Cyclists want council to open up missing links (From Daily Echo)

I had a dream about the day Southampton will be as bike-friendly as Cambridge or Bristol.

Than I woke up an got the bus to work.

I agree that more could be done for cyclists. Cycling down Bassett Avenue could be more clearly laid out and does not link up easily with the Common. However as a driver cyclists often do not make use of designated routes and then pose a danger to themselves. I get fed up of the number who do not display lights at night.

Tommy, I'm afraid I'm one of those cyclists that doesn't make use of all cycle paths. Much of the time, using the roads (of which all cyclists are entitled) is much quicker than using cycle paths.

A good example is here is West End. Cyclists are allowed to share the pavement with pedestrians, but the pavement is no wider than a usual pavement, and you have to give way to cars at every crossing - obviously you don't need to do this on the road.

I support shared use paths and more cycle paths though, as it makes it safer for children and less-experienced cyclists to get around.

I think there is one improvement that could cost very little to impliment - advance on amber for cyclists at ASLs (the bike box often at the lights). It will allow a safe segregation via time rather than space, and it just needs a little extra time on the amber signal to be workable.
.
I dont agree with many offroad routes where they change the pavement to "shared" use. I think these can sometimes cause problems for the disabled (blind and hard of hearing). IIRC it was last summer where I encountered a blind man on the cyclepath by Furniture Village in town. I decided it would be safer to dismount for the short duration.
.
I would like to see provision that is more in line with Europe, not just a bit of paint in the gutter. There are many parallel routes and roads through Southampton, with access provided to residents, and public transport (Eg like the top of Wilton Road).
.
Parked cars also cause problems. Somehow we need to plan to remove them from the road and have them parked offroad. They cause visibility obstruction, not just to cyclists but all road users, and make traffic progress a little problematic. If we want to be a nation of car owners we have to look at this, even if it means having to walk a little further to your car.
.
Obviously I would like to see more enforcement of poor road use. I'm more than happy for unlit cyclists to be held to account, same for pedallestrians.

downfader wrote:
I think there is one improvement that could cost very little to impliment - advance on amber for cyclists at ASLs (the bike box often at the lights). It will allow a safe segregation via time rather than space, and it just needs a little extra time on the amber signal to be workable. . I dont agree with many offroad routes where they change the pavement to "shared" use. I think these can sometimes cause problems for the disabled (blind and hard of hearing). IIRC it was last summer where I encountered a blind man on the cyclepath by Furniture Village in town. I decided it would be safer to dismount for the short duration. . I would like to see provision that is more in line with Europe, not just a bit of paint in the gutter. There are many parallel routes and roads through Southampton, with access provided to residents, and public transport (Eg like the top of Wilton Road). . Parked cars also cause problems. Somehow we need to plan to remove them from the road and have them parked offroad. They cause visibility obstruction, not just to cyclists but all road users, and make traffic progress a little problematic. If we want to be a nation of car owners we have to look at this, even if it means having to walk a little further to your car. . Obviously I would like to see more enforcement of poor road use. I'm more than happy for unlit cyclists to be held to account, same for pedallestrians.

The only missing link is posters like you.
There is not enogh money in the kitty for spending on minority interests like cyclists.
lets fill in the potholes first for the cars that actually pay heavily for using the road.
Sorry if parked cars get in your way but they have paid for the right to use the road you have not, get over yourself

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:
I think there is one improvement that could cost very little to impliment - advance on amber for cyclists at ASLs (the bike box often at the lights). It will allow a safe segregation via time rather than space, and it just needs a little extra time on the amber signal to be workable. . I dont agree with many offroad routes where they change the pavement to "shared" use. I think these can sometimes cause problems for the disabled (blind and hard of hearing). IIRC it was last summer where I encountered a blind man on the cyclepath by Furniture Village in town. I decided it would be safer to dismount for the short duration. . I would like to see provision that is more in line with Europe, not just a bit of paint in the gutter. There are many parallel routes and roads through Southampton, with access provided to residents, and public transport (Eg like the top of Wilton Road). . Parked cars also cause problems. Somehow we need to plan to remove them from the road and have them parked offroad. They cause visibility obstruction, not just to cyclists but all road users, and make traffic progress a little problematic. If we want to be a nation of car owners we have to look at this, even if it means having to walk a little further to your car. . Obviously I would like to see more enforcement of poor road use. I'm more than happy for unlit cyclists to be held to account, same for pedallestrians.

The only missing link is posters like you.
There is not enogh money in the kitty for spending on minority interests like cyclists.
lets fill in the potholes first for the cars that actually pay heavily for using the road.
Sorry if parked cars get in your way but they have paid for the right to use the road you have not, get over yourself

I'm all for potholes being filled in, but "cars" don't pay for the road. There's no such thing as "road tax"; it's Vehicle Excise Duty. Roads are funded through general taxation which everyone pays, including cyclists.

Cyclists are hardly a minority interest, and it's in everyone's interest for more cyclists to be encouraged onto the roads. More people cycling means fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less congestion.

downfader makes some good points, but I'd rather have cars parked on the roads than parked over pavements which many people sadly seem to consider acceptable behaviour.

Smilzo wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote: I think there is one improvement that could cost very little to impliment - advance on amber for cyclists at ASLs (the bike box often at the lights). It will allow a safe segregation via time rather than space, and it just needs a little extra time on the amber signal to be workable. . I dont agree with many offroad routes where they change the pavement to "shared" use. I think these can sometimes cause problems for the disabled (blind and hard of hearing). IIRC it was last summer where I encountered a blind man on the cyclepath by Furniture Village in town. I decided it would be safer to dismount for the short duration. . I would like to see provision that is more in line with Europe, not just a bit of paint in the gutter. There are many parallel routes and roads through Southampton, with access provided to residents, and public transport (Eg like the top of Wilton Road). . Parked cars also cause problems. Somehow we need to plan to remove them from the road and have them parked offroad. They cause visibility obstruction, not just to cyclists but all road users, and make traffic progress a little problematic. If we want to be a nation of car owners we have to look at this, even if it means having to walk a little further to your car. . Obviously I would like to see more enforcement of poor road use. I'm more than happy for unlit cyclists to be held to account, same for pedallestrians.

The only missing link is posters like you. There is not enogh money in the kitty for spending on minority interests like cyclists. lets fill in the potholes first for the cars that actually pay heavily for using the road. Sorry if parked cars get in your way but they have paid for the right to use the road you have not, get over yourself

I'm all for potholes being filled in, but "cars" don't pay for the road. There's no such thing as "road tax"; it's Vehicle Excise Duty. Roads are funded through general taxation which everyone pays, including cyclists. Cyclists are hardly a minority interest, and it's in everyone's interest for more cyclists to be encouraged onto the roads. More people cycling means fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less congestion. downfader makes some good points, but I'd rather have cars parked on the roads than parked over pavements which many people sadly seem to consider acceptable behaviour.

I have not noticed many cyclists putting their hands in their pockets to contribute to the upkeep of roads.
the motorist tax burden supports the country not just the roads, not the other way round as cyclists suggest

Smilzo wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:
I think there is one improvement that could cost very little to impliment - advance on amber for cyclists at ASLs (the bike box often at the lights). It will allow a safe segregation via time rather than space, and it just needs a little extra time on the amber signal to be workable. . I dont agree with many offroad routes where they change the pavement to "shared" use. I think these can sometimes cause problems for the disabled (blind and hard of hearing). IIRC it was last summer where I encountered a blind man on the cyclepath by Furniture Village in town. I decided it would be safer to dismount for the short duration. . I would like to see provision that is more in line with Europe, not just a bit of paint in the gutter. There are many parallel routes and roads through Southampton, with access provided to residents, and public transport (Eg like the top of Wilton Road). . Parked cars also cause problems. Somehow we need to plan to remove them from the road and have them parked offroad. They cause visibility obstruction, not just to cyclists but all road users, and make traffic progress a little problematic. If we want to be a nation of car owners we have to look at this, even if it means having to walk a little further to your car. . Obviously I would like to see more enforcement of poor road use. I'm more than happy for unlit cyclists to be held to account, same for pedallestrians.

The only missing link is posters like you.
There is not enogh money in the kitty for spending on minority interests like cyclists.
lets fill in the potholes first for the cars that actually pay heavily for using the road.
Sorry if parked cars get in your way but they have paid for the right to use the road you have not, get over yourself

I'm all for potholes being filled in, but "cars" don't pay for the road. There's no such thing as "road tax"; it's Vehicle Excise Duty. Roads are funded through general taxation which everyone pays, including cyclists.

Cyclists are hardly a minority interest, and it's in everyone's interest for more cyclists to be encouraged onto the roads. More people cycling means fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less congestion.

downfader makes some good points, but I'd rather have cars parked on the roads than parked over pavements which many people sadly seem to consider acceptable behaviour.

I don't think cyclists would object to a £50.00 annual charge to use the roads and they would feel happier knowing that they were contributing to the upkeep. £50.00 is a tiny sum to pay as they don't have to find the money for VED, Insurance, fuel and maintenance like vehicle drivers do.

When a cyclist is out on their bike, the car that they probably own (and therefore pay VED on)is sitting in their drive doing nothing. Based on that fact, other car driver drivers should be congratulating them instead of moaning and asking them to pay more!

Torchie1 wrote:

Smilzo wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote: I think there is one improvement that could cost very little to impliment - advance on amber for cyclists at ASLs (the bike box often at the lights). It will allow a safe segregation via time rather than space, and it just needs a little extra time on the amber signal to be workable. . I dont agree with many offroad routes where they change the pavement to "shared" use. I think these can sometimes cause problems for the disabled (blind and hard of hearing). IIRC it was last summer where I encountered a blind man on the cyclepath by Furniture Village in town. I decided it would be safer to dismount for the short duration. . I would like to see provision that is more in line with Europe, not just a bit of paint in the gutter. There are many parallel routes and roads through Southampton, with access provided to residents, and public transport (Eg like the top of Wilton Road). . Parked cars also cause problems. Somehow we need to plan to remove them from the road and have them parked offroad. They cause visibility obstruction, not just to cyclists but all road users, and make traffic progress a little problematic. If we want to be a nation of car owners we have to look at this, even if it means having to walk a little further to your car. . Obviously I would like to see more enforcement of poor road use. I'm more than happy for unlit cyclists to be held to account, same for pedallestrians.

The only missing link is posters like you. There is not enogh money in the kitty for spending on minority interests like cyclists. lets fill in the potholes first for the cars that actually pay heavily for using the road. Sorry if parked cars get in your way but they have paid for the right to use the road you have not, get over yourself

I'm all for potholes being filled in, but "cars" don't pay for the road. There's no such thing as "road tax"; it's Vehicle Excise Duty. Roads are funded through general taxation which everyone pays, including cyclists. Cyclists are hardly a minority interest, and it's in everyone's interest for more cyclists to be encouraged onto the roads. More people cycling means fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less congestion. downfader makes some good points, but I'd rather have cars parked on the roads than parked over pavements which many people sadly seem to consider acceptable behaviour.

I don't think cyclists would object to a £50.00 annual charge to use the roads and they would feel happier knowing that they were contributing to the upkeep. £50.00 is a tiny sum to pay as they don't have to find the money for VED, Insurance, fuel and maintenance like vehicle drivers do.

Why pay again for something you're already paying for.
.
As I said to Geoff (several times) before, the general tax payer already subsidises the roads by atleast £50bn before we even get to VED, fuel tax and VAT on fuel (now I dont agree with the way motoring is taxed, but thats a side issue).
.
To bring in a charge of VED for cycles when there are zero rate cars is a little unbalanced and counter productive. It would cost the taxpayer atleast £40m to change the law, I have no idea of the admin costs but if VED has an approx 20% admin cost on all the monies raised (near £1bn) you probably wont cover costs.
.
The best option for public money spending is to cut the beaurocracy, cut the red tape, make things simpler.
.
I would also argue, based on the info I've seen on news websites and the CTC site, that cyclists are the road group most likely to report road defects. Many will even go out of their way to roads they rarely use, and use up a little spare time to volunteer this. I know I have done this in the past - in 2008 I reported several hundred through both the old council and CTC websites. (Add to that its now even easier at the CTC have an app that uses GPS and smart phones)
.
Oh and before I forget.. parked cars. I would rarely move them on to pavements, as with cyclists I think they would contribute a little hazard to the disabled. We only have to look at Bristol and Bournemouth to see how our roads will become in the next couple of years and I think it would be wise to try and solve the issue before it becomes as bad and as hard to deal with as those areas.

The Department of Transport budget for 2010-2011 was £14 billion.....official figure not plucked at random to help win an argument. Are you suggesting that they trouser the other £36 Billion plus the extras? A charge on cyclists would help to spread the costs in the same way that the owner of two vehicles pays when only one is driven and the other is parked in the garage. I don't think I've ever known a time when cyclists weren't at the front of the queue with their demands but totally absent when it comes to paying anything towards the infrastructure they use.

Torchie1 wrote:
The Department of Transport budget for 2010-2011 was £14 billion.....official figure not plucked at random to help win an argument. Are you suggesting that they trouser the other £36 Billion plus the extras? A charge on cyclists would help to spread the costs in the same way that the owner of two vehicles pays when only one is driven and the other is parked in the garage. I don't think I've ever known a time when cyclists weren't at the front of the queue with their demands but totally absent when it comes to paying anything towards the infrastructure they use.

You're only looking at a specific section of cost. Theres environmental monitoring and control, costs to the NHS, legal ramifications of having to bring in new laws (the mobile ban being a prime example), the costs of testing those new laws, the costs to business of some £20bn by congestion too.
.
Here are the costs as I've found them from research that The Economist and a few others like the NHS have provided the public:
.
-costs to the Police to control motoring offences, control traffic in collision events and public demonstrations - £3bn
-200,000 NHS treatments needed a year involving RTCs - £9.93bn (source is RoSPA)
-cost to water pollution £16bn*
-cost to air pollution - up to £19.7bn
*but the figures are constantly being added to, this doesnt in the main include co2 either, we're talking carcinogens, particulates and poison molecules.
.
-in 2008 road building and maintenance did indeed cost £8.78bn
-noise is a major problem and measures to combat motoring noise has costs the taxpayer £3.1bn
.
Then we have other problems associated with motoring. The DFT found that 75% of all journeys by car were for single occupancy travel at distances of less than 5 miles. These were one-way trips that were not load-bearing (eg not delivery, or shopping but visiting a friend or going to work).
.
If people are using a vehicle like a car unnecesarily then this means they are not being active (aside from the congestion problem already mentioned above). Obesity is indeed on the rise, last figures I have are from 2008 iirc and state that the NHS had to spend £2bn to tackle it.
.
There are prolly other costs I have missed out, such is the complication of society impact.
.
Cycling is a great weapon against obesity. A 3 mile ride will burn up to 300 calories depending on topography. Any effort to impose charges on it will damage its beneficial effect (same to walking) and dissuade people from making a change in lifestyle. I strongly feel there is a bigger picture to be seen

Torchie1 wrote:
The Department of Transport budget for 2010-2011 was £14 billion.....official figure not plucked at random to help win an argument. Are you suggesting that they trouser the other £36 Billion plus the extras? A charge on cyclists would help to spread the costs in the same way that the owner of two vehicles pays when only one is driven and the other is parked in the garage. I don't think I've ever known a time when cyclists weren't at the front of the queue with their demands but totally absent when it comes to paying anything towards the infrastructure they use.

It's very simple: Department for Transport funds maintenance of Motorways and major trunk roads only. Local Authorities fund maintenance of all other roads. We all (including cyclists) pay for that through our council tax and income tax.