£2m 'Boris Bike' scheme thrown out by New Forest National Park Authority

A cyclist in the New Forest

A cyclist in the New Forest

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A HOTLY-DEBATED £2million public bike scheme for the New Forest will not go ahead, it has been decided today.

The New Forest Public Bike Scheme had been backed by a 2,000 signature petition and supported by professional cyclists Jens Voight and Chris Boardman.

But at an extraordinary general meeting New Forest National Park Authority members voted to discontinue the scheme.

Proponents of the plans, based on the Boris Bike scheme in London, argued it would reduce pollution and have health benefits, while opponents said proposals were not financially viable and did not have enough public support.

Members voted 12 to two against the plans with three abstentions.

Comments (94)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:24pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Morons, the NPA are total morons, it's almost as if they LIKE having 10's of thousands of cars per DAY tearing up and down the forest roads, polluting the forest and killing the animals.
Morons, the NPA are total morons, it's almost as if they LIKE having 10's of thousands of cars per DAY tearing up and down the forest roads, polluting the forest and killing the animals. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 9

4:24pm Tue 19 Aug 14

theoriginalwasp says...

This is a shame.
This is a shame. theoriginalwasp
  • Score: 4

4:58pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Frogham Ferret says...

Why support one business against many others with taxpayers money.

Would make more sense to improve/create foot/cycle paths to get leisure tourists and locals off the narrow highways.

PS At least you have shown one racing cyclist not the hordes in your fellow Echo's pictures ( breaking all the highway rules - as usual)
Why support one business against many others with taxpayers money. Would make more sense to improve/create foot/cycle paths to get leisure tourists and locals off the narrow highways. PS At least you have shown one racing cyclist not the hordes in your fellow Echo's pictures ( breaking all the highway rules - as usual) Frogham Ferret
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Tue 19 Aug 14

40mpg. says...

Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority.

But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?
Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority. But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers? 40mpg.
  • Score: 16

5:21pm Tue 19 Aug 14

HillsidePaul says...

The forest has some very nasty things in it, manly ones that drive big cars and think that the forest should be for them alone and the serfs and peasants should be kept out.
The forest has some very nasty things in it, manly ones that drive big cars and think that the forest should be for them alone and the serfs and peasants should be kept out. HillsidePaul
  • Score: 20

5:36pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle? good-gosh
  • Score: 1

5:47pm Tue 19 Aug 14

sburman says...

This is a classic case of the few spoiling it for the many.

The few locals who cannot see beyond the value of their properties and what benefits this scheme had to local economies.

The few Car drivers who have not got the patience to allow for cyclists and who refuse to share the roads.

The few cyclists who take over the roads by cycling two, three abreast and who refuse to share the roads.

The sensible and/or family cyclist would have found great pleasure from this scheme and of been a boost to local businesses.
This is a classic case of the few spoiling it for the many. The few locals who cannot see beyond the value of their properties and what benefits this scheme had to local economies. The few Car drivers who have not got the patience to allow for cyclists and who refuse to share the roads. The few cyclists who take over the roads by cycling two, three abreast and who refuse to share the roads. The sensible and/or family cyclist would have found great pleasure from this scheme and of been a boost to local businesses. sburman
  • Score: 15

5:56pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Disgraceful decision by National Park Authority.

It only proves that they rather have gas guzzling Jags Porches Ferraries and super expensive 4x4s with high omissions harming the environment in New Forest than environment friendly and good for health push bikes, with us ordinary folks riding those and keeping fit to provide hard working labour force to keep the country's economy going once again.

I wonder what NPA will do next. Put signs on the boundaries of New Forest, 'Super rich snob zone. plebs keep out'

What a pity under the name of freedom of expression, Echo's website rules will not allow some of us to describe NPA's moronic snobs with certain word
Disgraceful decision by National Park Authority. It only proves that they rather have gas guzzling Jags Porches Ferraries and super expensive 4x4s with high omissions harming the environment in New Forest than environment friendly and good for health push bikes, with us ordinary folks riding those and keeping fit to provide hard working labour force to keep the country's economy going once again. I wonder what NPA will do next. Put signs on the boundaries of New Forest, 'Super rich snob zone. plebs keep out' What a pity under the name of freedom of expression, Echo's website rules will not allow some of us to describe NPA's moronic snobs with certain word Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 6

5:57pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

sburman wrote:
This is a classic case of the few spoiling it for the many.

The few locals who cannot see beyond the value of their properties and what benefits this scheme had to local economies.

The few Car drivers who have not got the patience to allow for cyclists and who refuse to share the roads.

The few cyclists who take over the roads by cycling two, three abreast and who refuse to share the roads.

The sensible and/or family cyclist would have found great pleasure from this scheme and of been a boost to local businesses.
2 abreast is legal though and it's allowed within the NPA's own cycling guide for the forest but other than that, excellent comment.
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: This is a classic case of the few spoiling it for the many. The few locals who cannot see beyond the value of their properties and what benefits this scheme had to local economies. The few Car drivers who have not got the patience to allow for cyclists and who refuse to share the roads. The few cyclists who take over the roads by cycling two, three abreast and who refuse to share the roads. The sensible and/or family cyclist would have found great pleasure from this scheme and of been a boost to local businesses.[/p][/quote]2 abreast is legal though and it's allowed within the NPA's own cycling guide for the forest but other than that, excellent comment. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 6

6:00pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

6:03pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
The forest has some very nasty things in it, manly ones that drive big cars and think that the forest should be for them alone and the serfs and peasants should be kept out.
"The forest has some very nasty things in it" said Hillside Paul.

He is spot on, those 'things' are mostly Tory supporting snobs
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: The forest has some very nasty things in it, manly ones that drive big cars and think that the forest should be for them alone and the serfs and peasants should be kept out.[/p][/quote]"The forest has some very nasty things in it" said Hillside Paul. He is spot on, those 'things' are mostly Tory supporting snobs Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 9

6:05pm Tue 19 Aug 14

S Pance says...

Most locals were in favor of this
Most locals were in favor of this S Pance
  • Score: 8

6:06pm Tue 19 Aug 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Did I really just read "2000 signature petition" and "not enough public support" in the same article?
Did I really just read "2000 signature petition" and "not enough public support" in the same article? GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 9

6:06pm Tue 19 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest? IronLady2010
  • Score: 4

6:12pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

6:26pm Tue 19 Aug 14

bigfella777 says...

What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?
What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback? bigfella777
  • Score: 8

6:29pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

bigfella777 wrote:
What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?
Playground for the 1% on horseback and in their excessively fast cars and 4x4's.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?[/p][/quote]Playground for the 1% on horseback and in their excessively fast cars and 4x4's. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

6:32pm Tue 19 Aug 14

For pity sake says...

Frogham Ferret wrote:
Why support one business against many others with taxpayers money.

Would make more sense to improve/create foot/cycle paths to get leisure tourists and locals off the narrow highways.

PS At least you have shown one racing cyclist not the hordes in your fellow Echo's pictures ( breaking all the highway rules - as usual)
The "stations" for the bikes would have been situated in the usual beauty spots with narrow roads accessing them leading to even worse bottlenecks. Unless cycle tracks leading from the stations could be laid (without narrowing the existing roads) then this was always a non-starter.
[quote][p][bold]Frogham Ferret[/bold] wrote: Why support one business against many others with taxpayers money. Would make more sense to improve/create foot/cycle paths to get leisure tourists and locals off the narrow highways. PS At least you have shown one racing cyclist not the hordes in your fellow Echo's pictures ( breaking all the highway rules - as usual)[/p][/quote]The "stations" for the bikes would have been situated in the usual beauty spots with narrow roads accessing them leading to even worse bottlenecks. Unless cycle tracks leading from the stations could be laid (without narrowing the existing roads) then this was always a non-starter. For pity sake
  • Score: 7

6:35pm Tue 19 Aug 14

downfader says...

Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity. downfader
  • Score: -4

6:53pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car. good-gosh
  • Score: 13

6:53pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming. Torchie1
  • Score: -6

6:59pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=WtrCUklA
mvw&list=UUn3aDeaqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDeaqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

7:02pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

7:18pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=WtrCUklA

mvw&list=UUn3aDe
aqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDe aqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest. good-gosh
  • Score: 8

7:20pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Morons, the NPA are total morons, it's almost as if they LIKE having 10's of thousands of cars per DAY tearing up and down the forest roads, polluting the forest and killing the animals.
So they are morons just because they didn't agree with your point of view? It has nothing to do with the financial stupidity of a scheme like this, but everything to do with anti-cycling? Please don't suggest the latter.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Morons, the NPA are total morons, it's almost as if they LIKE having 10's of thousands of cars per DAY tearing up and down the forest roads, polluting the forest and killing the animals.[/p][/quote]So they are morons just because they didn't agree with your point of view? It has nothing to do with the financial stupidity of a scheme like this, but everything to do with anti-cycling? Please don't suggest the latter. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 2

7:23pm Tue 19 Aug 14

camerajuan says...

Bunch of idiots with too much money thinking they own public land.

Morons. I hope cars don't crash anywhere near their houses or anything more statistically probable than a cyclist ruining their day.
Bunch of idiots with too much money thinking they own public land. Morons. I hope cars don't crash anywhere near their houses or anything more statistically probable than a cyclist ruining their day. camerajuan
  • Score: -2

7:25pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Sir Ad E Noid says...

40mpg. wrote:
Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority.

But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?
Lets hope so. I suppose you think it is acceptable for the vast majority of walkers to be scanning three foot in front of them looking for dog mess left by irresponsible dog owners who refuse to pick up, or do pick up and sling the bag in a hedge. Yes, lets hope so.
[quote][p][bold]40mpg.[/bold] wrote: Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority. But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?[/p][/quote]Lets hope so. I suppose you think it is acceptable for the vast majority of walkers to be scanning three foot in front of them looking for dog mess left by irresponsible dog owners who refuse to pick up, or do pick up and sling the bag in a hedge. Yes, lets hope so. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 2

7:25pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Morons, the NPA are total morons, it's almost as if they LIKE having 10's of thousands of cars per DAY tearing up and down the forest roads, polluting the forest and killing the animals.
So they are morons just because they didn't agree with your point of view? It has nothing to do with the financial stupidity of a scheme like this, but everything to do with anti-cycling? Please don't suggest the latter.
It would have paid for itself through being sponsored AND families using the bikes, so yes, it's got EVERYTHING to do with a SMALL minority of people who are anti-cycling.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Morons, the NPA are total morons, it's almost as if they LIKE having 10's of thousands of cars per DAY tearing up and down the forest roads, polluting the forest and killing the animals.[/p][/quote]So they are morons just because they didn't agree with your point of view? It has nothing to do with the financial stupidity of a scheme like this, but everything to do with anti-cycling? Please don't suggest the latter.[/p][/quote]It would have paid for itself through being sponsored AND families using the bikes, so yes, it's got EVERYTHING to do with a SMALL minority of people who are anti-cycling. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -5

7:27pm Tue 19 Aug 14

downfader says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.


com/watch?v=WtrCUklA


mvw&list=UUn3aDe

aqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.
I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong

It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDe aqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.[/p][/quote]I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for. downfader
  • Score: 7

7:41pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

downfader wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.



com/watch?v=WtrCUklA



mvw&list=UUn3aDe


aqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.
I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong

It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.
And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDe aqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.[/p][/quote]I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.[/p][/quote]And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross, good-gosh
  • Score: 8

7:43pm Tue 19 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
As you know, I'm not anti cyclist.

But I do love a nice drive with the roof down enjoying the scenery. I don't need to speed and can choose to do the same speed as a Cyclist if I wish.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]As you know, I'm not anti cyclist. But I do love a nice drive with the roof down enjoying the scenery. I don't need to speed and can choose to do the same speed as a Cyclist if I wish. IronLady2010
  • Score: 8

7:44pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
downfader wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.




com/watch?v=WtrCUklA




mvw&list=UUn3aDe



aqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.
I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong

It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.
And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,
But that's an unfair comparison, thus making your argument, null and void.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDe aqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.[/p][/quote]I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.[/p][/quote]And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,[/p][/quote]But that's an unfair comparison, thus making your argument, null and void. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -9

7:47pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
downfader wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.





com/watch?v=WtrCUklA





mvw&list=UUn3aDe




aqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.
I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong

It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.
And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,
But that's an unfair comparison, thus making your argument, null and void.
OK chainman, but I protest at the censorship
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDe aqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.[/p][/quote]I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.[/p][/quote]And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,[/p][/quote]But that's an unfair comparison, thus making your argument, null and void.[/p][/quote]OK chainman, but I protest at the censorship good-gosh
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
As you know, I'm not anti cyclist.

But I do love a nice drive with the roof down enjoying the scenery. I don't need to speed and can choose to do the same speed as a Cyclist if I wish.
But would the other motorists be happy with you going slower than them or will they bully you into going faster? I think the latter.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]As you know, I'm not anti cyclist. But I do love a nice drive with the roof down enjoying the scenery. I don't need to speed and can choose to do the same speed as a Cyclist if I wish.[/p][/quote]But would the other motorists be happy with you going slower than them or will they bully you into going faster? I think the latter. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

7:53pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Chainman? Freudian slip perhaps – I meant chairman.
Chainman? Freudian slip perhaps – I meant chairman. good-gosh
  • Score: 1

7:54pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
downfader wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.
How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?
Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.
When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.
No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes.
https://www.youtube.






com/watch?v=WtrCUklA






mvw&list=UUn3aDe





aqG6
_apbyLUEMbjSA

So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.
Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.
I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong

It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.
And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,
But that's an unfair comparison, thus making your argument, null and void.
OK chainman, but I protest at the censorship
What censorship?
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]Using the car is the WORST way to "use" the forest, also, I don't think you should be letting kids go near willies just yet but by all means take some WELLIES with you.[/p][/quote]How is using a car the worst way to use the forest?[/p][/quote]Unless you're physically unable to travel by bike, then yes, it is, as you are then going too fast to appreciate the natural beauty of the forest.[/p][/quote]When teleportation becomes a reality, I will use it. Meanwhile a car is the only way to transport a family. Even the Wiggle riders get there by car.[/p][/quote]No, it is NOT the "only" way to transport a family, you can get tandem cycles, you can get trailers to put children in and pull behind said tandem, you can even fit child/baby seats to the tandem, or if they're old enough, the children can ride with you, also, here's a video of a bluestar spokesperson, explaining about taking bikes on the New Forest tour BUSES which you can catch from the hythe ferry terminal after getting the ferry, with your bikes. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=WtrCUklA mvw&list=UUn3aDe aqG6 _apbyLUEMbjSA So yeah, a car is NOT the "only way" to transport a family.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Ridiculous to suggest a family peddles to the forest.[/p][/quote]I know a nurse that rides from Southampton to the New Forest once a week with his family. I think his oldest is 9, the other is on a tagalong It is possible. Kids are more adventurous and hardy than many give them credit for.[/p][/quote]And people swim the Channel but the ferry is the best way to cross,[/p][/quote]But that's an unfair comparison, thus making your argument, null and void.[/p][/quote]OK chainman, but I protest at the censorship[/p][/quote]What censorship? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

8:00pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches. good-gosh
  • Score: 4

8:03pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

8:08pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years. good-gosh
  • Score: 4

8:17pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -6

8:26pm Tue 19 Aug 14

S Pance says...

bigfella777 wrote:
What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?
Actually, it's for the people who live and work there. Stop trying to turn it into some sort of theme park, for Christ's sake!
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?[/p][/quote]Actually, it's for the people who live and work there. Stop trying to turn it into some sort of theme park, for Christ's sake! S Pance
  • Score: 13

8:28pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Cyrus Muro says...

NIMBY W****rs
NIMBY W****rs Cyrus Muro
  • Score: -8

8:30pm Tue 19 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different! IronLady2010
  • Score: 10

8:33pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -11

8:42pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

I drove to Totton station to pick up said offspring from his tedious journey from Dartmoor and drove to a nearby Forest car park, We swapped to the wellies and walked 4 miles to the last reported sighting place of this rare bird that came from Africa or somewhere - he flew here by the way, lucky thing - and we sneaked about hunting it for an hour or two, It wasn't anywhere to be seen, so we squelched back to the car soaking wet, drove to a pub, dried our feet and then drove back to Southampton station. I then went back to my 'umble home and processed my pretty useless photos. Couldn't do all that on a bike, or a bus, or with anything other than my old Ford car.
I drove to Totton station to pick up said offspring from his tedious journey from Dartmoor and drove to a nearby Forest car park, We swapped to the wellies and walked 4 miles to the last reported sighting place of this rare bird that came from Africa or somewhere - he flew here by the way, lucky thing - and we sneaked about hunting it for an hour or two, It wasn't anywhere to be seen, so we squelched back to the car soaking wet, drove to a pub, dried our feet and then drove back to Southampton station. I then went back to my 'umble home and processed my pretty useless photos. Couldn't do all that on a bike, or a bus, or with anything other than my old Ford car. good-gosh
  • Score: 9

8:42pm Tue 19 Aug 14

forest tony says...

Shame on the National Park! Why destroy a brilliant scheme that would have got many tourists out of their cars, thus making our Forest roads much safer, just because of a few ignorant cyclists in badly organised events, why tar others with this brush? Thought the National Park was supposed to create a sustainable transport policy for the Forest, not put a spanner in the works! About time we started seeing better facilities for cyclists in the Forest, a sustainable public transport system, that interconnects, there are far too many cars on the Forest roads now and unless the National Park starts protecting the Forest, then all is lost, seems to me the wrong people are now in charge!
Shame on the National Park! Why destroy a brilliant scheme that would have got many tourists out of their cars, thus making our Forest roads much safer, just because of a few ignorant cyclists in badly organised events, why tar others with this brush? Thought the National Park was supposed to create a sustainable transport policy for the Forest, not put a spanner in the works! About time we started seeing better facilities for cyclists in the Forest, a sustainable public transport system, that interconnects, there are far too many cars on the Forest roads now and unless the National Park starts protecting the Forest, then all is lost, seems to me the wrong people are now in charge! forest tony
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
I drove to Totton station to pick up said offspring from his tedious journey from Dartmoor and drove to a nearby Forest car park, We swapped to the wellies and walked 4 miles to the last reported sighting place of this rare bird that came from Africa or somewhere - he flew here by the way, lucky thing - and we sneaked about hunting it for an hour or two, It wasn't anywhere to be seen, so we squelched back to the car soaking wet, drove to a pub, dried our feet and then drove back to Southampton station. I then went back to my 'umble home and processed my pretty useless photos. Couldn't do all that on a bike, or a bus, or with anything other than my old Ford car.
Actually, yes you can.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I drove to Totton station to pick up said offspring from his tedious journey from Dartmoor and drove to a nearby Forest car park, We swapped to the wellies and walked 4 miles to the last reported sighting place of this rare bird that came from Africa or somewhere - he flew here by the way, lucky thing - and we sneaked about hunting it for an hour or two, It wasn't anywhere to be seen, so we squelched back to the car soaking wet, drove to a pub, dried our feet and then drove back to Southampton station. I then went back to my 'umble home and processed my pretty useless photos. Couldn't do all that on a bike, or a bus, or with anything other than my old Ford car.[/p][/quote]Actually, yes you can. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -10

8:45pm Tue 19 Aug 14

aghhhhh says...

yeah nice one, keep the forest for your self, be charging us to look at it next...idiots
yeah nice one, keep the forest for your self, be charging us to look at it next...idiots aghhhhh
  • Score: 1

8:48pm Tue 19 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............
...
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ... IronLady2010
  • Score: 7

8:51pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............

...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -9

8:57pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car.[/p][/quote]The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one. Torchie1
  • Score: 4

9:02pm Tue 19 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............


...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me? IronLady2010
  • Score: 6

9:02pm Tue 19 Aug 14

forest-dweller says...

bigfella777 wrote:
What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?
Are people really still this chippy? Really very sad.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?[/p][/quote]Are people really still this chippy? Really very sad. forest-dweller
  • Score: 9

9:07pm Tue 19 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............



...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
I'm in no way Anti Cyclist, I've stayed out of most discussions regarding this.

But, you Sir, are a very bad example.

It would appear you have no respect for motor vehicles and that is extremely dangerous in itself.

I'll leave it at that as I don't wish to get too involved in the whole issue.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]I'm in no way Anti Cyclist, I've stayed out of most discussions regarding this. But, you Sir, are a very bad example. It would appear you have no respect for motor vehicles and that is extremely dangerous in itself. I'll leave it at that as I don't wish to get too involved in the whole issue. IronLady2010
  • Score: 10

9:14pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

40mpg. wrote:
Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority.

But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?
Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps.
The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since.

Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.
[quote][p][bold]40mpg.[/bold] wrote: Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority. But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?[/p][/quote]Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps. The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since. Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes. Drhysted
  • Score: 4

9:22pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

My last MOT confirmed my car is perfectly clean - so no need to avoid using it.
.
My last MOT confirmed my car is perfectly clean - so no need to avoid using it. . good-gosh
  • Score: 7

9:23pm Tue 19 Aug 14

aghhhhh says...

forest-dweller wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?
Are people really still this chippy? Really very sad.
yep inbred
[quote][p][bold]forest-dweller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?[/p][/quote]Are people really still this chippy? Really very sad.[/p][/quote]yep inbred aghhhhh
  • Score: 1

9:24pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

Drhysted wrote:
40mpg. wrote:
Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority.

But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?
Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps.
The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since.

Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.
I'm convinced that the cycling fraternity largely suffer from a persecution complex brought about by their desire to see a threat hiding in every shadow. The roads will be as freely available to them tomorrow and the next day as they were yesterday and the day before. The only thing that won't happen is that another hire scheme won't take off so the potential customers will have to use the existing hire outlets in Burley and Brockenhurst, and probably elsewhere across the forest. The law hasn't been changed to outlaw bicycles which seems to be the impression that some, and notably one poster has gone away with. Relax and calm down, you can still get dressed up in lycra and pedal all over the forest, nothing has changed.
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]40mpg.[/bold] wrote: Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority. But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?[/p][/quote]Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps. The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since. Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.[/p][/quote]I'm convinced that the cycling fraternity largely suffer from a persecution complex brought about by their desire to see a threat hiding in every shadow. The roads will be as freely available to them tomorrow and the next day as they were yesterday and the day before. The only thing that won't happen is that another hire scheme won't take off so the potential customers will have to use the existing hire outlets in Burley and Brockenhurst, and probably elsewhere across the forest. The law hasn't been changed to outlaw bicycles which seems to be the impression that some, and notably one poster has gone away with. Relax and calm down, you can still get dressed up in lycra and pedal all over the forest, nothing has changed. Torchie1
  • Score: 5

9:26pm Tue 19 Aug 14

forest hump says...

good-gosh wrote:
The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?
I agree with you !!!
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The best way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car with plenty to eat like sausage rolls, strawberries and cream, drive to one of the scores of little secluded car parks and stroll through the woodlands and heaths. Don’t forget the willies though. Who needs a bicycle?[/p][/quote]I agree with you !!! forest hump
  • Score: 3

9:31pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Sir Ad E Noid says...

aghhhhh wrote:
forest-dweller wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?
Are people really still this chippy? Really very sad.
yep inbred
Forest, I am sure what he meant to say was " Yep, lets play the class thing, it nearly always works, well it does for me, inbred"
[quote][p][bold]aghhhhh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest-dweller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: What absolute snobbery, is the New Forest a national park for everyone or just a playground for toffs on horseback?[/p][/quote]Are people really still this chippy? Really very sad.[/p][/quote]yep inbred[/p][/quote]Forest, I am sure what he meant to say was " Yep, lets play the class thing, it nearly always works, well it does for me, inbred" Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 2

9:43pm Tue 19 Aug 14

forest hump says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
40mpg. wrote:
Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority.

But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?
Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps.
The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since.

Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.
I'm convinced that the cycling fraternity largely suffer from a persecution complex brought about by their desire to see a threat hiding in every shadow. The roads will be as freely available to them tomorrow and the next day as they were yesterday and the day before. The only thing that won't happen is that another hire scheme won't take off so the potential customers will have to use the existing hire outlets in Burley and Brockenhurst, and probably elsewhere across the forest. The law hasn't been changed to outlaw bicycles which seems to be the impression that some, and notably one poster has gone away with. Relax and calm down, you can still get dressed up in lycra and pedal all over the forest, nothing has changed.
We'll said. Unfortunately Ginger and his cronies will not be happy until all internal combustion engines and their operators are wiped from the face of the earth. His extremist cycling views are held by very, very few but he is deluded into believing that his form of transportation is the one and only. I do not wish harm on people but one day he will get beaten from his bike, probably for running a red light or another stupid practice cyclists continue to display. I just hope the paramedics turn up in peddle cars. His continual whining is like a broken record.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]40mpg.[/bold] wrote: Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority. But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?[/p][/quote]Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps. The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since. Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.[/p][/quote]I'm convinced that the cycling fraternity largely suffer from a persecution complex brought about by their desire to see a threat hiding in every shadow. The roads will be as freely available to them tomorrow and the next day as they were yesterday and the day before. The only thing that won't happen is that another hire scheme won't take off so the potential customers will have to use the existing hire outlets in Burley and Brockenhurst, and probably elsewhere across the forest. The law hasn't been changed to outlaw bicycles which seems to be the impression that some, and notably one poster has gone away with. Relax and calm down, you can still get dressed up in lycra and pedal all over the forest, nothing has changed.[/p][/quote]We'll said. Unfortunately Ginger and his cronies will not be happy until all internal combustion engines and their operators are wiped from the face of the earth. His extremist cycling views are held by very, very few but he is deluded into believing that his form of transportation is the one and only. I do not wish harm on people but one day he will get beaten from his bike, probably for running a red light or another stupid practice cyclists continue to display. I just hope the paramedics turn up in peddle cars. His continual whining is like a broken record. forest hump
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.
I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car.[/p][/quote]The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.[/p][/quote]I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

10:02pm Tue 19 Aug 14

pantoking says...

What does this say about the people who live in the forest to the rest of the UK?

Utterly disgusted that the NPA caved in to a few rich home owners.
What does this say about the people who live in the forest to the rest of the UK? Utterly disgusted that the NPA caved in to a few rich home owners. pantoking
  • Score: -1

10:04pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............



...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

10:06pm Tue 19 Aug 14

forest hump says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.
I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.
Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car.[/p][/quote]The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.[/p][/quote]I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.[/p][/quote]Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair. forest hump
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............




...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
I'm in no way Anti Cyclist, I've stayed out of most discussions regarding this.

But, you Sir, are a very bad example.

It would appear you have no respect for motor vehicles and that is extremely dangerous in itself.

I'll leave it at that as I don't wish to get too involved in the whole issue.
I have plenty of respect for motor vehicles, I just don't have any for the morons who control them, hence I ride assertively to make my presence on the road be KNOWN.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]I'm in no way Anti Cyclist, I've stayed out of most discussions regarding this. But, you Sir, are a very bad example. It would appear you have no respect for motor vehicles and that is extremely dangerous in itself. I'll leave it at that as I don't wish to get too involved in the whole issue.[/p][/quote]I have plenty of respect for motor vehicles, I just don't have any for the morons who control them, hence I ride assertively to make my presence on the road be KNOWN. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -5

10:10pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
My last MOT confirmed my car is perfectly clean - so no need to avoid using it.
.
Particulates are in the air, studies found that cyclists were 4 times less likely to die from pollution related illness than motorists, this is because the heavy breathing caused by cycling, doesn't allow particulates from car exhausts to settle in the lungs as much, whereas somone sat in a car, even with the air con running, is breathing in a more relaxed way, meaning particulates build up MUCH quicker in a motorists lungs, doesn't matter if your car is clean or not, it's all in the air.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: My last MOT confirmed my car is perfectly clean - so no need to avoid using it. .[/p][/quote]Particulates are in the air, studies found that cyclists were 4 times less likely to die from pollution related illness than motorists, this is because the heavy breathing caused by cycling, doesn't allow particulates from car exhausts to settle in the lungs as much, whereas somone sat in a car, even with the air con running, is breathing in a more relaxed way, meaning particulates build up MUCH quicker in a motorists lungs, doesn't matter if your car is clean or not, it's all in the air. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -8

10:31pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
40mpg. wrote:
Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority.

But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?
Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps.
The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since.

Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.
I'm convinced that the cycling fraternity largely suffer from a persecution complex brought about by their desire to see a threat hiding in every shadow. The roads will be as freely available to them tomorrow and the next day as they were yesterday and the day before. The only thing that won't happen is that another hire scheme won't take off so the potential customers will have to use the existing hire outlets in Burley and Brockenhurst, and probably elsewhere across the forest. The law hasn't been changed to outlaw bicycles which seems to be the impression that some, and notably one poster has gone away with. Relax and calm down, you can still get dressed up in lycra and pedal all over the forest, nothing has changed.
We'll said. Unfortunately Ginger and his cronies will not be happy until all internal combustion engines and their operators are wiped from the face of the earth. His extremist cycling views are held by very, very few but he is deluded into believing that his form of transportation is the one and only. I do not wish harm on people but one day he will get beaten from his bike, probably for running a red light or another stupid practice cyclists continue to display. I just hope the paramedics turn up in peddle cars. His continual whining is like a broken record.
Wow, you really ARE a complete and utter moron with not a single braincell, I personally, don't hate cars, I love them, I just hate the morons who control some of them, my views are FAR from "extremist"(if they were, I would be trying to get into crashes which I don't, I actively avoid them), I don't beleive my form of transport is the only one, I openly acknowledge that at times, private cars are more suitable but for short distances and in towns and cities, is not a suitable time for them unless you physically need to drive, not just have a sense of need(much like an alcoholic thinks he NEEDS booze), driving is clearly an addiction that needs to be addressed, as for being "beaten" from my bike, it wouldn't be for running a red light or anything, more than likely it would be because an idiot behind the wheel knows I'm right and they're wrong but I'm not going to return the favour of wishing harm on me, mostly because I'm not a violent person.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]40mpg.[/bold] wrote: Staggering - I can't think of anywhere else that would pass up a multi-million pound grant for a sustainable transport scheme with health and leisure benefits, purely because of 'anti-cycling sentiments' of a vocal minority. But than the ex-chief of the Verderers is now the chairman of the NPA so I can only anticipate we will see more of this. Who's next target - dog walkers?[/p][/quote]Actually the NPA tried restricting dog walkers not long after it was created. There was only one meeting, there were too many attendees for the hall they'd booked so it ended up being held at Boltons Bench, with the NPA reps on the hill completely surrounded by dog walking reps. The NPA have never even suggesting restricting dog walkers since. Similar will eventually happen with cyclists, they will only take so many strikes.[/p][/quote]I'm convinced that the cycling fraternity largely suffer from a persecution complex brought about by their desire to see a threat hiding in every shadow. The roads will be as freely available to them tomorrow and the next day as they were yesterday and the day before. The only thing that won't happen is that another hire scheme won't take off so the potential customers will have to use the existing hire outlets in Burley and Brockenhurst, and probably elsewhere across the forest. The law hasn't been changed to outlaw bicycles which seems to be the impression that some, and notably one poster has gone away with. Relax and calm down, you can still get dressed up in lycra and pedal all over the forest, nothing has changed.[/p][/quote]We'll said. Unfortunately Ginger and his cronies will not be happy until all internal combustion engines and their operators are wiped from the face of the earth. His extremist cycling views are held by very, very few but he is deluded into believing that his form of transportation is the one and only. I do not wish harm on people but one day he will get beaten from his bike, probably for running a red light or another stupid practice cyclists continue to display. I just hope the paramedics turn up in peddle cars. His continual whining is like a broken record.[/p][/quote]Wow, you really ARE a complete and utter moron with not a single braincell, I personally, don't hate cars, I love them, I just hate the morons who control some of them, my views are FAR from "extremist"(if they were, I would be trying to get into crashes which I don't, I actively avoid them), I don't beleive my form of transport is the only one, I openly acknowledge that at times, private cars are more suitable but for short distances and in towns and cities, is not a suitable time for them unless you physically need to drive, not just have a sense of need(much like an alcoholic thinks he NEEDS booze), driving is clearly an addiction that needs to be addressed, as for being "beaten" from my bike, it wouldn't be for running a red light or anything, more than likely it would be because an idiot behind the wheel knows I'm right and they're wrong but I'm not going to return the favour of wishing harm on me, mostly because I'm not a violent person. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -6

10:35pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.
I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.
Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.
First off, most cyclists like myself, DO understand traffic lights.
Secondly, why should I use an indirect, unconnected piece of cr@p when there's a perfectly adequate road to use my ROAD vehicle on? Especially when I have NO legal obligation to use aforementioned cr@p but I DO have a LEGAL obligation to use the road as my bike is a ROAD VEHICLE.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car.[/p][/quote]The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.[/p][/quote]I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.[/p][/quote]Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.[/p][/quote]First off, most cyclists like myself, DO understand traffic lights. Secondly, why should I use an indirect, unconnected piece of cr@p when there's a perfectly adequate road to use my ROAD vehicle on? Especially when I have NO legal obligation to use aforementioned cr@p but I DO have a LEGAL obligation to use the road as my bike is a ROAD VEHICLE. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

11:08pm Tue 19 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
My last MOT confirmed my car is perfectly clean - so no need to avoid using it.
.
Particulates are in the air, studies found that cyclists were 4 times less likely to die from pollution related illness than motorists, this is because the heavy breathing caused by cycling, doesn't allow particulates from car exhausts to settle in the lungs as much, whereas somone sat in a car, even with the air con running, is breathing in a more relaxed way, meaning particulates build up MUCH quicker in a motorists lungs, doesn't matter if your car is clean or not, it's all in the air.
I don't mind dying - its inevitable anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: My last MOT confirmed my car is perfectly clean - so no need to avoid using it. .[/p][/quote]Particulates are in the air, studies found that cyclists were 4 times less likely to die from pollution related illness than motorists, this is because the heavy breathing caused by cycling, doesn't allow particulates from car exhausts to settle in the lungs as much, whereas somone sat in a car, even with the air con running, is breathing in a more relaxed way, meaning particulates build up MUCH quicker in a motorists lungs, doesn't matter if your car is clean or not, it's all in the air.[/p][/quote]I don't mind dying - its inevitable anyway. good-gosh
  • Score: 1

2:14am Wed 20 Aug 14

humbugg says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............




...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.
No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.[/p][/quote]No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way. humbugg
  • Score: 2

5:32am Wed 20 Aug 14

skeptik says...

On your bike for on your bike then?
On your bike for on your bike then? skeptik
  • Score: 0

6:08am Wed 20 Aug 14

DanWeston says...

humbugg wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............





...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.
No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.
Surely this is also an argument for banning an awful lot of farm machinery, which is "slow moving" and too wide to overtake on these roads?
[quote][p][bold]humbugg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.[/p][/quote]No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.[/p][/quote]Surely this is also an argument for banning an awful lot of farm machinery, which is "slow moving" and too wide to overtake on these roads? DanWeston
  • Score: 0

6:22am Wed 20 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

this scheme was going to be run as a test to see its viability for other areas (hence why the government finding). Everything was in place for it to go ahead, including agreement from private businesses to use their land for the docking stations.
Worst of all is by knocking this backchat the last minute, and potentially handing back the money (which if we hadn't of applied for would have gone to other schemes in other National Parks). Puts at risk all future requests for grants.
this scheme was going to be run as a test to see its viability for other areas (hence why the government finding). Everything was in place for it to go ahead, including agreement from private businesses to use their land for the docking stations. Worst of all is by knocking this backchat the last minute, and potentially handing back the money (which if we hadn't of applied for would have gone to other schemes in other National Parks). Puts at risk all future requests for grants. Drhysted
  • Score: 2

9:52am Wed 20 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

DanWeston wrote:
humbugg wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............






...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.
No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.
Surely this is also an argument for banning an awful lot of farm machinery, which is "slow moving" and too wide to overtake on these roads?
I'm not sure how you would justify banning farm vehicles that need to be moved between specific fields as part of the farmers job of providing food for the nation. Unlike the leisure cyclist who can pick virtually any road at random between Lands-End and John o' Groats to pedal up and down, the farm vehicle is strictly limited by the small area encompassing the fields that are being worked.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]humbugg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.[/p][/quote]No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.[/p][/quote]Surely this is also an argument for banning an awful lot of farm machinery, which is "slow moving" and too wide to overtake on these roads?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how you would justify banning farm vehicles that need to be moved between specific fields as part of the farmers job of providing food for the nation. Unlike the leisure cyclist who can pick virtually any road at random between Lands-End and John o' Groats to pedal up and down, the farm vehicle is strictly limited by the small area encompassing the fields that are being worked. Torchie1
  • Score: 2

9:55am Wed 20 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Boo-hoo, boo-hoo - the nasty Forest men won't let another bike leaser operate. It’s the end of the world - were all doomed. Boo-hoo
Boo-hoo, boo-hoo - the nasty Forest men won't let another bike leaser operate. It’s the end of the world - were all doomed. Boo-hoo good-gosh
  • Score: 2

10:00am Wed 20 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Horrid horrid things going happen to the world now - just wait and see. Like everyone gasping for breath in poison laden air from all the extra evil smelly-smelly cars, hospitals stuffed full of unhealthy burger scoffing children who wouldn’t be ill if they rode bikes, and, worst of all, no more beautiful thin people for the public to gaze at in wonder on our roads. Boo-hoo.
Horrid horrid things going happen to the world now - just wait and see. Like everyone gasping for breath in poison laden air from all the extra evil smelly-smelly cars, hospitals stuffed full of unhealthy burger scoffing children who wouldn’t be ill if they rode bikes, and, worst of all, no more beautiful thin people for the public to gaze at in wonder on our roads. Boo-hoo. good-gosh
  • Score: 3

10:26am Wed 20 Aug 14

forest hump says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.
I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.
Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.
First off, most cyclists like myself, DO understand traffic lights.
Secondly, why should I use an indirect, unconnected piece of cr@p when there's a perfectly adequate road to use my ROAD vehicle on? Especially when I have NO legal obligation to use aforementioned cr@p but I DO have a LEGAL obligation to use the road as my bike is a ROAD VEHICLE.
Hit a nerve I see. Cycle paths are perfectly good. It is self-rightous jerks like yourself who think it is not macho to use them. Sheer arrogance...a trait which is endemic with a faction of cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car.[/p][/quote]The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.[/p][/quote]I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.[/p][/quote]Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.[/p][/quote]First off, most cyclists like myself, DO understand traffic lights. Secondly, why should I use an indirect, unconnected piece of cr@p when there's a perfectly adequate road to use my ROAD vehicle on? Especially when I have NO legal obligation to use aforementioned cr@p but I DO have a LEGAL obligation to use the road as my bike is a ROAD VEHICLE.[/p][/quote]Hit a nerve I see. Cycle paths are perfectly good. It is self-rightous jerks like yourself who think it is not macho to use them. Sheer arrogance...a trait which is endemic with a faction of cyclists. forest hump
  • Score: 0

10:31am Wed 20 Aug 14

boilerman says...

Did I read that it was £2million for a 250 bike scheme, if so £8000 grand per bike does seem like an awful lot.
If this is the case then it deserved to be thrown out.
It does seem that all these government funded schemes always cost way more than private enterprise.
A bike scheme is a good idea but at the right price.
Did I read that it was £2million for a 250 bike scheme, if so £8000 grand per bike does seem like an awful lot. If this is the case then it deserved to be thrown out. It does seem that all these government funded schemes always cost way more than private enterprise. A bike scheme is a good idea but at the right price. boilerman
  • Score: 3

10:33am Wed 20 Aug 14

camerajuan says...

Is Jeffy dead?

I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage.

In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic.

I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.
Is Jeffy dead? I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage. In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic. I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi. camerajuan
  • Score: 0

11:01am Wed 20 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

camerajuan wrote:
Is Jeffy dead?

I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage.

In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic.

I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.
The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Is Jeffy dead? I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage. In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic. I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.[/p][/quote]The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit. Torchie1
  • Score: 1

11:55am Wed 20 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

boilerman wrote:
Did I read that it was £2million for a 250 bike scheme, if so £8000 grand per bike does seem like an awful lot.
If this is the case then it deserved to be thrown out.
It does seem that all these government funded schemes always cost way more than private enterprise.
A bike scheme is a good idea but at the right price.
The set up costs covered the docking stations, software, charging facilities, wages for mechanics. Also the bikes would not be Halfolds specials, but specially adapted for the terrain and include the necessary electronics.
[quote][p][bold]boilerman[/bold] wrote: Did I read that it was £2million for a 250 bike scheme, if so £8000 grand per bike does seem like an awful lot. If this is the case then it deserved to be thrown out. It does seem that all these government funded schemes always cost way more than private enterprise. A bike scheme is a good idea but at the right price.[/p][/quote]The set up costs covered the docking stations, software, charging facilities, wages for mechanics. Also the bikes would not be Halfolds specials, but specially adapted for the terrain and include the necessary electronics. Drhysted
  • Score: -2

12:08pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Is Jeffy dead?

I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage.

In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic.

I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.
The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.
The NPA is not here to represent the commoners (the CDA keep forgetting "rights of pasture" do not mean "rights of ownership").
The NPA are there to care for the National (that means for the nation) Park, whilst encouraging tourism and leisure. In fact their resent actions could be considered breaching their legal obligations.
The main problem of the NPA members is that they have been "placed" by other committees (similar to quangos), so do not represent the needs of the National Park. In fact it could be said that by having the ex-head of verderers as their chairman, they are biased.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Is Jeffy dead? I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage. In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic. I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.[/p][/quote]The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.[/p][/quote]The NPA is not here to represent the commoners (the CDA keep forgetting "rights of pasture" do not mean "rights of ownership"). The NPA are there to care for the National (that means for the nation) Park, whilst encouraging tourism and leisure. In fact their resent actions could be considered breaching their legal obligations. The main problem of the NPA members is that they have been "placed" by other committees (similar to quangos), so do not represent the needs of the National Park. In fact it could be said that by having the ex-head of verderers as their chairman, they are biased. Drhysted
  • Score: -1

12:45pm Wed 20 Aug 14

forest hump says...

To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way. forest hump
  • Score: 6

1:17pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

Drhysted wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Is Jeffy dead?

I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage.

In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic.

I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.
The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.
The NPA is not here to represent the commoners (the CDA keep forgetting "rights of pasture" do not mean "rights of ownership").
The NPA are there to care for the National (that means for the nation) Park, whilst encouraging tourism and leisure. In fact their resent actions could be considered breaching their legal obligations.
The main problem of the NPA members is that they have been "placed" by other committees (similar to quangos), so do not represent the needs of the National Park. In fact it could be said that by having the ex-head of verderers as their chairman, they are biased.
I think you need to visit their website and acquaint yourself with the details published by the NPA, as you seem to have misunderstood the reason for it's existence.
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Is Jeffy dead? I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage. In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic. I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.[/p][/quote]The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.[/p][/quote]The NPA is not here to represent the commoners (the CDA keep forgetting "rights of pasture" do not mean "rights of ownership"). The NPA are there to care for the National (that means for the nation) Park, whilst encouraging tourism and leisure. In fact their resent actions could be considered breaching their legal obligations. The main problem of the NPA members is that they have been "placed" by other committees (similar to quangos), so do not represent the needs of the National Park. In fact it could be said that by having the ex-head of verderers as their chairman, they are biased.[/p][/quote]I think you need to visit their website and acquaint yourself with the details published by the NPA, as you seem to have misunderstood the reason for it's existence. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 20 Aug 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Is Jeffy dead?

I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage.

In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic.

I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.
The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.
I say to that - so?

The NPA were never going to allow this simply because of the nimbysaurus rexes that reside in the forest who are absolutely fine with a weekly animal death/injury caused by utterly thousands of motorists but a few hundred cyclists who do nothing more than drop a bit of litter and they can't be doing with that kind of riff raff.

I really hope that there are no further animals killed or injured by motorists in the forest but the sad truth is that motorists are the real danger and motorists will cause the real accidents and messes in the new forest. Cyclists will not.

NPA - Nimby Pr@ Association.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Is Jeffy dead? I'm sure this story was set up purely to become another innocent victim of his pointless rage. In other news, this is a stupid decision. 2000 signatures say "yes we want this" and 12 out of 14 people say "No, ruddy lycra nazis" and it gets scrapped. The public have spoken and the NPA have Toried the cr@p out of them. Pathetic. I drive too, just so people don't think I'm a Nazi.[/p][/quote]The New Forest population was estimated at 174000 in 2014 and 2000 represents just over 1% of this number, in 2013 there were nearly five times the number of animals turned out on the forest so the signatures only represent 20% of that total. The NPA has a primary duty to look after the Commoning of the forest followed by 'Habitats & Wildlife', 'Unspoilt Landscape', 'History & Culture' with 'Recreation' following up ahead of 'Communities' and 'Sustainability'. The members of the NPA would have been aware of the signatures but the NPA have to look at the whole picture and the wider view is that cyclists are more than adequately catered for in the New Forest. Looking at the broader picture, the forest comprises of 219 square miles and if you feel disgruntled about your treatment, there are another 94000 square miles within the UK to visit.[/p][/quote]I say to that - so? The NPA were never going to allow this simply because of the nimbysaurus rexes that reside in the forest who are absolutely fine with a weekly animal death/injury caused by utterly thousands of motorists but a few hundred cyclists who do nothing more than drop a bit of litter and they can't be doing with that kind of riff raff. I really hope that there are no further animals killed or injured by motorists in the forest but the sad truth is that motorists are the real danger and motorists will cause the real accidents and messes in the new forest. Cyclists will not. NPA - Nimby Pr@ Association. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

forest hump wrote:
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.[/p][/quote]Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest. Drhysted
  • Score: 2

4:40pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

humbugg wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.
Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.
Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.
But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.
Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing.

However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling.

We are all different!
Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.
OR I could just take a nice slow drive...............





...
Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.
Why would they bully me?
Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.
No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.
No, they'll bully, those are NOT the only cyclists you see, they ARE looking where they're going(you tend to steer in whichever way you're facing), you DO see tourist cyclists and if you can't pass them, don't fecking TRY, simple as that, jeez, we're d@mned if we make it easier to pass by riding 2 abreast and d@mned if we don't.
[quote][p][bold]humbugg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: The last time I walked over the Forest was in July, to take one of my offspring bird watching (not my thing but I give it a go). Fat lot of good bikes would have been crossing 10 acre bogs and ditches.[/p][/quote]Fat lot of good a car would have been as well.[/p][/quote]Yes we travelled by wellington boots - they predate the bicycle by 200 years.[/p][/quote]But I thought you said and I quote "The BEST way to use the Forest is to put the wife and kids in the car", so why not use the car? Is it because it's NOT the best way to "use" the forest? But I digress, the only time the car should be used is when you have a need of traversing large distances(more than 25 to 30 miles) in a relatively short amount of time, otherwise, public transport(motorcycle if you want to get there even quicker than by car), walking or cycling should be used.[/p][/quote]Ginger, You obviously have a passion for cycling which is a great thing. However, if I fancied a day out to enjoy scenery etc, I wouldn't want to be all sweaty and hot from Cycling. We are all different![/p][/quote]Who said you had to get hot and sweaty? It's not a race after all, so take it easy, don't peddle too hard and you'll still be fresh as a daisy when you finish your journey. I could take it easy going to work in the mornings but I'm not the sort of person who takes things lying down.[/p][/quote]OR I could just take a nice slow drive............... ...[/p][/quote]Which wouldn't last long due to other motorists bullying you into driving faster and will kill you quicker as particulates would then be allowed to settle in your lungs due to slow breathing.[/p][/quote]Why would they bully me?[/p][/quote]Because you'd be going slow and they want to go faster.[/p][/quote]No they wont bully, they'll just overtake. I drive the forest often and the only cyclists I come across are head down, not looking where they are going(or so it seems) and peddling like the clappers. I don't often see tourist cyclists but I do see a lot of club cyclists and this is the problem. Just try passing eight or nine of these people when they are strung out six feet apart leaving no room to pull in when a vehicle comes the other way.[/p][/quote]No, they'll bully, those are NOT the only cyclists you see, they ARE looking where they're going(you tend to steer in whichever way you're facing), you DO see tourist cyclists and if you can't pass them, don't fecking TRY, simple as that, jeez, we're d@mned if we make it easier to pass by riding 2 abreast and d@mned if we don't. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals.

They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.
When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.
And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi.

Correct answer is by car.
The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.
I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.
Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.
First off, most cyclists like myself, DO understand traffic lights.
Secondly, why should I use an indirect, unconnected piece of cr@p when there's a perfectly adequate road to use my ROAD vehicle on? Especially when I have NO legal obligation to use aforementioned cr@p but I DO have a LEGAL obligation to use the road as my bike is a ROAD VEHICLE.
Hit a nerve I see. Cycle paths are perfectly good. It is self-rightous jerks like yourself who think it is not macho to use them. Sheer arrogance...a trait which is endemic with a faction of cyclists.
No, cycle paths are NOT "perfectly good", good example being the one along the avenue, it's narrow, overgrown, overall neglected, people park on it ILEGALLY, people don't look before pulling across it and it ends in the middle of no-where, so it's not even connected anywhere, another good example, is the paths around Ikea and the other shops there, they're also neglected, people walk on it and you have to give way to everything, so no, it's nothing to do with being "self-rightous" or arrogant, it's ALL about using the safest and most direct route possible, this route being the ROAD.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Just spoken to a number of people today that are going to be a bit miffed. They HAD earmarked the Forest as a destination to visit. I say had, because I gather they're now not going to bother as driving is a fair bit of a faff for non-locals. They were all supportive of the idea and thought it good. This is a wasted opportunity.[/p][/quote]When the latest figures available from the NFDC show the annual visitor numbers have reached now 13.5 million, perhaps it will ease the burden if a few are dissuaded from coming.[/p][/quote]And 95% of those people travel there by what? Here's a hint, it's noisy, smelly and typically only seats between 4 and 7 people, no, it's NOT a taxi. Correct answer is by car.[/p][/quote]The car........ choice of the overwhelming majority and hated by those who can't afford to run one.[/p][/quote]I don't hate cars, I actually love them, it's the morons in control of them that I hate.[/p][/quote]Same comment goes for bikes. Bikes are an ingenious invention. It is a shame that some of their operators cannot understand traffic lights or use exclusive paths. The worst being those gifted with red hair.[/p][/quote]First off, most cyclists like myself, DO understand traffic lights. Secondly, why should I use an indirect, unconnected piece of cr@p when there's a perfectly adequate road to use my ROAD vehicle on? Especially when I have NO legal obligation to use aforementioned cr@p but I DO have a LEGAL obligation to use the road as my bike is a ROAD VEHICLE.[/p][/quote]Hit a nerve I see. Cycle paths are perfectly good. It is self-rightous jerks like yourself who think it is not macho to use them. Sheer arrogance...a trait which is endemic with a faction of cyclists.[/p][/quote]No, cycle paths are NOT "perfectly good", good example being the one along the avenue, it's narrow, overgrown, overall neglected, people park on it ILEGALLY, people don't look before pulling across it and it ends in the middle of no-where, so it's not even connected anywhere, another good example, is the paths around Ikea and the other shops there, they're also neglected, people walk on it and you have to give way to everything, so no, it's nothing to do with being "self-rightous" or arrogant, it's ALL about using the safest and most direct route possible, this route being the ROAD. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 20 Aug 14

forest hump says...

Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.
I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.[/p][/quote]Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.[/p][/quote]I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care forest hump
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.
I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care
Yet they wouldn't have anything nice without the tourist industry and/or would have to pay MUCH higher taxes.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.[/p][/quote]Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.[/p][/quote]I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care[/p][/quote]Yet they wouldn't have anything nice without the tourist industry and/or would have to pay MUCH higher taxes. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

forest hump wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.
I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care
You seriously think it's the minority that work in the tourism industry in the New Forest.
Seriously you are that poorly informed.

My mothers predictions have come true!
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.[/p][/quote]Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.[/p][/quote]I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care[/p][/quote]You seriously think it's the minority that work in the tourism industry in the New Forest. Seriously you are that poorly informed. My mothers predictions have come true! Drhysted
  • Score: 2

9:46pm Wed 20 Aug 14

forest hump says...

Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.
I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care
You seriously think it's the minority that work in the tourism industry in the New Forest.
Seriously you are that poorly informed.

My mothers predictions have come true!
Yes
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.[/p][/quote]Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.[/p][/quote]I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care[/p][/quote]You seriously think it's the minority that work in the tourism industry in the New Forest. Seriously you are that poorly informed. My mothers predictions have come true![/p][/quote]Yes forest hump
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Drhysted says...

forest hump wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
forest hump wrote:
To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.
Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.
I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care
You seriously think it's the minority that work in the tourism industry in the New Forest.
Seriously you are that poorly informed.

My mothers predictions have come true!
Yes
I'm glad you agree with my mother.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: To summarise this non-sensical debate. A very, very small minority from both residents and cyclists are blowing this out of all proportion. Again, it is the noisy, vocal minority barking and twisting this issue beyond belief. The vast majority could not give a toss either way.[/p][/quote]Not something you'd say if you worked in the tourist industry in the New Forest.[/p][/quote]I'll repeat, the vast majority ( excluding the minority who work in the tourist industry) do not care[/p][/quote]You seriously think it's the minority that work in the tourism industry in the New Forest. Seriously you are that poorly informed. My mothers predictions have come true![/p][/quote]Yes[/p][/quote]I'm glad you agree with my mother. Drhysted
  • 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