Bike rage threatens to take hold in Forest (From Daily Echo)

If you don't like it, you can always move out of the area that just happens to be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the south...

NIMBY tw@ts.

Trust the CDA and the NFNA to try and put the spoke in, they need to learn that the new forest, both on road and off road is for everyone's enjoyment not just their live stock.

The Forestry Commission has the correct view. The New Forest is ours and if we want to cycle there at our own expense so be it.As long as we do it safely, adhere to the highway code and the FC guidance whats the problem? The CDA need to get a grip!!

In my experience only, there do seem to be some dodgy attitudes from both sides, the holier than thou on bikes & the nutters in cars, get everyone around a table to have a good chin wag about it, surely something can be worked out but both sides have to keep to it.

Irate Wintonian wrote:
If you don't like it, you can always move out of the area that just happens to be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the south... NIMBY tw@ts.

coundnt agree more with you sir

When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nice to see such a well thought out and reasonable comment lol.

Solomon's Boot wrote:
I agree with thew CDA. The livestock and wildlife was here first. The New Forest is NOT a cycle track. Those lights at night are so bright, they blind motorists temporarily, they are a bloody nightmare!

There's not rest for the wildlife either. They go out at night in HUGE numbers!!!!

These idiots need culling, they gather in large numbers and take over the roads. Roads were built for cars, and car drivers pay road tax, if a motorist hits one of these dickheads, the motorist gets the blame, even though these idiots have NO road sense!!

Culling is a bit strong, deport them to the Netherlands, I'm sure our Dutch friends would welcome them with open arms.

Everyday I see cyclists breaking the law, running red lights, going on and off the pavement to suit themselves but as soon as one of gets hit they blame to motorist.

Both sides are to blame. I've seen cyclists on Forest roads with no road sense or consideration for other road users or their own safety for that matter. Equally I’ve seen motorists who speed on roads where they shouldn't and take corners with little thought for safety.
They're both as bad as each other.

Stillness wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nice to see such a well thought out and reasonable comment lol.

I know, cyclist are my pet hate, sick to death of whinging cyclists, tax them or ban either I don't care.

A very provocative article.
ANGER, 'frightened and abused', '... could end in violence', '..explosion in cycling', really come on, and I wonder what a 'crackdown on cyclists' would involve?

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

I think most cyclist also have a car and pay road tax.

Echo having a non news today again eh?

@MarkJBryant wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

I think most cyclist also have a car and pay road tax.

And they also pay general taxes as well and as fitter persons than most are not a resultant drain on NHS resources and have lower sick rates at work than most of the population.

If you followed some of the arguments on this post, the majority would ban cars from the New Forest as well, after all the forest and wild life was there before the car!!!

However cannot see CDA members living with that now!!

From the Edge wrote:

Solomon's Boot wrote:
I agree with thew CDA. The livestock and wildlife was here first. The New Forest is NOT a cycle track. Those lights at night are so bright, they blind motorists temporarily, they are a bloody nightmare!

There's not rest for the wildlife either. They go out at night in HUGE numbers!!!!

These idiots need culling, they gather in large numbers and take over the roads. Roads were built for cars, and car drivers pay road tax, if a motorist hits one of these dickheads, the motorist gets the blame, even though these idiots have NO road sense!!

Culling is a bit strong, deport them to the Netherlands, I'm sure our Dutch friends would welcome them with open arms.

Everyday I see cyclists breaking the law, running red lights, going on and off the pavement to suit themselves but as soon as one of gets hit they blame to motorist.

In 2009, 159 ponies were killed by motorists in the New Forest. How many were killed by cyclists?

http://www.newforest
npa.gov.uk/looking-a
fter/campaigns/anima
l-accidents

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

First off, there's no such thing as "road tax". Roads are paid for out of general and local taxation - cyclists pay income tax, VAT, council tax, etc.. just like everyone. So cyclists in fact DO own the road, just as much anyone does! There is something called "Vehicle Excise Duty", which is what you're getting confused with, and it doesn't bring in enough to pay for the roads. Further, VED goes according to emissions, so if cyclists had to pay VED they'd pay the same amount as other zero-emissions vehicles (like electric): £0.

Next, about cyclists jumping red lights: It's wrong, but not all cyclists do it. Further, I am sure you must also see lots of motorists breaking the law too each day - e.g. speeding (speeding in urban areas by heavy motor vehicles is FAR more dangerous and kills WAY more people than RLJing cyclists). Does that you also think all motorists should be banned? If not, why can't you apply the same logic to cyclists? Let's face it, there's good, thoughtless & bad in every group, be they cyclists OR motorists!

I'm a cyclist, and drive a sports car, and pay tax on two cars, even though it's actually vehicle excise tax actually!

I get fed up with all these cars on the roads, congesting the place up, especially around Lyndhurst.

A bit of tolerance would go far, especially from narrow minded insular Sunday drivers.

Purely from a pedestrian's point of view; I only wish the police would do their job and prosecute both for grossly abusing the use of pavements. And by that I mean; cyclists who ride on pavements and motorists who park on them! Both are very commonly UNprosecuted contraventions of local bylaws!

Yawn! The old 'I pay Road Tax' arguement which is not used to fund road building or repair. Local roads are largely funded throught the Council Tax system which most cyclists, pedestrians and drivers will all largely be paying so if paying tax is the only determinant we can all use the roads.

Anyway, it's not cyclists on the Forest that are the problem, it is irresponsible dog owners and their pooches leaving little brown parcels dotted around for people to tread in.

From the Edge wrote:

Stillness wrote:

From the Edge wrote: When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves. Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nice to see such a well thought out and reasonable comment lol.

I know, cyclist are my pet hate, sick to death of whinging cyclists, tax them or ban either I don't care.

get you facts correct first we all pay tax towards the road.your car tax is for the government not the roads,this has been explained time and time again but car drivers cant understand this.

I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

teamgreen wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

Stillness wrote:

From the Edge wrote: When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves. Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nice to see such a well thought out and reasonable comment lol.

I know, cyclist are my pet hate, sick to death of whinging cyclists, tax them or ban either I don't care.

get you facts correct first we all pay tax towards the road.your car tax is for the government not the roads,this has been explained time and time again but car drivers cant understand this.

So pays to repair roads?

The Government, via local councils, some council contract that service out.

Where does the money come from for the Government to grant to local councils? the tax charged on cycle helmets or puncture repair kits, no it's from VED as road tax.

@MarkJBryant wrote:
I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

Agree with that, however they are needed where as bicycles are not.

The worst of worst is the dreaded double baby buggy, ban them as well.

@MarkJBryant wrote:
I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

Agreed. I saw one the other day which was towing a sholly like a trailer. Major accident waiting to happen. Should be made to wear high vis clothing and also make brum brum noises so we can hear them coming

Some of the moaners may think it is OK for them to drive in their posh but highly polluting cars when they come to towns and cities outside the Forest, but unacceptable when others ride their environmentally friendly bikes in their back yards
.
Just because these people live in the forest should not mean that others right to enjoy it should be curbed. People should learn to live and let live.

Why don't we just ban cycling altogether? No one wants them on the road, no one wants them off the road. They slow traffic down, they don't pay road tax, they are too fit, healthy, use environmentally friendly transport which no one cares about especially in the New Forest.

Heck we'd rather see more roads built, wider, allowing cars to go faster and pollute the New Forest more. Far better.

No one pays road tax, you pay a vehicle duty tax and the money raised doesn't not go on road. Cyclists are also car owners that choose to cycle as well. How does road tax affect riding off road?

Cyclists are always breaking the law are they? What percentage of car drivers go above the speed limit? How many car drivers go through amber/red lights (Oh its only just changed it was as good as Green)? How many drivers don't stop at pedestrian (in particular zebra) crossings when a pedestrian is waiting to cross?

There is plenty of room for everyone in the New Forest, everyone should start showing some tolerance. Finally the New Forest is a fantastic place to walk, ride horses and cycle. It's not such a great place to drive with the small roads and no pavements.

Maybe you should start restricting motor vehicle access and make it more like the National Park it should be.

Finally, if you hate cyclists then you should try doing it sometime - it just might change your mind.

I walk, I drive, I cycle.

Scrutinizer wrote:
Purely from a pedestrian's point of view; I only wish the police would do their job and prosecute both for grossly abusing the use of pavements. And by that I mean; cyclists who ride on pavements and motorists who park on them! Both are very commonly UNprosecuted contraventions of local bylaws!

Pavements in some places are empty of pedestrians, and should be dedicated by the authorities as dual use rather than cylists being injured by pothole falls.

Re cycling in the New Forest dont be a bunch of NIMBYs.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Some of the moaners may think it is OK for them to drive in their posh but highly polluting cars when they come to towns and cities outside the Forest, but unacceptable when others ride their environmentally friendly bikes in their back yards
.
Just because these people live in the forest should not mean that others right to enjoy it should be curbed. People should learn to live and let live.

I like your sentiment, but I don't think your tone is particularly helpful.

I don't like the environmental argument. At the end of the day if you go on one flight in a year, any amount of recycling or riding your bike is not going to make much difference.

However live and let live I agree with.

"Where does the money come from for the Government to grant to local councils? the tax charged on cycle helmets or puncture repair kits, no it's from VED as road tax"

How offensively ignorant. VED is based on emmissions, cyclists, as with all zero emission transport, as exempt.

VED exempt cars include VW Golf BlueMotion, Ford Fiesta 1.6 Econetic, Toyota Prius, Toyota iQ, and the SEAT Ibiza Ecomotive. Using your logic these should be banned too?

"Roads were built for cars, and car drivers pay road tax"

Completely incorrect actually - road tax was abolished in 1937. What you misunderstand to be road tax is actually called 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and is a tax on the amount of CO2 a vehicle edmits, which is why a tax disc costs more for large 4X4s than it does for small cars. Roads are paid for via general taxation - so everyone who pays taxes, regardless of whether they even own a car or bicycle, pays 'road tax'.

Please get your facts correct before posting.

I hardly know where to begin with this, and that's before getting to the usual swivel-eyed frothing from the "waah waah road tax waah waah red lights waah waah" lobby. Anyway.

"ANGER over the increasing number of weekend cyclists visiting the New Forest could end in violence, it has been claimed."

Gets off to a great start, doesn't it? The clear implication here is that cyclists had better watch their step.

"The Commoners’ Defence Association (CDA) has accused cyclists of posing a danger to other road users, some of whom have been “frightened and abused” by large groups of people on bikes."

Ah, the good old CDA. Come on, then, where's the evidence? Which road users have been "frightened and abused" by large groups of people on bikes in the Forest? And what possible danger could they present? In any collision between a bike and a car the bike is always going to come of worst.

"CDA chairman Graham Ferris said: “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”"

I've read this a few times and it sounds more like a threat every time. I'm sure that that's not what Mr Ferris intended, though. As for "effectively obstructed", the most notable obstructions that I encounter in the Forest are ponies and cows. I rather suspect that the CDA isn't too troubled by those obstructions. So really, they just don't like bikes.

"The association, which represents the owners of New Forest ponies and other animals that roam the area, is calling for a crackdown on cyclists."

"Crackdown"? What does this even mean?

"Dr Ferris raised the issue at the monthly Court of Verderers in Lyndhurst."

Ah yes, that great bastion of progressive thinking and common sense. Where's the "rolling eyes" icon?

"He said: “Commoners are increasingly concerned about the explosion in cycling, both casual and organised, and the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to take muchneeded action."

How many commoners are concerned about it, really? A lot of the cyclists in the Forest are commoners themselves.

"“The situation on the roads, particularly at weekends, is already critical."

Yes, they're rammed with cars.

"“Organised races, time trials and ‘iron man’ competitions result in huge numbers of cyclists travelling silently at speed on narrow country lanes – at great risk to residents and livestock.”"

None of these events see "huge numbers". The big numbers are on occasional non-competitive events. All events are run in accordance with the law with every effort made to keep everyone safe.

I'm not sure what risk a cyclist presents to a horse or cow. I certainly wouldn't want to run into one, but I suspect it wouldn't even notice if I did.

"Dr Ferris added: “Off-road cyclists are being encountered far from the established cycling routes at any hour of the day or night."

This seems to be an entirely different argument, I doubt there's much danger of conflict with road users if people are riding off-road.

"“This represents a major intrusion into the muchvaunted tranquillity of the Forest. Groups of cyclists at night with bright lights, shouting loudly to each other, is a level of disturbance that neither commoners’ livestock nor wildlife can be expected to tolerate."

Bright lights at night? Whatever next! Best tell all the motorists, too. I'd imagine that the commoners' livestock would react to off-road cyclists at night in much the same way as it does to cars on the road at night, ie not at all.

"“The Forestry Commission should instruct its keepers to enforce the by-laws and take action against persistent offenders.”"

I'm not sure which offenders are being referred to here. Maybe cyclists are persistently riding at over 40mph like many cars do? Personally I can't pedal hard enough, but I may be in a minority.

"A Forestry Commission spokesman said the organisation supported cycling, which it regarded as a healthy and sustainable form of transport."

Yay for the Forestry Commission! Maybe it could open up a few more off-road cycle routes in the Forest, perhaps even ones that actually join up in a meaningful fashion.

"However, he said the commission was working with other members of the New Forest Cycle Working Group to produce a code of conduct for cyclists."

Who's on the New Forest Cycle Working Group, then?

"Last month the issue was raised at a meeting of the New Forest National Park Authority."

Wow, those meetings must just fly by.

"Members complained that tourists were cycling along busy roads, with children as young as seven or eight struggling to keep up with their parents."

These would be the tourists that visit the New Forest because it's all rather lovely and bring lots of money with them and support local businesses, would it? Yes, let's put them off, brilliant idea.

And heaven forbid that children should be out exercising in the fresh air. If the road is "busy" then that's because of all the cars on it, all of which should exercise due care and attention.

"But cyclists hit back, saying they made the roads safer for people and animals by encouraging drivers to slow down."

Best not do that, they'll get all cross. There might be violence. Graham Ferris said so.

Honestly, the whole thing's a nonsense. As far as I can tell the CDA is just a bunch of reactionary NIMBY types who can't bear to see anyone else enjoying themselves in "their" Forest. Who will they have a go at next?

It's this lot that need culling:

http://singletrackwo
rld.com/forum/topic/
cyclists-frightening
-people-in-the-new-f
orest

Thanks to everyone who made comments about about my comments, I counted 9 responses, at 50 pm a response that's £4.50 you have raised for Children in Need.

By the way I don't have a car or bike.

The Forest is everyone piece love harmony to all users.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Some of the moaners may think it is OK for them to drive in their posh but highly polluting cars when they come to towns and cities outside the Forest, but unacceptable when others ride their environmentally friendly bikes in their back yards
.
Just because these people live in the forest should not mean that others right to enjoy it should be curbed. People should learn to live and let live.

I can't really see much concerning environmental issues in the article, it was concerning road safety & livestock safety so jump off that high horse please.

Mike_D wrote:
I hardly know where to begin with this, and that's before getting to the usual swivel-eyed frothing from the "waah waah road tax waah waah red lights waah waah" lobby. Anyway.

"ANGER over the increasing number of weekend cyclists visiting the New Forest could end in violence, it has been claimed."

Gets off to a great start, doesn't it? The clear implication here is that cyclists had better watch their step.

"The Commoners’ Defence Association (CDA) has accused cyclists of posing a danger to other road users, some of whom have been “frightened and abused” by large groups of people on bikes."

Ah, the good old CDA. Come on, then, where's the evidence? Which road users have been "frightened and abused" by large groups of people on bikes in the Forest? And what possible danger could they present? In any collision between a bike and a car the bike is always going to come of worst.

"CDA chairman Graham Ferris said: “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”"

I've read this a few times and it sounds more like a threat every time. I'm sure that that's not what Mr Ferris intended, though. As for "effectively obstructed", the most notable obstructions that I encounter in the Forest are ponies and cows. I rather suspect that the CDA isn't too troubled by those obstructions. So really, they just don't like bikes.

"The association, which represents the owners of New Forest ponies and other animals that roam the area, is calling for a crackdown on cyclists."

"Crackdown"? What does this even mean?

"Dr Ferris raised the issue at the monthly Court of Verderers in Lyndhurst."

Ah yes, that great bastion of progressive thinking and common sense. Where's the "rolling eyes" icon?

"He said: “Commoners are increasingly concerned about the explosion in cycling, both casual and organised, and the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to take muchneeded action."

How many commoners are concerned about it, really? A lot of the cyclists in the Forest are commoners themselves.

"“The situation on the roads, particularly at weekends, is already critical."

Yes, they're rammed with cars.

"“Organised races, time trials and ‘iron man’ competitions result in huge numbers of cyclists travelling silently at speed on narrow country lanes – at great risk to residents and livestock.”"

None of these events see "huge numbers". The big numbers are on occasional non-competitive events. All events are run in accordance with the law with every effort made to keep everyone safe.

I'm not sure what risk a cyclist presents to a horse or cow. I certainly wouldn't want to run into one, but I suspect it wouldn't even notice if I did.

"Dr Ferris added: “Off-road cyclists are being encountered far from the established cycling routes at any hour of the day or night."

This seems to be an entirely different argument, I doubt there's much danger of conflict with road users if people are riding off-road.

"“This represents a major intrusion into the muchvaunted tranquillity of the Forest. Groups of cyclists at night with bright lights, shouting loudly to each other, is a level of disturbance that neither commoners’ livestock nor wildlife can be expected to tolerate."

Bright lights at night? Whatever next! Best tell all the motorists, too. I'd imagine that the commoners' livestock would react to off-road cyclists at night in much the same way as it does to cars on the road at night, ie not at all.

"“The Forestry Commission should instruct its keepers to enforce the by-laws and take action against persistent offenders.”"

I'm not sure which offenders are being referred to here. Maybe cyclists are persistently riding at over 40mph like many cars do? Personally I can't pedal hard enough, but I may be in a minority.

"A Forestry Commission spokesman said the organisation supported cycling, which it regarded as a healthy and sustainable form of transport."

Yay for the Forestry Commission! Maybe it could open up a few more off-road cycle routes in the Forest, perhaps even ones that actually join up in a meaningful fashion.

"However, he said the commission was working with other members of the New Forest Cycle Working Group to produce a code of conduct for cyclists."

Who's on the New Forest Cycle Working Group, then?

"Last month the issue was raised at a meeting of the New Forest National Park Authority."

Wow, those meetings must just fly by.

"Members complained that tourists were cycling along busy roads, with children as young as seven or eight struggling to keep up with their parents."

These would be the tourists that visit the New Forest because it's all rather lovely and bring lots of money with them and support local businesses, would it? Yes, let's put them off, brilliant idea.

And heaven forbid that children should be out exercising in the fresh air. If the road is "busy" then that's because of all the cars on it, all of which should exercise due care and attention.

"But cyclists hit back, saying they made the roads safer for people and animals by encouraging drivers to slow down."

Best not do that, they'll get all cross. There might be violence. Graham Ferris said so.

Honestly, the whole thing's a nonsense. As far as I can tell the CDA is just a bunch of reactionary NIMBY types who can't bear to see anyone else enjoying themselves in "their" Forest. Who will they have a go at next?

Excellent, says it all.

Don't get me started on these imbeciles and their eco-arguments, how did they get to the forest in the first place? Did they cycle there? No, they did not, they drove there, probably from some lower-class suburban hole like Reading, some cyclists are even paedophiles you know, which makes them inexcusable in my book, which I would throw at them everytime I see them cycling furiously through the forest, it's a disgrace the way they damage the forest while wearing their ill-fitting garish lycra uniforms, no wonder the ponies are scared!!!

Quite dispiriting to see this degenerate into a stupid spat that morphed into a predictable envy driven class war. What about the fragile and almost unique New Forest ecology? Whatever is done, both the ecology and the way of life of those who live and work on the forest should come first. If you don't respect that - and a lot of the prats on this forum clearly don't - then it doesn't matter whether you are on a car, a bike, a segway or a bloody pogo stick - it would be better for the Forest if you weren't there at all.

Thanks for the balanced reporting again! Who lives in this place? Cyclists have as much right to use the road as any other user. If you want cyclists off of the road, provide more off road access. Simple really! May I also point out car drivers are not at risk. It is the cyclists who take their lives in their hands! Wise up people. Have some **** compassion. We live in a beautiful place and a bike is a great way to enjoy it

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Clever, very well thought out and ingenious. One flaw though, THERE IS NO ROAD TAX.

You have vehicle tax for having an engine. Dumb witt.

Ok so this weekend, I'll leave the pedal power at home and take the scrambler over and enjoy that, it's much louder so there shouldn't be an issue as then live stock can hear me coming. Anyone want to join me?

Ok so this weekend, I'll leave the pedal power at home and take the scrambler over and enjoy that, it's much louder so there shouldn't be an issue as then live stock can hear me coming. Anyone want to join me?

What a biased article. Then I do understand the editor is a Vederer so he wants to keep everybody else out of 'his' New Forest.

@MarkJBryant wrote:

Mike_D wrote: I hardly know where to begin with this, and that's before getting to the usual swivel-eyed frothing from the "waah waah road tax waah waah red lights waah waah" lobby. Anyway. "ANGER over the increasing number of weekend cyclists visiting the New Forest could end in violence, it has been claimed." Gets off to a great start, doesn't it? The clear implication here is that cyclists had better watch their step. "The Commoners’ Defence Association (CDA) has accused cyclists of posing a danger to other road users, some of whom have been “frightened and abused” by large groups of people on bikes." Ah, the good old CDA. Come on, then, where's the evidence? Which road users have been "frightened and abused" by large groups of people on bikes in the Forest? And what possible danger could they present? In any collision between a bike and a car the bike is always going to come of worst. "CDA chairman Graham Ferris said: “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”" I've read this a few times and it sounds more like a threat every time. I'm sure that that's not what Mr Ferris intended, though. As for "effectively obstructed", the most notable obstructions that I encounter in the Forest are ponies and cows. I rather suspect that the CDA isn't too troubled by those obstructions. So really, they just don't like bikes. "The association, which represents the owners of New Forest ponies and other animals that roam the area, is calling for a crackdown on cyclists." "Crackdown"? What does this even mean? "Dr Ferris raised the issue at the monthly Court of Verderers in Lyndhurst." Ah yes, that great bastion of progressive thinking and common sense. Where's the "rolling eyes" icon? "He said: “Commoners are increasingly concerned about the explosion in cycling, both casual and organised, and the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to take muchneeded action." How many commoners are concerned about it, really? A lot of the cyclists in the Forest are commoners themselves. "“The situation on the roads, particularly at weekends, is already critical." Yes, they're rammed with cars. "“Organised races, time trials and ‘iron man’ competitions result in huge numbers of cyclists travelling silently at speed on narrow country lanes – at great risk to residents and livestock.”" None of these events see "huge numbers". The big numbers are on occasional non-competitive events. All events are run in accordance with the law with every effort made to keep everyone safe. I'm not sure what risk a cyclist presents to a horse or cow. I certainly wouldn't want to run into one, but I suspect it wouldn't even notice if I did. "Dr Ferris added: “Off-road cyclists are being encountered far from the established cycling routes at any hour of the day or night." This seems to be an entirely different argument, I doubt there's much danger of conflict with road users if people are riding off-road. "“This represents a major intrusion into the muchvaunted tranquillity of the Forest. Groups of cyclists at night with bright lights, shouting loudly to each other, is a level of disturbance that neither commoners’ livestock nor wildlife can be expected to tolerate." Bright lights at night? Whatever next! Best tell all the motorists, too. I'd imagine that the commoners' livestock would react to off-road cyclists at night in much the same way as it does to cars on the road at night, ie not at all. "“The Forestry Commission should instruct its keepers to enforce the by-laws and take action against persistent offenders.”" I'm not sure which offenders are being referred to here. Maybe cyclists are persistently riding at over 40mph like many cars do? Personally I can't pedal hard enough, but I may be in a minority. "A Forestry Commission spokesman said the organisation supported cycling, which it regarded as a healthy and sustainable form of transport." Yay for the Forestry Commission! Maybe it could open up a few more off-road cycle routes in the Forest, perhaps even ones that actually join up in a meaningful fashion. "However, he said the commission was working with other members of the New Forest Cycle Working Group to produce a code of conduct for cyclists." Who's on the New Forest Cycle Working Group, then? "Last month the issue was raised at a meeting of the New Forest National Park Authority." Wow, those meetings must just fly by. "Members complained that tourists were cycling along busy roads, with children as young as seven or eight struggling to keep up with their parents." These would be the tourists that visit the New Forest because it's all rather lovely and bring lots of money with them and support local businesses, would it? Yes, let's put them off, brilliant idea. And heaven forbid that children should be out exercising in the fresh air. If the road is "busy" then that's because of all the cars on it, all of which should exercise due care and attention. "But cyclists hit back, saying they made the roads safer for people and animals by encouraging drivers to slow down." Best not do that, they'll get all cross. There might be violence. Graham Ferris said so. Honestly, the whole thing's a nonsense. As far as I can tell the CDA is just a bunch of reactionary NIMBY types who can't bear to see anyone else enjoying themselves in "their" Forest. Who will they have a go at next?

Excellent, says it all.

Hear hear!

pjakma wrote:

From the Edge wrote: When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves. Ban the bloody lot of them.

First off, there's no such thing as "road tax". Roads are paid for out of general and local taxation - cyclists pay income tax, VAT, council tax, etc.. just like everyone. So cyclists in fact DO own the road, just as much anyone does! There is something called "Vehicle Excise Duty", which is what you're getting confused with, and it doesn't bring in enough to pay for the roads. Further, VED goes according to emissions, so if cyclists had to pay VED they'd pay the same amount as other zero-emissions vehicles (like electric): £0. Next, about cyclists jumping red lights: It's wrong, but not all cyclists do it. Further, I am sure you must also see lots of motorists breaking the law too each day - e.g. speeding (speeding in urban areas by heavy motor vehicles is FAR more dangerous and kills WAY more people than RLJing cyclists). Does that you also think all motorists should be banned? If not, why can't you apply the same logic to cyclists? Let's face it, there's good, thoughtless & bad in every group, be they cyclists OR motorists!

Here here! I m a cyclist who abides by the Highway Code. I wait patiently behind cars at red lights in full view of motorists, I don't weave in and out of traffic causing chaos, I only cycle on designated cycle ways and I am routinely abused by motorists and almost get knocked off my bike by thoughtless and careless drivers on a daily basis.

If someone asked me to pay a "road tax" I would be happy to... afterall the roads are in a shocking state of repair - cyclists feel that way more than drivers!

I certainly do not want to jump to the defence of the CDA or the Verderers. New Foresters like myself have for generations viewed the Verderers with "suspicion" to put it mildly - they are a vested interest group representing just a couple of hundred wealthy people with the necessary acreage to qualify. Historically they might have represented "the people" against the powers of the Crown, but not today.

HOWEVER I do have an issue with:

1) The spread outside of London of "militant cycling". I can understand why on London's congested roads, cyclists feel the need to be agressive and assertive, but out in the country we are not used to it so when a couple of cyclists deliberately ride abreast to prevent overtaking or give you the finger, we are left bewildered.

2) Organised events are now so common at weekends that journeys are frequently interupted by some semi-official trumped up git with a hi-vis jacket standing in the road beckoning cars stop so cyclists can pass through a junction. The centre of Burley is a classic example where for some reason the event organsiers seem to think that they have the right of way through a junction with "give way" marks. Sooner of later there will be a fatal accident.

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Clever, very well thought out and ingenious. One flaw though, THERE IS NO ROAD TAX.

You have vehicle tax for having an engine. Dumb witt.

Please read my comment posted at 11.57am which posted 25 minutes before your childish name calling dumb

Today is Children in Need day, I round my donation up to to £5 for you because clearly you are a child in need of a sense of humour.

The greatest destruction to the New Forest is caused by building houses and allowing people to live there.

Che Guevara wrote:
Don't get me started on these imbeciles and their eco-arguments, how did they get to the forest in the first place? Did they cycle there? No, they did not, they drove there, probably from some lower-class suburban hole like Reading, some cyclists are even paedophiles you know, which makes them inexcusable in my book, which I would throw at them everytime I see them cycling furiously through the forest, it's a disgrace the way they damage the forest while wearing their ill-fitting garish lycra uniforms, no wonder the ponies are scared!!!

LMAO!!!! Love it!! The Sarcasm is fantastic i nthis post! (at least I hope it is sarcasm!!) :o)

I can just about accept that a minority of people have ridiculous views about the impact of cycling, but to report these views in the Echo with no evidence to support the claims and only a three line counter argument at the end of the article is appalling journalism. The fact that it was written by a "chief reporter" is mind boggling.

Reply to Mike_D
A delightful read and superb analysis.
It seems that this issue is rooted on boggy ground.
Perhaps the verderers feel fenced in by the Forestry Commission and are mooing for greater public attention.
I will touch my forelock when next squelching past one.

redsnapper wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: Purely from a pedestrian's point of view; I only wish the police would do their job and prosecute both for grossly abusing the use of pavements. And by that I mean; cyclists who ride on pavements and motorists who park on them! Both are very commonly UNprosecuted contraventions of local bylaws!

Pavements in some places are empty of pedestrians, and should be dedicated by the authorities as dual use rather than cylists being injured by pothole falls. Re cycling in the New Forest dont be a bunch of NIMBYs.

"Pavements in some places...should be dedicated....as dual use rather than cyclists being injured by pothole falls."? Oh dear, another stupid idea! So pedestrians, including elderly, infirm and children, being scared and injured by moronic cyclists who cycle on pavements ILLEGALLY don't count for anything in your little scheme of things, eh? Now you wouldn't happen to be one of those arrogant and ignorant cyclists amongst the many considerate and decent ones, would you? Yeah, thought so...

Does anyone remember those smelly cylcists that went into the Lamb Inn at No Mans Land. My snakes dont like smelly cylcists either stinking out my land in which they roam.

All this started when locals got above themselves and started breeding outside their village.
The bicycle enabled this and we've been going to hell in handcart ever since.
Get rid of them bicycles and when the sap starts a rising remember not to dally with strange folk from other places.

Organised, but uncontrolled event's are an issue, 'jumping off' against on-coming traffic to put the peloton off chasing you down, not leaving enough gap between riders on time trials, seen it and picked up the pieces afterwards... Yes cyclists have the right to use the roads, but sometimes not the sense to do so safely, British Cycling and others promote proper marshalling of event's, perhaps they and the NIMBY's need to work together!

Lots of people, notably Mike D, have ably answered the range of stupid comments. What concerns me is the miserably low standard of journalism in the lead story. I'm a professional too and I wouldn't sign my name to anything as unbalanced as this.

To talk about being "frightened" by cyclists... yes, it happens, but unless you live in a completely parallel universe you can also be frightened by cars, motorbikes and – oh yes – by horses. But perhaps there is a parallel universe where defenceless motorists tremble in their fragile carriages as they are terrorised by heavily armoured cyclists with sword-blades sticking out of the wheels.
In THIS universe... yes, some cyclists are irresponsible, but so are some motorists and no one with half a brain can doubt which are the greater menace to all and sundry. I've been told 159 ponies were killed by motorists in the New Forest in 2009 – can anyone tell me if even ONE pony has ever been killed by a cyclist?

speedicut wrote:
I can just about accept that a minority of people have ridiculous views about the impact of cycling, but to report these views in the Echo with no evidence to support the claims and only a three line counter argument at the end of the article is appalling journalism. The fact that it was written by a "chief reporter" is mind boggling.

See this post..

Cycling Southampton Resident says...
12:31pm Fri 18 Nov 11

What a biased article. Then I do understand the editor is a Vederer so he wants to keep everybody else out of 'his' New Forest.

Here's the link to the stats again:
http://www.newforest
npa.gov.uk/looking-a
fter/campaigns/anima
l-accidents

It was actually 159 mares or ponies "involved in accidents" in 2009, of which 65 were "killed outright or had to be put down". That's still 65 more than were killed by cyclists.

Here's the link to the stats again:
http://www.newforest
npa.gov.uk/looking-a
fter/campaigns/anima
l-accidents

It was actually 159 mares or ponies "involved in accidents" in 2009, of which 65 were "killed outright or had to be put down". That's still 65 more than were killed by cyclists.

@ Brock_and_Roll

"militant cycling": I'm certainly not going to defend the actions of a minority of idiots, whatever their chosen mode of transport. Assertive riding is often a good idea, aggressive riding (or indeed driving) never is.

"The centre of Burley is a classic example where for some reason the event organsiers seem to think that they have the right of way through a junction with "give way" marks."

There's an argument that it's better to get a big group of bikes through quickly rather than in dribs and drabs. But while there may be valid concerns about how events are run (and such events aren't unique to the Forest), extending that to the whole gamut of cycling is entirely inappropriate.

From the Edge wrote:

teamgreen wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

Stillness wrote:

From the Edge wrote: When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves. Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nice to see such a well thought out and reasonable comment lol.

I know, cyclist are my pet hate, sick to death of whinging cyclists, tax them or ban either I don't care.

get you facts correct first we all pay tax towards the road.your car tax is for the government not the roads,this has been explained time and time again but car drivers cant understand this.

So pays to repair roads? The Government, via local councils, some council contract that service out. Where does the money come from for the Government to grant to local councils? the tax charged on cycle helmets or puncture repair kits, no it's from VED as road tax.

again you car drivers don't understand,the road repairs come from local taxes and you car tax is because you have a engine.every time cars and bikes end up in this paper it becomes a slang war against bikes,bikes were here before cars so does that me we the cyclist should be in charge of the roads?if you cant come up with anything that does not include bikes should pay taxes because the car drivers do go and troll elsewhere

It's unfortunate that Car drivers always think because they pay Car Tax this pays for the roads - It doesn't. Roads are paid for by general tax and council tax. Car Tax is that, a Tax on cars becuase of their extra costs to the orad system. Its not a payment to build and maintain the roads, it wouldn't cover a small percentage of it. We all pay for the roads - car drivers just use it up more! cycling saves the country road maintenance and health bills.

The New Forest like all areas of natural beauty are for all, not just a few. If leaisure users keep within the law they need to be accomodated, not driven away or abused. They bring a lot of Tourist trade to the area.

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

I pay road tax......on my car which is required by law! It's not required on a bicycle so what's your point?

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

I pay road tax......on my car which is required by law! It's not required on a bicycle so what's your point?

The Highway Code (sections 59-82) gives clear instructions to cyclists and can be found at http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_069837

So when will the Police actually start punishing cyclists who:

1) do not wear a helmet

2) do not wear any high visibility clothing

3) use those silly flashing lights (only permitted in areas with street lighting)

4) continue to cycle on the main carriageway when there is an adequate cycle path following the same route

In fact, reading through this section of the Highway Code, I am astounded that the rules are no so tight and that, as a very occasional cyclist myself, I was not aware of some guidelines.

Sadly, I pass many cyclists every day who do not seem to be aware of ANY guidelines, particularly those lycra-clad bodies who think themselves about using a cyclepath.

It's time to re-introduce the cycling proficiency test which all cyclists should be made to take.

As for the Verderers ... perhaps they should learn to drive their 4x4's more safely, remembering that two vehicles can pass safely on forest roads PROVIDING both drivers pull over slightly. Then my small eco-friendly car wouldn't get forced off the road by those who think I am the only one who should be in the gutter.

PS: That should read "rules are so tight" ...

When I saw this article this morning I knew that it would get the most posts and people would indulge in 'column rage'.... I wasn't wrong! :P

NO one minds cyclists roaming the roads of the New Forest.
IF done sensibly unlike the lycra clad mob who ride three abreast even on main roads outside the Forest instead of using the millions of pounds worth of cycle track built for their safety along side.
I drive a classic car often in the new forest cruising at 35-40 MPH The only trouble I get is with Louts driving BMWs and the like who seem to think that they have ownership of the road and speed limits do not apply to them.
I believe I am correct when I say that the majority of motorists caught speeding in the New Forest are NOT VISITORS BUT RESIDENTS OF THE FOREST.
Restrict Clubs from using the Forest land after dark for the sack of the wildlife.
After all Classics have to abide by rules so why not cyclists in groups.
Do these organisers of jaunts cover the event with the required Public Liability insurance...I think not.
Also cyclists can be done for drink riding, speeding, no lights,ignoring stop signs etc.
No one using the road is exempt from the rules.
If we don't look after our countryside it will vanish and for those selfish people who might answer so what. Remember you need birds, bees and trees to live to balance nature.

NO one minds cyclists roaming the roads of the New Forest.
IF done sensibly unlike the lycra clad mob who ride three abreast even on main roads outside the Forest instead of using the millions of pounds worth of cycle track built for their safety along side.
I drive a classic car often in the new forest cruising at 35-40 MPH The only trouble I get is with Louts driving BMWs and the like who seem to think that they have ownership of the road and speed limits do not apply to them.
I believe I am correct when I say that the majority of motorists caught speeding in the New Forest are NOT VISITORS BUT RESIDENTS OF THE FOREST.
Restrict Clubs from using the Forest land after dark for the sack of the wildlife.
After all Classics have to abide by rules so why not cyclists in groups.
Do these organisers of jaunts cover the event with the required Public Liability insurance...I think not.
Also cyclists can be done for drink riding, speeding, no lights,ignoring stop signs etc.
No one using the road is exempt from the rules.
If we don't look after our countryside it will vanish and for those selfish people who might answer so what. Remember you need birds, bees and trees to live to balance nature.

eurogordi, there is a difference between recommendation and the law. It is not illegal to ride without a helmet. It is not illegal to ride without high vis clothing. Using lights that flash is legal. Riding on the road is legal whether there is a cycle lane or not. Prosecuting anyone for any of the above would be like prosecuting someone for smoking, alcohol consumption, reaching a certain weight through excessive eating, not doing the recommended level of exercise in a week etc etc or anything else which could have a self inflicted negative impact.
.
The guidance quite rightly details best practice, but it's not the law so the police will not punish anyone for the actions you mention. What they do punish people for (and there is media coverage to show they target these measures) is cycling without lights at night and going through red traffic lights.
.
I agree 100%with your comment about re-introducing cycling proficiency. Road users are far better when they are aware of other modes of transport, it teaches road safety long before the age of 17 and is an addition to physical activity in school that has a direct use in the real world.

eurogordi wrote:
The Highway Code (sections 59-82) gives clear instructions to cyclists and can be found at http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069837 So when will the Police actually start punishing cyclists who: 1) do not wear a helmet 2) do not wear any high visibility clothing 3) use those silly flashing lights (only permitted in areas with street lighting) 4) continue to cycle on the main carriageway when there is an adequate cycle path following the same route In fact, reading through this section of the Highway Code, I am astounded that the rules are no so tight and that, as a very occasional cyclist myself, I was not aware of some guidelines. Sadly, I pass many cyclists every day who do not seem to be aware of ANY guidelines, particularly those lycra-clad bodies who think themselves about using a cyclepath. It's time to re-introduce the cycling proficiency test which all cyclists should be made to take. As for the Verderers ... perhaps they should learn to drive their 4x4's more safely, remembering that two vehicles can pass safely on forest roads PROVIDING both drivers pull over slightly. Then my small eco-friendly car wouldn't get forced off the road by those who think I am the only one who should be in the gutter.

you should read the rules before commenting rule 1,2,3and 4 are not law its just a advisement.as for the cyclepath argument most of the time there will be cars and vans,mums and buggies,people walking in them that it becomes impossible to do so and again its not law to use them.as for the highway code it also states you can cycle two abreast if the road is of size suitable and up to metre from the kerb or obstruction.as for the bike test Ive seen a few instructors teaching outside of schools and to be honest they would not make me want to learn from them.badly fitting helmets loose clothing and poor timing when signaling to turn.

eurogordi wrote:
The Highway Code (sections 59-82) gives clear instructions to cyclists and can be found at http://www.direct.go

v.uk/en/TravelAndTra

nsport/Highwaycode/D

G_069837

So when will the Police actually start punishing cyclists who:

1) do not wear a helmet

2) do not wear any high visibility clothing

3) use those silly flashing lights (only permitted in areas with street lighting)

4) continue to cycle on the main carriageway when there is an adequate cycle path following the same route

In fact, reading through this section of the Highway Code, I am astounded that the rules are no so tight and that, as a very occasional cyclist myself, I was not aware of some guidelines.

Sadly, I pass many cyclists every day who do not seem to be aware of ANY guidelines, particularly those lycra-clad bodies who think themselves about using a cyclepath.

It's time to re-introduce the cycling proficiency test which all cyclists should be made to take.

As for the Verderers ... perhaps they should learn to drive their 4x4's more safely, remembering that two vehicles can pass safely on forest roads PROVIDING both drivers pull over slightly. Then my small eco-friendly car wouldn't get forced off the road by those who think I am the only one who should be in the gutter.

Police cannot punish people for not following the highway code. It is not law only a guide. For example it is not against the law to undertake , but in the highway code it discouraged.

From what I understand, if undertaking for example contributes to an accident it would lead to a charge of dangerous driving or driving without due care etc. But yes you're right not actually Law as a stand alone thing although the Police would stop someone they saw doing it!

Whilst I note your comments re two abreast not being illegal cyclists have only themselves to blame if they get carved up by accident or injured by a passing motorist when they weave all over their side of the road.
Any road user can be taken to court recently a cyclist was done for speeding and a man on a horse DRUNK IN CHARGE.
ANY ONE who knoingly causes an accident can be charged.
Anyway just use common sense and try try to be curtious on the roads no matter what your mode of transport.
Remember your last ride in a black vehicle might be one you dont know about!!!

@eurogordi:

"So when will the Police actually start punishing cyclists who:

1) do not wear a helmet

2) do not wear any high visibility clothing

3) use those silly flashing lights (only permitted in areas with street lighting)

4) continue to cycle on the main carriageway when there is an adequate cycle path following the same route"

Because none of those things are illegal.

@MarkJBryant wrote:
I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

yep count me in ...

From the Edge wrote:

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Clever, very well thought out and ingenious. One flaw though, THERE IS NO ROAD TAX.

You have vehicle tax for having an engine. Dumb witt.

Please read my comment posted at 11.57am which posted 25 minutes before your childish name calling dumb

Today is Children in Need day, I round my donation up to to £5 for you because clearly you are a child in need of a sense of humour.

Oh goody for you donating to charity, would you like a medal?
To be honest; I couldn't give a rats backside what you do with your cash.

Additionally I am neither a child or in need but thanks for the offer.

Anyone want to buy a bike?

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Clever, very well thought out and ingenious. One flaw though, THERE IS NO ROAD TAX.

You have vehicle tax for having an engine. Dumb witt.

Please read my comment posted at 11.57am which posted 25 minutes before your childish name calling dumb

Today is Children in Need day, I round my donation up to to £5 for you because clearly you are a child in need of a sense of humour.

Oh goody for you donating to charity, would you like a medal?
To be honest; I couldn't give a rats backside what you do with your cash.

Additionally I am neither a child or in need but thanks for the offer.

Calm down boys...... as I said, "column rage" out in force on this subject..

lol@ForestHump....

Okay, so perhaps the Highway Code isn't strictly law, but that's not to say it shouldn't be. Having said that, my earlier posting referred to "instructions" and "guidelines".

As for questioning why the Police are not "punishing" cyclists, perhaps that was too strong a word within a legal context, but the Police are also there to act in an advisory role to PREVENT accidents.

To live in the forest and be an animal owner, cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver i can say that they all are as bad as each other at times. But if you are in a car you wouldn't argue with a bus or lorry so it makes me wonder why cyclists battle with cars sometimes. Who do they think will win when they are 6 abreast taking up both sides of the road, no wonder people are getting irrate. This a small percentage i know but when in a large group they are very intimidating the same as large groups of most things and this is what the cda is on about, one would assume.

BMWDellboy wrote:

@MarkJBryant wrote:
I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

yep count me in ...

Many of those so called Daleks are Disabled people trying to enjoy life like you.
Remember that saying

There but for the grace of God go I.

Disability it a choice

Many of those so called Daleks are Disabled people trying to enjoy life like you.
Remember that saying

There but for the grace of God go I.

Disability it a choice

Scrutinizer wrote:

redsnapper wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: Purely from a pedestrian's point of view; I only wish the police would do their job and prosecute both for grossly abusing the use of pavements. And by that I mean; cyclists who ride on pavements and motorists who park on them! Both are very commonly UNprosecuted contraventions of local bylaws!

Pavements in some places are empty of pedestrians, and should be dedicated by the authorities as dual use rather than cylists being injured by pothole falls. Re cycling in the New Forest dont be a bunch of NIMBYs.

"Pavements in some places...should be dedicated....as dual use rather than cyclists being injured by pothole falls."? Oh dear, another stupid idea! So pedestrians, including elderly, infirm and children, being scared and injured by moronic cyclists who cycle on pavements ILLEGALLY don't count for anything in your little scheme of things, eh? Now you wouldn't happen to be one of those arrogant and ignorant cyclists amongst the many considerate and decent ones, would you? Yeah, thought so...

doofus read my comment..in some places pavements are empty of pedestrians..

...there is nothing illegal about riding safely on a pavement, better than another death on the roads where cyclists are virtrually ignored by 99% of motorists many of whom are using their mobile phones which is illegal..

wake up to reality!!

redsnapper wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

redsnapper wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: Purely from a pedestrian's point of view; I only wish the police would do their job and prosecute both for grossly abusing the use of pavements. And by that I mean; cyclists who ride on pavements and motorists who park on them! Both are very commonly UNprosecuted contraventions of local bylaws!

Pavements in some places are empty of pedestrians, and should be dedicated by the authorities as dual use rather than cylists being injured by pothole falls. Re cycling in the New Forest dont be a bunch of NIMBYs.

"Pavements in some places...should be dedicated....as dual use rather than cyclists being injured by pothole falls."? Oh dear, another stupid idea! So pedestrians, including elderly, infirm and children, being scared and injured by moronic cyclists who cycle on pavements ILLEGALLY don't count for anything in your little scheme of things, eh? Now you wouldn't happen to be one of those arrogant and ignorant cyclists amongst the many considerate and decent ones, would you? Yeah, thought so...

doofus read my comment..in some places pavements are empty of pedestrians.. ...there is nothing illegal about riding safely on a pavement, better than another death on the roads where cyclists are virtrually ignored by 99% of motorists many of whom are using their mobile phones which is illegal.. wake up to reality!!

Oh dear, oh dear, you poor thing. Obviously you've been spending too much time in that little pothole of yours! I'll tell you what, try getting out more!

voiceinthecrowd wrote:

BMWDellboy wrote:

@MarkJBryant wrote:
I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

yep count me in ...

Many of those so called Daleks are Disabled people trying to enjoy life like you.
Remember that saying

There but for the grace of God go I.

Disability it a choice

thank you, I was going to say that but I got distracted... I have two disabled children.... it makes me v. sad that people have these 'attitudes'...

widdersbel wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

Solomon's Boot wrote:
I agree with thew CDA. The livestock and wildlife was here first. The New Forest is NOT a cycle track. Those lights at night are so bright, they blind motorists temporarily, they are a bloody nightmare!

There's not rest for the wildlife either. They go out at night in HUGE numbers!!!!

These idiots need culling, they gather in large numbers and take over the roads. Roads were built for cars, and car drivers pay road tax, if a motorist hits one of these dickheads, the motorist gets the blame, even though these idiots have NO road sense!!

Culling is a bit strong, deport them to the Netherlands, I'm sure our Dutch friends would welcome them with open arms.

Everyday I see cyclists breaking the law, running red lights, going on and off the pavement to suit themselves but as soon as one of gets hit they blame to motorist.

In 2009, 159 ponies were killed by motorists in the New Forest. How many were killed by cyclists?

http://www.newforest

npa.gov.uk/looking-a

fter/campaigns/anima

l-accidents

Set theory 101: cyclists can also be motorists, and vice-versa

I think the comments on here are hilarious. I live half a mile from the forest and about 3 miles from Beaulieu and I love riding my bike in the forest and I drive for a living. I can understand the conflicts in a way but think why? These roads were not built as highways as it is countryside and countryside it will remain. But they are getting more commonly used as rat runs in times of need when accidents occur on the A31. In a time when the economy is not great people have taken up cycling to save fuel bills and why not? So there are families who go out for bike rides...for me I don't see a problem there as I used to do that when I was a child. Perhaps when large groups go out they could stagger into smaller groups to allow more vehicles to pass as there are more vehicles on the road. But as a regular user of the road between Holbury past Beaulieu and on to Lymington it is normal to be slowed down by forest animals on the road side. It is only a problem to those who can't be bothered to leave enough time between journeys in the 1st place in my opinion.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

voiceinthecrowd wrote:

BMWDellboy wrote:

@MarkJBryant wrote:
I myself am I cyclist, walker, dog owner, and even a jogger. Sometimes I make myself angry, but what I really hate is those mobility scooters!! ARGGH can't stand those self righteous morons they think they are so special, gliding around like daleks, you all with me?

yep count me in ...

Many of those so called Daleks are Disabled people trying to enjoy life like you.
Remember that saying

There but for the grace of God go I.

Disability it a choice

thank you, I was going to say that but I got distracted... I have two disabled children.... it makes me v. sad that people have these 'attitudes'...

Sorry to here that hope you and your children have a happy Christmas.
Thing are changing somewhat but we have a long way to go.
I was made disabled some 12 years ago I thank God for those early years.
I now spend my time writing for Children and chastising these poor dumb people who don't how well off they are.

voiceinthecrowd wrote:
NO one minds cyclists roaming the roads of the New Forest.
IF done sensibly unlike the lycra clad mob who ride three abreast even on main roads outside the Forest instead of using the millions of pounds worth of cycle track built for their safety along side.
I drive a classic car often in the new forest cruising at 35-40 MPH The only trouble I get is with Louts driving BMWs and the like who seem to think that they have ownership of the road and speed limits do not apply to them.
I believe I am correct when I say that the majority of motorists caught speeding in the New Forest are NOT VISITORS BUT RESIDENTS OF THE FOREST.
Restrict Clubs from using the Forest land after dark for the sack of the wildlife.
After all Classics have to abide by rules so why not cyclists in groups.
Do these organisers of jaunts cover the event with the required Public Liability insurance...I think not.
Also cyclists can be done for drink riding, speeding, no lights,ignoring stop signs etc.
No one using the road is exempt from the rules.
If we don't look after our countryside it will vanish and for those selfish people who might answer so what. Remember you need birds, bees and trees to live to balance nature.

Voiceinthecrowd:

Cyclists do not have to abide by speed limits. They specifically only apply to motor vehicles.

I have fought for cyclists rights in the National Park for some time. There is the opinion that we (cyclists) ruin the tranquility of the National Park for other users! A great line to by the anti cycling lobby because what does tranquility really mean. End result is there are many people in the forest preventing positive change from happening. In the mean time families and less experienced cyclists are force to use busy roads. Then of course the same people then complain about the number of riders on the road! Its good to see so many motivated people commenting on this thread! We are apparently the enemy. Strange old world unfortunately filled with irrational, selfish and uncompassionate people. Shame they are given such a voice!

MalEvans wrote:
I have fought for cyclists rights in the National Park for some time. There is the opinion that we (cyclists) ruin the tranquility of the National Park for other users! A great line to by the anti cycling lobby because what does tranquility really mean. End result is there are many people in the forest preventing positive change from happening. In the mean time families and less experienced cyclists are force to use busy roads. Then of course the same people then complain about the number of riders on the road! Its good to see so many motivated people commenting on this thread! We are apparently the enemy. Strange old world unfortunately filled with irrational, selfish and uncompassionate people. Shame they are given such a voice!

Dont talk rubbish. Cyclists are given special paths . BUT DO THEY USE THEM NO!

Just remember that the Forest is FOREST eg where animals etc live and have done for over1000 years dont remember seeing any mention of William the conqueror riding a Bike.

It is indisputably clear that cyclists are entitled to absolute priority over motor vehicles. It cannot be otherwise.

good-gosh wrote:
It is indisputably clear that cyclists are entitled to absolute priority over motor vehicles. It cannot be otherwise.

I ASSUME YOU ARE JOKING

A passing thought
Should ALL cyclist have insurance against injury etc to others

I ASSUME YOU ARE JOKING

A passing thought
Should ALL cyclist have insurance against injury etc to others

voiceinthecrowd wrote:

good-gosh wrote: It is indisputably clear that cyclists are entitled to absolute priority over motor vehicles. It cannot be otherwise.

I ASSUME YOU ARE JOKING A passing thought Should ALL cyclist have insurance against injury etc to others

No and no again.

That at least puts you in a certain group

That at least puts you in a certain group

Just hope that other cyclists dont follow your train of thought

Still got the bike! I'll throw in the lycra (sky blue) and dodgy shoes for the highest bid. I'll miss the saddle though.

Lovely day just right for a WALK in the forest.

Watch all the sheep whoops mean cyclists sticking to the rules as I hope the motorists do- FAT CHANCE.

Enjoy your day and think of the disabled who can't easily go into New Forest.

In reply voiceinthecrowd!
If you are going to raise irrelevant points here's one. William the Conquerer did not use computers, but does not stop you. I am sure had the bike been around then he would have used one! The majority of cyclists stick to the designated rights of way, just as the majority of car drivers stick to the speed limit. You can not dictate policy based on a mindless minority! Are you suggesting forcing families to cycle on dangerous roads is acceptable from your point of view. Bold statement to make!

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Clever, very well thought out and ingenious. One flaw though, THERE IS NO ROAD TAX.

You have vehicle tax for having an engine. Dumb witt.

Please read my comment posted at 11.57am which posted 25 minutes before your childish name calling dumb

Today is Children in Need day, I round my donation up to to £5 for you because clearly you are a child in need of a sense of humour.

Oh goody for you donating to charity, would you like a medal?
To be honest; I couldn't give a rats backside what you do with your cash.

Additionally I am neither a child or in need but thanks for the offer.

Oh dear did I touch a nerve, you got mugged off with my joking comments, for your information, I don't need a medal I have six already.

Name calling on a thread is rather childish, therefore my comment of you being a child is quite justified, in my opinion, you clearly need for a sense of humour simply because after finding out that I was joking with my comments you continued your abuse.

I hope you have wonderful weekend, I know I will safe in the knowledge that my friends and I managed to raise a fantastic amount money for charity, but what will make weekend better, is knowing that I have annoyed you in the name of charity.

Cheerio ohpoppycock or should I drop the ohpoopy and call you what you clearly are?

I've not read any of th previous articles, because their is no point- GROW UP CHILDREN. Leave this font open to grown ups.

MalEvans wrote:
In reply voiceinthecrowd!
If you are going to raise irrelevant points here's one. William the Conquerer did not use computers, but does not stop you. I am sure had the bike been around then he would have used one! The majority of cyclists stick to the designated rights of way, just as the majority of car drivers stick to the speed limit. You can not dictate policy based on a mindless minority! Are you suggesting forcing families to cycle on dangerous roads is acceptable from your point of view. Bold statement to make!

It unfortunately IS the case that you have to dictate otherwise the mindless take no notice.

travel daily down the A3057 and see the number of cyclists NOT using the safe cycle paths.

At no time did I suggest families using DANGEROUS ROADS.

My comments and I think others is aimed at the Lycra lot who will not cooperate in making the roads safer.

voiceinthecrowd wrote:

MalEvans wrote:
In reply voiceinthecrowd!
If you are going to raise irrelevant points here's one. William the Conquerer did not use computers, but does not stop you. I am sure had the bike been around then he would have used one! The majority of cyclists stick to the designated rights of way, just as the majority of car drivers stick to the speed limit. You can not dictate policy based on a mindless minority! Are you suggesting forcing families to cycle on dangerous roads is acceptable from your point of view. Bold statement to make!

It unfortunately IS the case that you have to dictate otherwise the mindless take no notice.

travel daily down the A3057 and see the number of cyclists NOT using the safe cycle paths.

At no time did I suggest families using DANGEROUS ROADS.

My comments and I think others is aimed at the Lycra lot who will not cooperate in making the roads safer.

Are you not displaying the same intolerance towards cyclists as has been directed at the disabled earlier in the messages?

And no, you speak from a position of ignorance when you state "My comments and I think others is aimed at the Lycra lot who will not cooperate in making the roads safer"

How many times does it need to be said that the segregational approach is being done wrong, and shouldn't need to be even considered in the first place. We should be SHARING the roads, not fighting.

But the attitudes of yours and many others is appalling. This is why segregation ends up happening, because of your own intolerance that leads to ordinary cyclists feeling they have to be constantly on the defence. Defensive and assertive riding, and defending their lifestyle from accusatory nonsense on the internet, the media and so on.

downfader wrote:

voiceinthecrowd wrote:

MalEvans wrote:
In reply voiceinthecrowd!
If you are going to raise irrelevant points here's one. William the Conquerer did not use computers, but does not stop you. I am sure had the bike been around then he would have used one! The majority of cyclists stick to the designated rights of way, just as the majority of car drivers stick to the speed limit. You can not dictate policy based on a mindless minority! Are you suggesting forcing families to cycle on dangerous roads is acceptable from your point of view. Bold statement to make!

It unfortunately IS the case that you have to dictate otherwise the mindless take no notice.

travel daily down the A3057 and see the number of cyclists NOT using the safe cycle paths.

At no time did I suggest families using DANGEROUS ROADS.

My comments and I think others is aimed at the Lycra lot who will not cooperate in making the roads safer.

Are you not displaying the same intolerance towards cyclists as has been directed at the disabled earlier in the messages?

And no, you speak from a position of ignorance when you state "My comments and I think others is aimed at the Lycra lot who will not cooperate in making the roads safer"

How many times does it need to be said that the segregational approach is being done wrong, and shouldn't need to be even considered in the first place. We should be SHARING the roads, not fighting.

But the attitudes of yours and many others is appalling. This is why segregation ends up happening, because of your own intolerance that leads to ordinary cyclists feeling they have to be constantly on the defence. Defensive and assertive riding, and defending their lifestyle from accusatory nonsense on the internet, the media and so on.

I do not and never had been against cyclists. My one bug is the huge amount of money spent on cycle tracks to make cycling safe especially from the down draft of huge lorries., Then certain Cyclists who nearly always seem to be on Racing Bikes wont use them.
Cycling is very dangerous on A roads with the speed and size of vehicles nowadays.
I love to see families on bike outings but they USE the cycle paths in the South. and are showing great thought for their families safety.
PLEASE USE THE PATHS PROVIDED

I do not and never had been against cyclists. My one bug is the huge amount of money spent on cycle tracks to make cycling safe especially from the down draft of huge lorries., Then certain Cyclists who nearly always seem to be on Racing Bikes wont use them.
Cycling is very dangerous on A roads with the speed and size of vehicles nowadays.
I love to see families on bike outings but they USE the cycle paths in the South. and are showing great thought for their families safety.
PLEASE USE THE PATHS PROVIDED

voiceinthecrowd wrote:
I do not and never had been against cyclists. My one bug is the huge amount of money spent on cycle tracks to make cycling safe especially from the down draft of huge lorries., Then certain Cyclists who nearly always seem to be on Racing Bikes wont use them.
Cycling is very dangerous on A roads with the speed and size of vehicles nowadays.
I love to see families on bike outings but they USE the cycle paths in the South. and are showing great thought for their families safety.
PLEASE USE THE PATHS PROVIDED

But you havent actually twigged yet. The money is being wasted because of poor council planning. Even to some extent poor guidelines, and the fact the guidelines are not more obligatory (eg the recommended widths for a single cycle lane is 2.1m, this very rarely happens)

What is actually happening is non-cyclist drivers are complaining and being highly vociferous about being slowed down. The real issue is the volume of traffic, not the cyclists.

Cycling is not dangerous. (Excluding riding out through a red light). Its only in recent years that KSIs have risen, and this is in parallel with an exponential rise in motor traffic. You have to ask yourselves: what does that tell us...? Cyclists are still statistically less likely to be KSI'd than motorcyclists and pedestrians, even car passengers.

downfader wrote:

voiceinthecrowd wrote:
I do not and never had been against cyclists. My one bug is the huge amount of money spent on cycle tracks to make cycling safe especially from the down draft of huge lorries., Then certain Cyclists who nearly always seem to be on Racing Bikes wont use them.
Cycling is very dangerous on A roads with the speed and size of vehicles nowadays.
I love to see families on bike outings but they USE the cycle paths in the South. and are showing great thought for their families safety.
PLEASE USE THE PATHS PROVIDED

But you havent actually twigged yet. The money is being wasted because of poor council planning. Even to some extent poor guidelines, and the fact the guidelines are not more obligatory (eg the recommended widths for a single cycle lane is 2.1m, this very rarely happens)

What is actually happening is non-cyclist drivers are complaining and being highly vociferous about being slowed down. The real issue is the volume of traffic, not the cyclists.

Cycling is not dangerous. (Excluding riding out through a red light). Its only in recent years that KSIs have risen, and this is in parallel with an exponential rise in motor traffic. You have to ask yourselves: what does that tell us...? Cyclists are still statistically less likely to be KSI'd than motorcyclists and pedestrians, even car passengers.

Cycling may not be dangerous but cyclists like this one who made a guest appearance on RudeTube most definitely are. Perhaps the one who tried to follow the idiot who was cought between the bus and the crew-cab was hoping for a Darwin Award.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=YDAYkdlKE
GI&feature=related

From the Edge wrote:

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

ohpoppycock wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Clever, very well thought out and ingenious. One flaw though, THERE IS NO ROAD TAX.

You have vehicle tax for having an engine. Dumb witt.

Please read my comment posted at 11.57am which posted 25 minutes before your childish name calling dumb

Today is Children in Need day, I round my donation up to to £5 for you because clearly you are a child in need of a sense of humour.

Oh goody for you donating to charity, would you like a medal?
To be honest; I couldn't give a rats backside what you do with your cash.

Additionally I am neither a child or in need but thanks for the offer.

Oh dear did I touch a nerve, you got mugged off with my joking comments, for your information, I don't need a medal I have six already.

Name calling on a thread is rather childish, therefore my comment of you being a child is quite justified, in my opinion, you clearly need for a sense of humour simply because after finding out that I was joking with my comments you continued your abuse.

I hope you have wonderful weekend, I know I will safe in the knowledge that my friends and I managed to raise a fantastic amount money for charity, but what will make weekend better, is knowing that I have annoyed you in the name of charity.

Cheerio ohpoppycock or should I drop the ohpoopy and call you what you clearly are?

Name-calling is indeed childish. So why are you doing it?

Yeah of course every driver is a rule abiding saint.

Road tax doesn't give you the right to use your phone, not indicate when turning, zipping past cyclists already travelling fast and turning just in front of them so they have to slam on the brakes.

I have read most of these posts, I am a cyclist and a driver. When I drive I am aware of cyclists and the room they need on the road and hey I have to slow down and sit behind them now and again but I still get to my destination!
On my road bike I have to tollerate impatient drivers, they sit as close to my rear wheel as they can, when they go past there is the useral black look from the passenger as if to say how dare you slow me down! I have had to put up with people hanging out of the car/van window trying to grab my arm, spitting at me and swearing.
These are supposed to be responsible citizens!
I ride with a local club and like to think we ride responsibly, I ride the events in the Forest these events bring in lots of revenue to the locals, I also pay taxes and I have insurance when I ride my bike.
There is a mention of cycle paths, most of them are not bike friendly the on that has come into the conversation is the one from Lyndhurst to Ashurst, it was a foot path, it still is in my mind. It is covered with chippings! cycle paths would be good if they were built with the cyclist in mind. The ones that are rideable are littered with glass, bits of plastic and sometimes the odd hub cap or bumper from vehicles.
Also god forbid I ride a mountain bike! I also ride at night with those powerfull lights and yelling to my mates with me!

Whether we like it or not, the New Forest is now a National Park. This means it is a social amenity, rather like Mayfield Park, Netley Park, but with livestock. It is no longer the wilderness with farming and husbandry we remember and loved as children. In the modern Forest you see cyclists, children being pushed in buggies, and women in high-heels, and wearers of bright red Berghaus outdoor clothes. Urban man and woman have arrived, and rude speeding cyclists are the least of our problems.

cyclo cross wrote:
I have read most of these posts, I am a cyclist and a driver. When I drive I am aware of cyclists and the room they need on the road and hey I have to slow down and sit behind them now and again but I still get to my destination!
On my road bike I have to tollerate impatient drivers, they sit as close to my rear wheel as they can, when they go past there is the useral black look from the passenger as if to say how dare you slow me down! I have had to put up with people hanging out of the car/van window trying to grab my arm, spitting at me and swearing.
These are supposed to be responsible citizens!
I ride with a local club and like to think we ride responsibly, I ride the events in the Forest these events bring in lots of revenue to the locals, I also pay taxes and I have insurance when I ride my bike.
There is a mention of cycle paths, most of them are not bike friendly the on that has come into the conversation is the one from Lyndhurst to Ashurst, it was a foot path, it still is in my mind. It is covered with chippings! cycle paths would be good if they were built with the cyclist in mind. The ones that are rideable are littered with glass, bits of plastic and sometimes the odd hub cap or bumper from vehicles.
Also god forbid I ride a mountain bike! I also ride at night with those powerfull lights and yelling to my mates with me!

Have had similar experiences. I'm the biggest cycling advocate you could meet, but when you've had morons who throw stones from moving cars (happened to me on the Itchen Bridge, thankfully bounced off my arm but felt the guy had aimed for my face), or the screaming game (drive close and fast and have a passenger shout nonsense at you like "BICYCLE!!" or "SPANDEX!!")...

...it leads you to think its not the cyclists who are causing the real problems out there:

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/news/datablog/
interactive/2011/nov
/18/road-casualty-uk
-map

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nobody pays road tax that was scrapped in 1937 by Winston Churchill. Its Vehicle Excise Duty nowadays and it goes into general taxation like VAT and every other tax we pay. Most cyclists, me included are also car owners. Granted there some idiots on bikes and I encounter many in my travels, however there are many motorists who make me wonder how they hell they got there driving licenses.

Dover Saint wrote:

From the Edge wrote:
When a bike rider starts paying road tax they can moan, until then I suggest they shut up, they are a menace, they don't stop at red lights, they think they own the road, they are a law unto themselves.

Ban the bloody lot of them.

Nobody pays road tax that was scrapped in 1937 by Winston Churchill. Its Vehicle Excise Duty nowadays and it goes into general taxation like VAT and every other tax we pay. Most cyclists, me included are also car owners. Granted there some idiots on bikes and I encounter many in my travels, however there are many motorists who make me wonder how they hell they got there driving licenses.

You know these last bits about not stopping at lights etc reminds me of some 4x4 owners who think that THEY actually own the road and take great pleasure in carving NOT ONLY cyclists up BUT other car owners.
We seem to have lost something over the last thirty or so years..........Toler
ance, care, friendliness to others.Let's Make A NEW YEARS RESOLUTION

BE NICE THINK OF OTHERS

The world will get more and more crowded over the next few decades

WE MUST CHANGE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

This is my last say on this matter

What wonderful reading for a Sunday morning! :)
Everyone has an opinion, we're all different and entitled to one. I myself sometimes like to cycle, mostly I use the car. I've taken the train down to The New Forest and cycled through it, never seen cycle rage or rage against the people who don't like cyclists. Sounds like a few people just having a moan once again because it doesn't fit into their idiocrastic plastic lives. I have an idea though, it's a good one.. why don't we ban everything, ban people leaving the house, do all your shopping from home, even work from home and never see your colleagues. Stay in, do nothing, ban the internet and ban flushing the loo then everyone will just die and fade out and then there will be conflict NO MORE!! Maybe a touch OTT, but all you hear these days is ban this ban that, reckon there will be a tax on air soon, maybe they'll tax talking, maybe far*ing, can't wait for that! Over and out and off my balcony!!!!! ..................

Mike_D wrote:
I hardly know where to begin with this, and that's before getting to the usual swivel-eyed frothing from the "waah waah road tax waah waah red lights waah waah" lobby. Anyway.

"ANGER over the increasing number of weekend cyclists visiting the New Forest could end in violence, it has been claimed."

Gets off to a great start, doesn't it? The clear implication here is that cyclists had better watch their step.

"The Commoners’ Defence Association (CDA) has accused cyclists of posing a danger to other road users, some of whom have been “frightened and abused” by large groups of people on bikes."

Ah, the good old CDA. Come on, then, where's the evidence? Which road users have been "frightened and abused" by large groups of people on bikes in the Forest? And what possible danger could they present? In any collision between a bike and a car the bike is always going to come of worst.

"CDA chairman Graham Ferris said: “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”"

I've read this a few times and it sounds more like a threat every time. I'm sure that that's not what Mr Ferris intended, though. As for "effectively obstructed", the most notable obstructions that I encounter in the Forest are ponies and cows. I rather suspect that the CDA isn't too troubled by those obstructions. So really, they just don't like bikes.

"The association, which represents the owners of New Forest ponies and other animals that roam the area, is calling for a crackdown on cyclists."

"Crackdown"? What does this even mean?

"Dr Ferris raised the issue at the monthly Court of Verderers in Lyndhurst."

Ah yes, that great bastion of progressive thinking and common sense. Where's the "rolling eyes" icon?

"He said: “Commoners are increasingly concerned about the explosion in cycling, both casual and organised, and the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to take muchneeded action."

How many commoners are concerned about it, really? A lot of the cyclists in the Forest are commoners themselves.

"“The situation on the roads, particularly at weekends, is already critical."

Yes, they're rammed with cars.

"“Organised races, time trials and ‘iron man’ competitions result in huge numbers of cyclists travelling silently at speed on narrow country lanes – at great risk to residents and livestock.”"

None of these events see "huge numbers". The big numbers are on occasional non-competitive events. All events are run in accordance with the law with every effort made to keep everyone safe.

I'm not sure what risk a cyclist presents to a horse or cow. I certainly wouldn't want to run into one, but I suspect it wouldn't even notice if I did.

"Dr Ferris added: “Off-road cyclists are being encountered far from the established cycling routes at any hour of the day or night."

This seems to be an entirely different argument, I doubt there's much danger of conflict with road users if people are riding off-road.

"“This represents a major intrusion into the muchvaunted tranquillity of the Forest. Groups of cyclists at night with bright lights, shouting loudly to each other, is a level of disturbance that neither commoners’ livestock nor wildlife can be expected to tolerate."

Bright lights at night? Whatever next! Best tell all the motorists, too. I'd imagine that the commoners' livestock would react to off-road cyclists at night in much the same way as it does to cars on the road at night, ie not at all.

"“The Forestry Commission should instruct its keepers to enforce the by-laws and take action against persistent offenders.”"

I'm not sure which offenders are being referred to here. Maybe cyclists are persistently riding at over 40mph like many cars do? Personally I can't pedal hard enough, but I may be in a minority.

"A Forestry Commission spokesman said the organisation supported cycling, which it regarded as a healthy and sustainable form of transport."

Yay for the Forestry Commission! Maybe it could open up a few more off-road cycle routes in the Forest, perhaps even ones that actually join up in a meaningful fashion.

"However, he said the commission was working with other members of the New Forest Cycle Working Group to produce a code of conduct for cyclists."

Who's on the New Forest Cycle Working Group, then?

"Last month the issue was raised at a meeting of the New Forest National Park Authority."

Wow, those meetings must just fly by.

"Members complained that tourists were cycling along busy roads, with children as young as seven or eight struggling to keep up with their parents."

These would be the tourists that visit the New Forest because it's all rather lovely and bring lots of money with them and support local businesses, would it? Yes, let's put them off, brilliant idea.

And heaven forbid that children should be out exercising in the fresh air. If the road is "busy" then that's because of all the cars on it, all of which should exercise due care and attention.

"But cyclists hit back, saying they made the roads safer for people and animals by encouraging drivers to slow down."

Best not do that, they'll get all cross. There might be violence. Graham Ferris said so.

Honestly, the whole thing's a nonsense. As far as I can tell the CDA is just a bunch of reactionary NIMBY types who can't bear to see anyone else enjoying themselves in "their" Forest. Who will they have a go at next?

What a splendid response....please send it as a letter to the Lymington Times

As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

Dave2483 wrote:
As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

I could be wrong, but I'm sure that there is some research that shows drivers subconsciously give less room to cyclists with a helmet and safety gear on. This is because they see them as "knowing what they're doing."

The New Forest is a wonderful place to visit, an area of outstanding beauty and interest indeed. It's a place where tourism provides a valuable income for many rural businesses who wouldn't otherwise thrive. It's a great place to enjoy the great outdoors and indulge in our hobbies. It is also a place where many people live all year round, much irreplaceable wildlife exists and a great deal of valuable livestock is kept. Perhaps we all, pedestrians, dog walkers, cyclists, drivers, runners, extreme sports people, campers etc. all need to remember to respect this when we share the space with the people and animals who live there? An updated countryside code highlighting the needs of resident people and animals and how to coexist harmoniously can only be a good thing.

clare farmer wrote:
The New Forest is a wonderful place to visit, an area of outstanding beauty and interest indeed. It's a place where tourism provides a valuable income for many rural businesses who wouldn't otherwise thrive. It's a great place to enjoy the great outdoors and indulge in our hobbies. It is also a place where many people live all year round, much irreplaceable wildlife exists and a great deal of valuable livestock is kept. Perhaps we all, pedestrians, dog walkers, cyclists, drivers, runners, extreme sports people, campers etc. all need to remember to respect this when we share the space with the people and animals who live there? An updated countryside code highlighting the needs of resident people and animals and how to coexist harmoniously can only be a good thing.

You don't need a new code. We have the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act (and the Vehicle Light Regulations)

We have enough guidance already.

Dave2483 wrote:
As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

Dave I don't like to see cyclists jump the lights either. If you look at ANY cycling forum online you'll see its heavily disapproved of. The same at cycling clubs, and groups (eg British Cycling, and CTC). Same with pavement cycling.

On helmets, yet again I will raise the Ian Walker study: drivers were found to come closer to a cyclist who was helmeted than one without. This is backed up via several Department For Transport studies, and a few foreign ones (Erke and Elvik found a 14% increased risk to cyclists since Australia got its helmet laws, head injuries and deaths have risen since, and cyclist numbers fell dramatically).

Hiviz is also a contentious subject. Light needs to be directed from the right angle and distance for it to reflect. An Austrian study also found that reflectives and bright colours didn't have the impact we'd all assumed for years.

Forcing through helmets and hiviz is dangerous to the cycling numbers. It becomes a uniform, and this would scare many away from cycling. Cyclists only represent 3% of all traffic, if we are to reduce the 30,000 deaths from air pollution a year, and reduce the congestion in towns and cities, also reduce the road casualty numbers - we HAVE to increase cyclist numbers.

To do that we need a comfortable and tolerant environment for them to ride in.

It is clear that this is a well written and deliberately non-provocative article designed to provoke reasoned argument so I would propose a fact based approach to resolving the issues.

Lets start with the published number of animal deaths and injuries for 2010:

Number of animals : 7910
Number killed : 65
Number injured : 27

Total Number : 92

Now let's see what caused these death and injuries so we can address the real problem:

Cars and Drivers : 92
Bikes and Cyclists : 0
Acorns : 30*

*not included in data about road deaths.

Breaking this down further to find which drivers are the menace if more difficult but it appears that about 70% of the road accidents in the New Forest are caused by local drivers.

I think the evedence from this is clear:

1 - BAN ALL LOCALS FROM DRIVING
2 - BAN ALL TOURISTS FROM DRIVING IN THE FOREST
3 - REMOVE ALL OAK TREES
4 - HAND ALL CYCLISTS FROM THE REMAINING TREES AND FLOG THEM UNTIL THEY DIE*

*This isn't strickly supported by any evidence but then nor are the majority of comments left here so I thought I would join in the stupid ill informed bigotry!

WorldCA wrote:
It is clear that this is a well written and deliberately non-provocative article designed to provoke reasoned argument so I would propose a fact based approach to resolving the issues.

Lets start with the published number of animal deaths and injuries for 2010:

Number of animals : 7910
Number killed : 65
Number injured : 27

Total Number : 92

Now let's see what caused these death and injuries so we can address the real problem:

Cars and Drivers : 92
Bikes and Cyclists : 0
Acorns : 30*

*not included in data about road deaths.

Breaking this down further to find which drivers are the menace if more difficult but it appears that about 70% of the road accidents in the New Forest are caused by local drivers.

I think the evedence from this is clear:

1 - BAN ALL LOCALS FROM DRIVING
2 - BAN ALL TOURISTS FROM DRIVING IN THE FOREST
3 - REMOVE ALL OAK TREES
4 - HAND ALL CYCLISTS FROM THE REMAINING TREES AND FLOG THEM UNTIL THEY DIE*

*This isn't strickly supported by any evidence but then nor are the majority of comments left here so I thought I would join in the stupid ill informed bigotry!

Well thought out comments.
However the main point of all this is whether cyclist groups should have total access at night to the Forest.

Answer NO let the wildlife have some peace.

If you want to ride in the dark rent a field and ride round it in a group after all you will see just as much

ITS DARK!!!

Obviously point 4 was meant to read HANG the cyclists, not HAND them but my I was so incandescent with rage I couldn't type straight.

Please can the Daily Echo use the time they have available while there is obviously no actual news to start a campaign?

If we address the four points I raise in order then I am sure we will see a reduction in road traffic accidents.

You could take your 4 points literally

1 - BAN ALL LOCALS FROM DRIVING
2 - BAN ALL TOURISTS FROM DRIVING IN THE FOREST
3 - REMOVE ALL OAK TREES
4 - HANG ALL CYCLISTS FROM THE REMAINING TREES AND FLOG THEM UNTIL THEY DIE*

1 FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN OF LOCALS IN VEHICLES DRIVING IS NOT THE DESCRIPTION I WOULD HAVE USED
OF SOME OF THEM IN A CAR

2. BUILD PARK AND RIDE CAR PARKS

3. NOT A GOOD IDEA PERHAPS THE PONIES SHOULD BE FED MORE BY THEIR OWNERS

4. LOVE THE IDEA BUT IF YOU CUT ALL OAK TREES DOWN WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO HANG THEM FROM ????

You could take your 4 points literally

1 - BAN ALL LOCALS FROM DRIVING
2 - BAN ALL TOURISTS FROM DRIVING IN THE FOREST
3 - REMOVE ALL OAK TREES
4 - HANG ALL CYCLISTS FROM THE REMAINING TREES AND FLOG THEM UNTIL THEY DIE*

1 FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN OF LOCALS IN VEHICLES DRIVING IS NOT THE DESCRIPTION I WOULD HAVE USED
OF SOME OF THEM IN A CAR

2. BUILD PARK AND RIDE CAR PARKS

3. NOT A GOOD IDEA PERHAPS THE PONIES SHOULD BE FED MORE BY THEIR OWNERS

4. LOVE THE IDEA BUT IF YOU CUT ALL OAK TREES DOWN WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO HANG THEM FROM ????

thwestend wrote:

Dave2483 wrote: As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

I could be wrong, but I'm sure that there is some research that shows drivers subconsciously give less room to cyclists with a helmet and safety gear on. This is because they see them as "knowing what they're doing."

Any excuse, cyclists should be wearing safety equipment on the roads- end of story. If i had it my way id fine all that wearnt wearing them, i wear a seatbelt but that doesnt mean its going to stop me from dying in a car accident does it? YET id get fined for not wearing one. Pay some road tax or insurance that should help. I have no hatred for cyclists at all but how about stop taking the P*SS on the road and you wont get hurt on the road.

downfader wrote:

Dave2483 wrote: As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

Dave I don't like to see cyclists jump the lights either. If you look at ANY cycling forum online you'll see its heavily disapproved of. The same at cycling clubs, and groups (eg British Cycling, and CTC). Same with pavement cycling. On helmets, yet again I will raise the Ian Walker study: drivers were found to come closer to a cyclist who was helmeted than one without. This is backed up via several Department For Transport studies, and a few foreign ones (Erke and Elvik found a 14% increased risk to cyclists since Australia got its helmet laws, head injuries and deaths have risen since, and cyclist numbers fell dramatically). Hiviz is also a contentious subject. Light needs to be directed from the right angle and distance for it to reflect. An Austrian study also found that reflectives and bright colours didn't have the impact we'd all assumed for years. Forcing through helmets and hiviz is dangerous to the cycling numbers. It becomes a uniform, and this would scare many away from cycling. Cyclists only represent 3% of all traffic, if we are to reduce the 30,000 deaths from air pollution a year, and reduce the congestion in towns and cities, also reduce the road casualty numbers - we HAVE to increase cyclist numbers. To do that we need a comfortable and tolerant environment for them to ride in.

Haha, like i quoted on another statement. I think "some" of you cyclists think you can do what you like and make excuses for it.
You have cycle paths yet persist to pavement ride or want to ride on the road with no safety equipment and your telling me your better off without a helmet? GROW UP.
What about cyclists who think they are olympians and ride in pairs side by side taking up the road- thats ok is it?
I had an incident the other nite- poor street lighting, no lights on a bike and the idiot was wearing all black clothing- so hi viz wouldnt have helped? ok then.
I agree some idiot drivers dont give cyclists the space needed, but i can tell you now i reckon 75% of cyclists dont pay any attention, dont wear safety gear and then blame the motorist.
How about pay a little insurance incase of accicent because im sure you would soon claim off the motorist if there was an accident!

Dave2483 wrote:

downfader wrote:

Dave2483 wrote: As a car driver im sick and tired of cyclists who dont wear helmets, hi-viz, no lights, skipping red lights, on and off the pavement. Ive had enough of it, i will give any cyclist the room and time needed but i believe it should be compulsory to wear safety gear or BE FINED for not doing so just like i would if i wasnt wearing a seatbelt!!!

Dave I don't like to see cyclists jump the lights either. If you look at ANY cycling forum online you'll see its heavily disapproved of. The same at cycling clubs, and groups (eg British Cycling, and CTC). Same with pavement cycling. On helmets, yet again I will raise the Ian Walker study: drivers were found to come closer to a cyclist who was helmeted than one without. This is backed up via several Department For Transport studies, and a few foreign ones (Erke and Elvik found a 14% increased risk to cyclists since Australia got its helmet laws, head injuries and deaths have risen since, and cyclist numbers fell dramatically). Hiviz is also a contentious subject. Light needs to be directed from the right angle and distance for it to reflect. An Austrian study also found that reflectives and bright colours didn't have the impact we'd all assumed for years. Forcing through helmets and hiviz is dangerous to the cycling numbers. It becomes a uniform, and this would scare many away from cycling. Cyclists only represent 3% of all traffic, if we are to reduce the 30,000 deaths from air pollution a year, and reduce the congestion in towns and cities, also reduce the road casualty numbers - we HAVE to increase cyclist numbers. To do that we need a comfortable and tolerant environment for them to ride in.

Haha, like i quoted on another statement. I think "some" of you cyclists think you can do what you like and make excuses for it.
You have cycle paths yet persist to pavement ride or want to ride on the road with no safety equipment and your telling me your better off without a helmet? GROW UP.
What about cyclists who think they are olympians and ride in pairs side by side taking up the road- thats ok is it?
I had an incident the other nite- poor street lighting, no lights on a bike and the idiot was wearing all black clothing- so hi viz wouldnt have helped? ok then.
I agree some idiot drivers dont give cyclists the space needed, but i can tell you now i reckon 75% of cyclists dont pay any attention, dont wear safety gear and then blame the motorist.
How about pay a little insurance incase of accicent because im sure you would soon claim off the motorist if there was an accident!

Have you actually read the research?

Telling me to grow up aint going to benefit anyone now is it. It just serves to make you look ignorant.

Riding side by side, actually perfectly legal. There is guidance, and its only that, in the highway code to single up on busy roads.

The Ninja Cyclist (as we call them on the forums) was indeed in the wrong. I wouldnt defend that, certainly wouldnt encourage any rider to ride unlit.

Your 75% is pointless. Again with the "safety gear". You've not qualified or qualified the 75%, are you sure you haven't just fallen into the psychological trap of remembering just the bad riders, or even (judging by your misunderstanding of two abreast) misunderstood the factors involved..?

I do have insurance. I'm a member of the CTC.

To reference your previous comment. Seatbelts are a legal compulsion, helmets are not. Hiviz is not.

Seatbelts have also been tested to rigorous standards in many, many different ways. Helmets have had limited testing (the most rigorous is the snell b90 in this country, most conform to EN1078 - a simple weighted drop of around 1.5m at about 12mph on to the top of the helmet, equivalent to a stationary fall)

Ahh the old "road tax" myth, once again. Read this:

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/environment/bi
ke-blog/2011/nov/22/
cycling-road-tax-con
fused

What a great article, really brings out the halfwit anti cyclists.

I cycle, and pay vehicle exise duty (road tax), almost every cyclist does, as they also own cars. I drive a V6 so my tax is pretty big.

Me on my bike has far less impact on motorists, compared to me in the V6. When you see a cyclist you should be grateful that what you are looking at is ONE LESS CAR.

Dave2483 you are an absolute prize fool who clearly knows nothing about the rules of the road, the law or much else. Scary to think a halfwit such as yourself might be behind the wheel of a car. Pity the poor cyclists who live in the area is all I can say.