules are that the matter becomes sub judice only when a suspect is charged. So who benefits from closing down discussion. Why, none other than Fat Controller Jacqui Rayment herself. Now there's a surprise. Then she states "“However, early indications from the investigation show that the new layout of the junction is not a contributory factor in the accident.". WOW! Now is that merely quixotic or just plain stupid. She comments on the investigation in the sentence following the one where she urged others not to comment. To be scrupulously fair to the Fat Controller, she has never been noted for her intellect. Always a brain-cell short of a matching pair. george h
  • Score: 1

12:14am Fri 28 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

12:36am Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:56am Fri 28 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride". Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

1:00am Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".[/p][/quote]And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:36am Fri 28 Feb 14

loosehead says...

forget about who's paying tax this is about an article on the safety of a new road lay out that was meant to make it safer for all road users.
safer for cyclists & safer for cars cyclists wouldn't get hit by cars & car drivers wouldn't have to live with the awful feeling when they've hit & killed a cyclist.
you have both road users on here saying this junction is an accident waiting to happen but then Rayment is saying there's nothing wrong with it? she doesn't look as if she uses a cycle I wonder what Rowenna thinks of this junction?
Who's right the road users or the councillor?
forget about who's paying tax this is about an article on the safety of a new road lay out that was meant to make it safer for all road users. safer for cyclists & safer for cars cyclists wouldn't get hit by cars & car drivers wouldn't have to live with the awful feeling when they've hit & killed a cyclist. you have both road users on here saying this junction is an accident waiting to happen but then Rayment is saying there's nothing wrong with it? she doesn't look as if she uses a cycle I wonder what Rowenna thinks of this junction? Who's right the road users or the councillor? loosehead
  • Score: 2

6:48am Fri 28 Feb 14

fishingnut says...

first time i used this new junction on my bike i had to slam the brakes on as a car was turnng left into 'ov'. ive never had troubles with the old lay-out!!!. what a compleat wast of money!!!!!
first time i used this new junction on my bike i had to slam the brakes on as a car was turnng left into 'ov'. ive never had troubles with the old lay-out!!!. what a compleat wast of money!!!!! fishingnut
  • Score: 0

7:59am Fri 28 Feb 14

tootle says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
motorizer wrote:
the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....
You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.
Yes like the cyclist who think that they can go straight ahead whilst passing on the nearside of a car turning left, if a car is indicating left and you are behind that car common sense (and the highway code) says don't undertake.
What about the motorist that overtakes that cyclist only to emediately turn left across that cyclists path and then try saying that the cyclist was trying to undertake while their indicators were going even though they know it's total bull?
Seems to sum up the problem with this junction. If you have a seperate lane, marked as such, that runs along the other road(like the motorway up at hedge end) then you are NOT undertaking if you go past traffic in the "outside lanes" because they are on a different road.
The grren painted cycle lanes make it appear that this total seperation also applies at this junction. Therefore a green light for motorists should indicate freedom to drive without worrying about cyclists in the blind spot. The green lines should mean the same for cyclists except the lights aren't there.

It is all confusing. I am going straight on at a slow speed whenever i use the bridge, which isn't often as I prefer Northam Bridge these days! A much easier drive.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motorizer[/bold] wrote: the day i see a cyclist actually observing the highway code will be the day I believe they actually are victims of anything..most I see are complete morons .....[/p][/quote]You mean a minority that you see and the same could be saidabout a minority of motorists.[/p][/quote]Yes like the cyclist who think that they can go straight ahead whilst passing on the nearside of a car turning left, if a car is indicating left and you are behind that car common sense (and the highway code) says don't undertake.[/p][/quote]What about the motorist that overtakes that cyclist only to emediately turn left across that cyclists path and then try saying that the cyclist was trying to undertake while their indicators were going even though they know it's total bull?[/p][/quote]Seems to sum up the problem with this junction. If you have a seperate lane, marked as such, that runs along the other road(like the motorway up at hedge end) then you are NOT undertaking if you go past traffic in the "outside lanes" because they are on a different road. The grren painted cycle lanes make it appear that this total seperation also applies at this junction. Therefore a green light for motorists should indicate freedom to drive without worrying about cyclists in the blind spot. The green lines should mean the same for cyclists except the lights aren't there. It is all confusing. I am going straight on at a slow speed whenever i use the bridge, which isn't often as I prefer Northam Bridge these days! A much easier drive. tootle
  • Score: 0

8:11am Fri 28 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.
Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste
red, untested,unidentifia
ble and unregulated though.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".[/p][/quote]And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.[/p][/quote]Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste red, untested,unidentifia ble and unregulated though. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

9:32am Fri 28 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.
Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste

red, untested,unidentifia

ble and unregulated though.
I take issue with this stance for the reason that new bikes would not be sold by vendors if they were not tested and roadworthy - same way as cars. Old 2nd hand bikes not so much, but I wouldn't buy one if I thought it wasn't roadworthy and given my knowledge and experience with them - I can tell. Like a mechanic can when he services a car.

Also, they are identifiable, just not by looking at them. Frames have numbers and cyclists who buy expensive bikes have the savvy to register this number. It's not legal but it is identifiable nonetheless.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".[/p][/quote]And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.[/p][/quote]Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste red, untested,unidentifia ble and unregulated though.[/p][/quote]I take issue with this stance for the reason that new bikes would not be sold by vendors if they were not tested and roadworthy - same way as cars. Old 2nd hand bikes not so much, but I wouldn't buy one if I thought it wasn't roadworthy and given my knowledge and experience with them - I can tell. Like a mechanic can when he services a car. Also, they are identifiable, just not by looking at them. Frames have numbers and cyclists who buy expensive bikes have the savvy to register this number. It's not legal but it is identifiable nonetheless. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

9:41am Fri 28 Feb 14

southamptonadi says...

charrlee wrote:
How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post?

My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is :

Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?
I was supporting ginger that's all, you may do as you wish as is your right to do so. But, I feel mr policeman may say something about it though.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post? My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is : Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?[/p][/quote]I was supporting ginger that's all, you may do as you wish as is your right to do so. But, I feel mr policeman may say something about it though. southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

9:41am Fri 28 Feb 14

southamptonadi says...

charrlee wrote:
How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post?

My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is :

Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?
I was supporting ginger that's all, you may do as you wish as is your right to do so. But, I feel mr policeman may say something about it though.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: How strange! How did my comment end up on Southamptonadi's post? My comment is, in reply to Southamptonadi, is : Us drivers will simply take our registration plates off, remove our tax disks, and drive all over the pavements, thus bringing us into line with the cyclists. That OK with you?[/p][/quote]I was supporting ginger that's all, you may do as you wish as is your right to do so. But, I feel mr policeman may say something about it though. southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

10:02am Fri 28 Feb 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.
Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste

red, untested,unidentifia

ble and unregulated though.
As allowed by law. Please contact you mp and discuss the revolution on cycling tax.

I don't think cyclists will ever be made to pay tax due to the hundred thousand and plus motor vehicles on the road that don't have to pay either.

I'm licensed in my car and insured in my car and bike.

Don't forget the how many thousands of motor cars being driven without licences, mot, insurance or tax. Apparently there are around 1.2 million of them adding 30quid to our premiums.

Let's just share a public road safely, and find a solution that will help save the user who is more at risk..

Please don't confuse us the the invisible pavement riding ninjas who jump red lights and annoy everyone. I follow the same Highway Code you do.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".[/p][/quote]And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.[/p][/quote]Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste red, untested,unidentifia ble and unregulated though.[/p][/quote]As allowed by law. Please contact you mp and discuss the revolution on cycling tax. I don't think cyclists will ever be made to pay tax due to the hundred thousand and plus motor vehicles on the road that don't have to pay either. I'm licensed in my car and insured in my car and bike. Don't forget the how many thousands of motor cars being driven without licences, mot, insurance or tax. Apparently there are around 1.2 million of them adding 30quid to our premiums. Let's just share a public road safely, and find a solution that will help save the user who is more at risk.. Please don't confuse us the the invisible pavement riding ninjas who jump red lights and annoy everyone. I follow the same Highway Code you do. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

11:18am Fri 28 Feb 14

Positively4thStreet says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.
Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste


red, untested,unidentifia


ble and unregulated though.
As allowed by law. Please contact you mp and discuss the revolution on cycling tax.

I don't think cyclists will ever be made to pay tax due to the hundred thousand and plus motor vehicles on the road that don't have to pay either.

I'm licensed in my car and insured in my car and bike.

Don't forget the how many thousands of motor cars being driven without licences, mot, insurance or tax. Apparently there are around 1.2 million of them adding 30quid to our premiums.

Let's just share a public road safely, and find a solution that will help save the user who is more at risk..

Please don't confuse us the the invisible pavement riding ninjas who jump red lights and annoy everyone. I follow the same Highway Code you do.
Fair comment adi.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".[/p][/quote]And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.[/p][/quote]Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste red, untested,unidentifia ble and unregulated though.[/p][/quote]As allowed by law. Please contact you mp and discuss the revolution on cycling tax. I don't think cyclists will ever be made to pay tax due to the hundred thousand and plus motor vehicles on the road that don't have to pay either. I'm licensed in my car and insured in my car and bike. Don't forget the how many thousands of motor cars being driven without licences, mot, insurance or tax. Apparently there are around 1.2 million of them adding 30quid to our premiums. Let's just share a public road safely, and find a solution that will help save the user who is more at risk.. Please don't confuse us the the invisible pavement riding ninjas who jump red lights and annoy everyone. I follow the same Highway Code you do.[/p][/quote]Fair comment adi. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

11:47am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dazman67 says...

Sniping between motorists and cyclists is tedious. You'd get more respect if you stick to the point.

Your council have introduced this junction to make it safer which, judging by public opinion, it isn't. Therefore, your beef should be with the council and not with 'contributors' who are quite clearly attempting to bait anyone with an opposing opinion.

If I come over Itchen Bridge and want to turn right into ARN, I used to go around the roundabout, sticking to the cycle lane and being aware of everything around me. This was very simple and meant I could continue with my journey with the momentum that the IB gave me. When you're on a bike, momentum is your friend.
Now, the TLAGP (traffic lights and green paint) dictate that I have to stop at the red light. I then turn left into RCR and rejoin the junction from the South, however I need to STOP again and WAIT for the lights to go green before I can GO straight across to ARN (at the same time trying to avoid the side-swipers coming from RCR onto Central Bridge).
Is this really how to use the TLAGP junction? Really? It begs belief!

Also, we have one bottleneck on the bridge - the toll booths. Who honestly thought it would be a good idea to introduce another bottleneck in the way of the TLAGP? This decision also begs belief.

And as for the cycle lane between the bus shelter and the island bus stop? Almost every time I have cycled across it I have encountered an oblivious pedestrian (note - no blame to anyone here.)
Why didn't they just move the bus shelter onto the island and divert the cycle lane into the gap that was left?

And why, oh why, don't the council try to make it totally safe by trying to SEPARATE cars from cyclists and pedestrians. Paint doesn't separate anything.

I stick to my original statement - bring back the roundabout and get rid of the TLAGP!
Sniping between motorists and cyclists is tedious. You'd get more respect if you stick to the point. Your council have introduced this junction to make it safer which, judging by public opinion, it isn't. Therefore, your beef should be with the council and not with 'contributors' who are quite clearly attempting to bait anyone with an opposing opinion. If I come over Itchen Bridge and want to turn right into ARN, I used to go around the roundabout, sticking to the cycle lane and being aware of everything around me. This was very simple and meant I could continue with my journey with the momentum that the IB gave me. When you're on a bike, momentum is your friend. Now, the TLAGP (traffic lights and green paint) dictate that I have to stop at the red light. I then turn left into RCR and rejoin the junction from the South, however I need to STOP again and WAIT for the lights to go green before I can GO straight across to ARN (at the same time trying to avoid the side-swipers coming from RCR onto Central Bridge). Is this really how to use the TLAGP junction? Really? It begs belief! Also, we have one bottleneck on the bridge - the toll booths. Who honestly thought it would be a good idea to introduce another bottleneck in the way of the TLAGP? This decision also begs belief. And as for the cycle lane between the bus shelter and the island bus stop? Almost every time I have cycled across it I have encountered an oblivious pedestrian (note - no blame to anyone here.) Why didn't they just move the bus shelter onto the island and divert the cycle lane into the gap that was left? And why, oh why, don't the council try to make it totally safe by trying to SEPARATE cars from cyclists and pedestrians. Paint doesn't separate anything. I stick to my original statement - bring back the roundabout and get rid of the TLAGP! Dazman67
  • Score: 0

11:50am Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?
That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.
Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.
C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.
But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.
Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then!
Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.
But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.
Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence.
So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?
Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle?
As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road?
That's some loophole!
Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low.
Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.
Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish.
Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.
First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally.
And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please...
Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?
Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".
And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.
Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste


red, untested,unidentifia


ble and unregulated though.
I take issue with this stance for the reason that new bikes would not be sold by vendors if they were not tested and roadworthy - same way as cars. Old 2nd hand bikes not so much, but I wouldn't buy one if I thought it wasn't roadworthy and given my knowledge and experience with them - I can tell. Like a mechanic can when he services a car.

Also, they are identifiable, just not by looking at them. Frames have numbers and cyclists who buy expensive bikes have the savvy to register this number. It's not legal but it is identifiable nonetheless.
Like I could tell that apart from gears and brakes, the last bike my friend gave me was roadworthy, the bike he gave me before that... Not so much, hence one was ridden home, the other was walked.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Roads are paid for out of council tax though, so by default, the majority of cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders AND motorists, make the same amount of contributions, as for the registration plates, are you willing to see a massive hike in taxes to pay for the extra policing and implimentation that would require and are you willing to make it impossible for children to cycle legally?[/p][/quote]That's what a new "Cyclist's Tax" would pay for.[/p][/quote]Which would see a dramatic decrease in cycling numbers and make it further impossible for children to legally cycle, not to mention it would be impossible to enforce AND would cost MORE to implement than it woud generate.[/p][/quote]C'mon Ginge, cyclists have been getting a free ride because of a massive loophole in the law for years,and you know it.Its a time of recession, be prepared to pay up like everyone else.[/p][/quote]But most DO pay, through COUNCIL tax.[/p][/quote]Right,well I don't cycle,I'm off to claim a rebate on my council tax then![/p][/quote]Do you drive? Do you walk? Do you use the bus? No matter how you get around, you still pay an EQUAL share to everyone else for road maintenance.[/p][/quote]But as a motorist,I also pay VED,insurance, MOT's,driving tests and licence fees,parking charges,tolls,and extortionate extra taxes on fuel.All of those constitute extra taxation,over and above those you've mentioned,for the privilege of taking a vehicle out onto the road,none of which cyclists have to pay...for taking their vehicle out on the road.[/p][/quote]Because a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle, why would a cyclist have to pay for VED, fuel, parking charges(because like with motorbikes they can pretty much be parked anywhere) or any of the others you mentioned? As for insurance, it's not required because the risk to others is so low, in fact it's so low, that it's too cheap to price, so third party cycle insurance is often thrown in with home and contents insurance, most cyclists take good care of their machines, they either fix it themselve(like I know some motorists do with their cars/bikes) or take it to a bicycle mechanic such as myself or the guy I know that actually has a workshop, again, because the risk to thers is so low compared to using a motor vehicle, you are nt required to have a licence to cycle, plus most cyclists ALSO hae a full driving licence like I do, we don't get charged tolls because we DON'T clog up the roads like motor vehicles do and the ONLY licence fee for driving that I know of, is the £50 flat rate, for obtaining a provisional licence. So what's your point? Or have I obliterated the point you were trying to make?[/p][/quote]Well if motorbikes can pretty much be parked anywhere,how come they are subject to the same charges and legal requirements as motorists,even if they also own a motor vehicle? As for all the other points,what you are basically saying,is that unlike every other vehicle user on the roads,for some reason,cyclists should be exempted from being properly insured(any cyclist could quite easily cause a serious road accident),not be required to take any form of test to prove their competence to ride,not have any certification of the roadwortiness of their machine,not be required to carry any identification markings in the event of them committing an offence(like riding on the pavement or ignoring red traffic lights),and not be required to prove that they are either medically fit enough,or of a suitable age to take a cycle out onto a road? That's some loophole![/p][/quote]Motorcycles still have to pay to park in a pay and display but you also often see them parked in out of the way corners away from the road but because they're not causing an obstruction, no one bats an eyelid, as for the other points, I've already said that most cyclists are insured through their home and contents insurance and the risk cyclists pose to others is so low. Really, cyclists should be PAID for NOT driving as it reduces strain on the NHS, it reduces congestion, it gets more cars off the road, it reduces pollution and it reduces maintenance costs of the roads.[/p][/quote]Well there's a certain logic in your last paragraph Ginge,I'll grant you,but it still doesn't mean that cycling should be an unregulated free for all like it is at the moment,and the argument about council tax is unfounded,because all cyclists don't pay it;a lot of people pay water rates,but you still have to get a licence to fish. Most motorists would be quite happy to live along side cyclists if a sense of fair play was seen to prevail,but the limp excuses of "we pay council tax and we pay home insurance" just doesn't wash I'm afraid in times of economic hardship,when one group of road users are being used a a cash cow,and another group is perceived as getting away scot free,and with a cavalier attitude to the rules of the road to boot.[/p][/quote]First off, I said MOST cyclists pay council tax, they have to, otherwise they get chased for it and the fact remains, that the SOLE REASON that motoring is so regulated, is BECAUSE driving carries a MUCH more substantial risk of taking he life/lives of the people in the vehicle but also to large numbers of innocent bystanders and the reason cycling isn't so regulated is because the exact opposite is true, cycling carries significantly les risk to others than walking or being in their own homes and council tax is what pays for the roads, so all the cyclists that pay it(most of them, not all but most) contribute their fair shair, many cyclists also have a car or 2 and also pay VED on those unless they're VED exempt vehicles... Oh, didn't you know there were other car drivers that, according to you and the rest of the "pay your way brigade", everyone who uses the road should be paying? And again on the insurance, MOST not all but MOST are insured through their home and contents insurance, through British cycling(free with membership like mine), through CTC(again, free with membership), through bespoke companies and(I do believe but might be corrected on this) even some clubs offer it as part of a membership package, I also pay for a seperate insurance against damage and theft of my bikes, do you know how much that costs for 2 bikes in Thornhill? £4.05 a month, even a driver with 50 years no claims bonus could pay such a small sum for 1 car per month, let alone 2, that's because again, the risk is so low, so as a group, cyclists are certainly paying proportionally. And as for the rules of the road, most cyclists obey the rules like I do, like most motorists do but like motorists, there's a very smallnumber that don't obey the rules, so please... Tell me again how cyclists are supposed to be getting a "free" ride?[/p][/quote]Because if I had a serious heart condition,if I had no home insurance,if I could hardly see properly,if I wasn't someone who pays council tax,if I had been banned from driving,if I had never passed a driving test,if I was twelve years old and had just been given my first bike for Christmas,if I owned a bike that had dodgy brakes,I could still jump on a bike and go out on a British road,and ride it with impunity... and that's "a free ride".[/p][/quote]And there's just as many cars with drivers that are exactly the same, bar the 12 year olds but then, I've seen 12 year olds with better roadcraft than supposedly competant drivers.[/p][/quote]Still leaves an entire class of vehicle out on the road,and mixing with other traffic, that's unlicensed,unregiste red, untested,unidentifia ble and unregulated though.[/p][/quote]I take issue with this stance for the reason that new bikes would not be sold by vendors if they were not tested and roadworthy - same way as cars. Old 2nd hand bikes not so much, but I wouldn't buy one if I thought it wasn't roadworthy and given my knowledge and experience with them - I can tell. Like a mechanic can when he services a car. Also, they are identifiable, just not by looking at them. Frames have numbers and cyclists who buy expensive bikes have the savvy to register this number. It's not legal but it is identifiable nonetheless.[/p][/quote]Like I could tell that apart from gears and brakes, the last bike my friend gave me was roadworthy, the bike he gave me before that... Not so much, hence one was ridden home, the other was walked. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

12:53pm Fri 28 Feb 14

downfader says...

Zexagon wrote:
downfader wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace.

Labour OUT
Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED.
But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.
You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads.

AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists.

At present, cyclists get everything free.
Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected.

If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.
Yes all cyclists are toned Adonis 's
20 minutes gentle exercise reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes by 15%. Published in the British Medical Journal 2007.

You dont have to be an "adonis".
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: A disgusting waste of taxpayers money and cyclists dont pay any road tax or indeed pay to use the Itchen Bridge. A complete disgrace. Labour OUT[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, hasn't done so since 1937, what you actually refer to is a tax on emissions known as VED. But I do agree as a cyclist, that this junction is a disgraceful waste of money that the council was given by the government.[/p][/quote]You do go on, Ginger_cyclist! You've been coming back with that comment for ages. You know very well what people mean : that cyclists should make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. AND......they should have some form of visible registration plate so that the bad ones can be identified and prosecuted for offences - like motorists. At present, cyclists get everything free.[/p][/quote]Disingenuous - I pay enough tax already. There is no "road tax" as has already been corrected. If we're talking about "something for nothing" perhaps riders should get preferential treatment on the NHS as they actively look after their bodies rather than letting them waste away as many non-cycling Sotonians do.[/p][/quote]Yes all cyclists are toned Adonis 's[/p][/quote]20 minutes gentle exercise reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes by 15%. Published in the British Medical Journal 2007. You dont have to be an "adonis". downfader
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

downfader says...

And Charrlee.. if correcting you is an "insult" then I fear for you. The language you've used on here is remarkably similar to an old multi-user account troll we've witnessed on cycling stories many times...

..odd that.
And Charrlee.. if correcting you is an "insult" then I fear for you. The language you've used on here is remarkably similar to an old multi-user account troll we've witnessed on cycling stories many times... ..odd that. downfader
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Tue 4 Mar 14

at2014 says...

Previously, it was dangerous but, as a roundabout, clear how to use. Now it is confusing and dangerous. Cycle lanes too narrow, ASLs too short.....A colossal failure! Having used this junction as both a daily commuter cyclist and motorist, it is neither safe nor clear as to how to safely use the junction.
On two occasions, I have seen a near miss when a car turning right from Ocean Village onto the Bridge meeting a car turning right from St Marys onto Central Bridge towards the City. Firstly, no markings showing whether to turn right in front of each other or whether to pass and turn right behind each other. Secondly, crossing in front of traffic continuing straight ahead.
As a cyclist, what can i say? The danger of receiving a 'left hook' has not been reduced in anyway.
It is not a question as to whether there will be a death at this junction but when. The 'teething problems' referred to in this article must be addressed.... and now.
Previously, it was dangerous but, as a roundabout, clear how to use. Now it is confusing and dangerous. Cycle lanes too narrow, ASLs too short.....A colossal failure! Having used this junction as both a daily commuter cyclist and motorist, it is neither safe nor clear as to how to safely use the junction. On two occasions, I have seen a near miss when a car turning right from Ocean Village onto the Bridge meeting a car turning right from St Marys onto Central Bridge towards the City. Firstly, no markings showing whether to turn right in front of each other or whether to pass and turn right behind each other. Secondly, crossing in front of traffic continuing straight ahead. As a cyclist, what can i say? The danger of receiving a 'left hook' has not been reduced in anyway. It is not a question as to whether there will be a death at this junction but when. The 'teething problems' referred to in this article must be addressed.... and now. at2014
  • Score: 1

11:26am Thu 6 Mar 14

malcher says...

Especially inventive at the bus stops. Managed to make it difficult for Buses, passengers and cyclists! Quite brilliant!
Especially inventive at the bus stops. Managed to make it difficult for Buses, passengers and cyclists! Quite brilliant! malcher
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Tue 18 Mar 14

borys126 says...

The easiest solution is not to allow bikes use the Itchen Bridge. They don't pay a toll. The might use North Bridge is safer and more cycling is healthy
The easiest solution is not to allow bikes use the Itchen Bridge. They don't pay a toll. The might use North Bridge is safer and more cycling is healthy borys126
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

borys126 wrote:
The easiest solution is not to allow bikes use the Itchen Bridge. They don't pay a toll. The might use North Bridge is safer and more cycling is healthy
Pedestrians and emergency vehicles or with emblems from an emergency service on them don't pay a toll either, shall we ban them as well?
[quote][p][bold]borys126[/bold] wrote: The easiest solution is not to allow bikes use the Itchen Bridge. They don't pay a toll. The might use North Bridge is safer and more cycling is healthy[/p][/quote]Pedestrians and emergency vehicles or with emblems from an emergency service on them don't pay a toll either, shall we ban them as well? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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