‘Cycle streets’ could be considered for Oxford

The Oxford Times: ‘Cycle streets’ could be considered for Oxford ‘Cycle streets’ could be considered for Oxford

STREETS which prioritise cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford.

A new Government report suggests that “cycle streets” could ban overtaking on roads which are lightly trafficked but heavily used by cyclists.

They would also come with an advisory speed limit of 15mph, the report adds.

Oxfordshire County Council transport boss David Nimmo-Smith said it was something the council would consider.

He said: “It is an interesting concept and we can certainly throw it into the mix when we are looking at plans for Oxford.

“There will be roads that might be appropriate and others that are not, but obviously we have to keep the city open for business.”

Vice-chairman of cyclist group Cyclox Richard Mann said such streets were already commonplace in other European nations. He said: “We would very much support it, they have been very successful in places like Germany and the Netherlands.”

The Government’s consultation on the idea, and other new transport policies, runs until June 12.

Related links

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:05am Mon 12 May 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

So you have a 20 foot wide road but you can not overtake because of a 3 foot cyclist. Yep this really makes sense. Advisory 15 mph, so its not legal! We get an awkward cyclist riding along at 5 mph and motorists have to sit behind it! Who comes up with these hair brained schemes?????
So you have a 20 foot wide road but you can not overtake because of a 3 foot cyclist. Yep this really makes sense. Advisory 15 mph, so its not legal! We get an awkward cyclist riding along at 5 mph and motorists have to sit behind it! Who comes up with these hair brained schemes????? HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -3

9:33am Mon 12 May 14

Steve Smith 1980 says...

Whilst I can see how it works in places like Germany and the Netherlands, with wide streets, infrastructure built with the modern world in mind, this would be insane in Oxford, a city designed for the horse and cart. As a driver I would hate to be stuck behind one of the cyclists going 5 mph with some of our less than sensible cyclists overtaking on both sides, as a cyclist I would hate to be stuck with a car glued to my back wheel, and as normal the police would not be able to do anything about the idiot drivers or idiot cyclists. It would just cause more frustration on all sides and make things worse in Oxfords roads. They need to spend the money on enforcing the current rules. Sort out the minority of stupid idiots that give both sides a bad name and the majority will get on much better within the current rules.
Whilst I can see how it works in places like Germany and the Netherlands, with wide streets, infrastructure built with the modern world in mind, this would be insane in Oxford, a city designed for the horse and cart. As a driver I would hate to be stuck behind one of the cyclists going 5 mph with some of our less than sensible cyclists overtaking on both sides, as a cyclist I would hate to be stuck with a car glued to my back wheel, and as normal the police would not be able to do anything about the idiot drivers or idiot cyclists. It would just cause more frustration on all sides and make things worse in Oxfords roads. They need to spend the money on enforcing the current rules. Sort out the minority of stupid idiots that give both sides a bad name and the majority will get on much better within the current rules. Steve Smith 1980
  • Score: 22

10:27am Mon 12 May 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

You mean this isn't already in force?
You mean this isn't already in force? Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 6

11:27am Mon 12 May 14

olafpalme says...

One can simply reverse roles to cover all the anti-cycling comments that will no doubt appear. (acknowledgement to one `3rdworldcyclinginGB
' posting this as a comment in http://aseasyasridin
gabike.wordpress.com ) :
-------

People like Lewis Hamilton and Jensen Button are great role models and an inspiration to all drivers. With the resulting upsurge in interest in driving in Britain following their success and infrastructure improvements strongly campaigned for by organizations such as Transport for London, it is a shame that some drivers are unwilling to respect other road users. Everyone has stories of how these petrol louts break the law or thoughtlessly indulge in other anti-social practices: red light jumping, speeding, not-signalling overtaking in the most ridiculous places, using their mobile phones while eating and reading the newspaper, and worst of all, killing and maiming everybody else. We build perfectly good facilities for them, but what do they do – park on pavements and block cycle lanes. They seem wilfully ignorant of the numerous studies that show that most deaths and casualties due to driving result from the driver not looking and the main cause of deaths and casualties is due to head injuries. But how many drivers drive brightly coloured cars or wear the helmets that any sensible person can see would significantly improve their chances of avoiding injury? Ninja motorists are not just a figment of a manga artists imagination, I can tell you. And if you confront them about this disgraceful behaviour, all you get is unreasoning knee-jerk profanity. Now call me reactionary but why should there be funding for new driving infrastructure if they behave like this?

Anyone with any experience of drivers can see the sense in this. Just look at how self-righteously angry these sensitive souls can be. Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are drivers and I’ve driven myself, so I know what it’s like. it changes you. My friends told me I was an idiot to do it. After a few streets of driving I was so boiling with rage, shouting at everone in unseeing fury, that I drove onto the pavement, hit a bollard, staggered to the nearest bike shop, bought a bike and cycled home. I’ve never driven since.
One can simply reverse roles to cover all the anti-cycling comments that will no doubt appear. (acknowledgement to one `3rdworldcyclinginGB ' posting this as a comment in http://aseasyasridin gabike.wordpress.com ) : ------- People like Lewis Hamilton and Jensen Button are great role models and an inspiration to all drivers. With the resulting upsurge in interest in driving in Britain following their success and infrastructure improvements strongly campaigned for by organizations such as Transport for London, it is a shame that some drivers are unwilling to respect other road users. Everyone has stories of how these petrol louts break the law or thoughtlessly indulge in other anti-social practices: red light jumping, speeding, not-signalling overtaking in the most ridiculous places, using their mobile phones while eating and reading the newspaper, and worst of all, killing and maiming everybody else. We build perfectly good facilities for them, but what do they do – park on pavements and block cycle lanes. They seem wilfully ignorant of the numerous studies that show that most deaths and casualties due to driving result from the driver not looking and the main cause of deaths and casualties is due to head injuries. But how many drivers drive brightly coloured cars or wear the helmets that any sensible person can see would significantly improve their chances of avoiding injury? Ninja motorists are not just a figment of a manga artists imagination, I can tell you. And if you confront them about this disgraceful behaviour, all you get is unreasoning knee-jerk profanity. Now call me reactionary but why should there be funding for new driving infrastructure if they behave like this? Anyone with any experience of drivers can see the sense in this. Just look at how self-righteously angry these sensitive souls can be. Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are drivers and I’ve driven myself, so I know what it’s like. it changes you. My friends told me I was an idiot to do it. After a few streets of driving I was so boiling with rage, shouting at everone in unseeing fury, that I drove onto the pavement, hit a bollard, staggered to the nearest bike shop, bought a bike and cycled home. I’ve never driven since. olafpalme
  • Score: -10

11:54am Mon 12 May 14

Ceeps60 says...

Excuse me but I PAY to be on the road so think I should have some priority over those that don't. I am already sick of driving down roads and being stuck behind a great gaggle of cyclists cluttering up the entire lane in defiance of rule 66 if the Highway Code "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" & "be considerate of other road users". Plus rule 67 "be aware of traffic coming up behind you". And now you tell me the latest bonkers idea is that I HAVE to travel behind them, not overtake and they will have road priority? No point having a car then is it? What are we coming to eh? Aaaarrrggghhh!!!
Excuse me but I PAY to be on the road so think I should have some priority over those that don't. I am already sick of driving down roads and being stuck behind a great gaggle of cyclists cluttering up the entire lane in defiance of rule 66 if the Highway Code "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" & "be considerate of other road users". Plus rule 67 "be aware of traffic coming up behind you". And now you tell me the latest bonkers idea is that I HAVE to travel behind them, not overtake and they will have road priority? No point having a car then is it? What are we coming to eh? Aaaarrrggghhh!!! Ceeps60
  • Score: -6

12:12pm Mon 12 May 14

Floflo says...

Ceeps60 wrote:
Excuse me but I PAY to be on the road so think I should have some priority over those that don't. I am already sick of driving down roads and being stuck behind a great gaggle of cyclists cluttering up the entire lane in defiance of rule 66 if the Highway Code "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" & "be considerate of other road users". Plus rule 67 "be aware of traffic coming up behind you". And now you tell me the latest bonkers idea is that I HAVE to travel behind them, not overtake and they will have road priority? No point having a car then is it? What are we coming to eh? Aaaarrrggghhh!!!
Remember that 'considerate of other road users'' bit and you'll be fine.

However I do however understand that you can be frustrated when several cyclists take up the space of, lets say, a car.
[quote][p][bold]Ceeps60[/bold] wrote: Excuse me but I PAY to be on the road so think I should have some priority over those that don't. I am already sick of driving down roads and being stuck behind a great gaggle of cyclists cluttering up the entire lane in defiance of rule 66 if the Highway Code "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" & "be considerate of other road users". Plus rule 67 "be aware of traffic coming up behind you". And now you tell me the latest bonkers idea is that I HAVE to travel behind them, not overtake and they will have road priority? No point having a car then is it? What are we coming to eh? Aaaarrrggghhh!!![/p][/quote]Remember that 'considerate of other road users'' bit and you'll be fine. However I do however understand that you can be frustrated when several cyclists take up the space of, lets say, a car. Floflo
  • Score: 3

12:19pm Mon 12 May 14

olafpalme says...

Ceeps60

Your utter ignorance is showing.
You don't pay to be on the road. There is no `road tax'. Cyclists pay as much as any hybrid vehicle (there is a huge list of non-paying vehicles) and may , nay probably do, own a car with a vehicular tax disc the proceeds of which go into the general tax coffers, not on roads. NOT ON ROADS.
Ceeps60 Your utter ignorance is showing. You don't pay to be on the road. There is no `road tax'. Cyclists pay as much as any hybrid vehicle (there is a huge list of non-paying vehicles) and may , nay probably do, own a car with a vehicular tax disc the proceeds of which go into the general tax coffers, not on roads. NOT ON ROADS. olafpalme
  • Score: 5

1:02pm Mon 12 May 14

Niko Bellic says...

No there is no such thing as "road tax" but there are the indirect costs of motoring, such as Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty, and them the VAT on the fuel, so to say that drivers do not pay to be on the road, desipte the costs of running a car is a completely blinkered and biased view.

Riding behind cyclists that take up the same space as a car, yes it is frustrating. bear in mind that the average speed of a bike is a low slower than a car, and if you drove that speed the police would pull you over (assuming it was on a traffic enforcement day).

Before I'm accused of being anti-cyclist, I actually agree that there should be improved provision for cyclists, but not by disadvantaging drivers further than they already are (particularly in Oxford), This is an ill thought out and frankly dangerous idea clearly by people who live within the ring road.
No there is no such thing as "road tax" but there are the indirect costs of motoring, such as Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty, and them the VAT on the fuel, so to say that drivers do not pay to be on the road, desipte the costs of running a car is a completely blinkered and biased view. Riding behind cyclists that take up the same space as a car, yes it is frustrating. bear in mind that the average speed of a bike is a low slower than a car, and if you drove that speed the police would pull you over (assuming it was on a traffic enforcement day). Before I'm accused of being anti-cyclist, I actually agree that there should be improved provision for cyclists, but not by disadvantaging drivers further than they already are (particularly in Oxford), This is an ill thought out and frankly dangerous idea clearly by people who live within the ring road. Niko Bellic
  • Score: 11

1:04pm Mon 12 May 14

grandconjuration says...

Only 5 comments in and "road tax" is being mentioned. Who'd have thought it?
Only 5 comments in and "road tax" is being mentioned. Who'd have thought it? grandconjuration
  • Score: 3

1:33pm Mon 12 May 14

Neonlights says...

Don't ya just love Oxford.

And people wonder why it's labelled the car hating city of England.
Don't ya just love Oxford. And people wonder why it's labelled the car hating city of England. Neonlights
  • Score: 14

1:40pm Mon 12 May 14

olafpalme says...

Niko Bellic:

To start with, the topic at hand is purely about *some* city streets not an every-road policy.
Within the ring road cyclists average (point to point) speed is proven to be higher than that for cars on many routes. It is actually cars that block cyclists. As well as other cars!
The more cyclists you can draw into the city by making it safer, instead of using their cars(!), the less congestion there will be for everyone.
Niko Bellic: To start with, the topic at hand is purely about *some* city streets not an every-road policy. Within the ring road cyclists average (point to point) speed is proven to be higher than that for cars on many routes. It is actually cars that block cyclists. As well as other cars! The more cyclists you can draw into the city by making it safer, instead of using their cars(!), the less congestion there will be for everyone. olafpalme
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Mon 12 May 14

Brenda Jackson says...

Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!! Brenda Jackson
  • Score: 12

2:53pm Mon 12 May 14

Floflo says...

Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license.

In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license. In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself. Floflo
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Mon 12 May 14

Brenda Jackson says...

Floflo wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license.

In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.
''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford''
Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them.
Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed.
This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :)
Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license. In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.[/p][/quote]''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford'' Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them. Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed. This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :) Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence. Brenda Jackson
  • Score: 9

7:03pm Mon 12 May 14

Floflo says...

Brenda Jackson wrote:
Floflo wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license.

In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.
''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford''
Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them.
Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed.
This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :)
Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.
Cycling is hooliganism? I think you need to get out more.
[quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license. In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.[/p][/quote]''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford'' Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them. Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed. This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :) Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.[/p][/quote]Cycling is hooliganism? I think you need to get out more. Floflo
  • Score: 2

7:09pm Mon 12 May 14

Brenda Jackson says...

Floflo wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Floflo wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license.

In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.
''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford''
Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them.
Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed.
This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :)
Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.
Cycling is hooliganism? I think you need to get out more.
I would 'get out more' -If it were not for all the dangers posed by irresponsible maniacs on bikes. There, see, it's anti-social behaviour too!
Btw, do you have lights/brakes/a bell? I think I know the answer, but you're probably the exception to the rule.
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license. In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.[/p][/quote]''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford'' Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them. Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed. This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :) Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.[/p][/quote]Cycling is hooliganism? I think you need to get out more.[/p][/quote]I would 'get out more' -If it were not for all the dangers posed by irresponsible maniacs on bikes. There, see, it's anti-social behaviour too! Btw, do you have lights/brakes/a bell? I think I know the answer, but you're probably the exception to the rule. Brenda Jackson
  • Score: -1

7:27pm Mon 12 May 14

Madi50n says...

I think this is a great idea, if they do this I'll get back out of my car and back on my bike. I doubt they will though.

Personally, I'd ban all but essential car use, disabled access & residents, from St Giles to the Head of the River and from Frideswide over to The Plain. Nothing but buses & bikes in separate lanes. Deliveries restricted to before 8 am and after 6 pm.

Reduce the pollution, get people, reduce the accidents.
I think this is a great idea, if they do this I'll get back out of my car and back on my bike. I doubt they will though. Personally, I'd ban all but essential car use, disabled access & residents, from St Giles to the Head of the River and from Frideswide over to The Plain. Nothing but buses & bikes in separate lanes. Deliveries restricted to before 8 am and after 6 pm. Reduce the pollution, get people, reduce the accidents. Madi50n
  • Score: -5

12:03am Tue 13 May 14

Myron Blatz says...

Motorists don't care about cyclists, and many cyclists don't give a fig about pedestrians, children or OAPs - and in Queen Street and Carfax on Oxford, don't give a monkey's gesticulation about anyone! The solution to cyclists and their cycles chained-up all over Oxford is to make them leave their cycles at Park and Rides across Oxford, and then get them to use public transport like other road users.
Motorists don't care about cyclists, and many cyclists don't give a fig about pedestrians, children or OAPs - and in Queen Street and Carfax on Oxford, don't give a monkey's gesticulation about anyone! The solution to cyclists and their cycles chained-up all over Oxford is to make them leave their cycles at Park and Rides across Oxford, and then get them to use public transport like other road users. Myron Blatz
  • Score: 3

8:45am Tue 13 May 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

i can clearly tell from the voting on this thread that the lycra two wheeled brigade is out in force and up/downvoting where required!
i can clearly tell from the voting on this thread that the lycra two wheeled brigade is out in force and up/downvoting where required! yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: 4

9:26am Tue 13 May 14

grandconjuration says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
i can clearly tell from the voting on this thread that the lycra two wheeled brigade is out in force and up/downvoting where required!
Or, maybe it's that those obsessed with four wheels have failed to provide a sensible and convincing argument to support their rather odd views.
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: i can clearly tell from the voting on this thread that the lycra two wheeled brigade is out in force and up/downvoting where required![/p][/quote]Or, maybe it's that those obsessed with four wheels have failed to provide a sensible and convincing argument to support their rather odd views. grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

9:47am Tue 13 May 14

grandconjuration says...

Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
Please can you provide some data to support your argument, rather than just spout out the same old tired fact-free rantings. On average, how many pedestrians are killed/injured by cyclists every year, and of these, how many are on the pavement? Since you claim that bicycles are a danger to life you must have this information at your disposal.

You must be aware that every year 40-60 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles whilst on the pavement. Indeed, only last week, it was reported here on the OM website that a camper van had mounted a pavement and injured a pedestrian. For some reason, no one really seemed to care about this enough to make a comment.

I also hope that you campaign against motor vehicles parking on the pavement with the same level of vitriol as pavement-cyclists. After all, for a vehicle to have parked on a pavement it must have been illegally driven onto it. But, everyone just seems to turn a blind eye to this. Which is surprising given the statistic above. I wonder why this is?
[quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]Please can you provide some data to support your argument, rather than just spout out the same old tired fact-free rantings. On average, how many pedestrians are killed/injured by cyclists every year, and of these, how many are on the pavement? Since you claim that bicycles are a danger to life you must have this information at your disposal. You must be aware that every year 40-60 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles whilst on the pavement. Indeed, only last week, it was reported here on the OM website that a camper van had mounted a pavement and injured a pedestrian. For some reason, no one really seemed to care about this enough to make a comment. I also hope that you campaign against motor vehicles parking on the pavement with the same level of vitriol as pavement-cyclists. After all, for a vehicle to have parked on a pavement it must have been illegally driven onto it. But, everyone just seems to turn a blind eye to this. Which is surprising given the statistic above. I wonder why this is? grandconjuration
  • Score: 8

10:01am Tue 13 May 14

Brenda Jackson says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
Please can you provide some data to support your argument, rather than just spout out the same old tired fact-free rantings. On average, how many pedestrians are killed/injured by cyclists every year, and of these, how many are on the pavement? Since you claim that bicycles are a danger to life you must have this information at your disposal.

You must be aware that every year 40-60 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles whilst on the pavement. Indeed, only last week, it was reported here on the OM website that a camper van had mounted a pavement and injured a pedestrian. For some reason, no one really seemed to care about this enough to make a comment.

I also hope that you campaign against motor vehicles parking on the pavement with the same level of vitriol as pavement-cyclists. After all, for a vehicle to have parked on a pavement it must have been illegally driven onto it. But, everyone just seems to turn a blind eye to this. Which is surprising given the statistic above. I wonder why this is?
''CYCLISTS are creating "an army of walking wounded" says The Times, because riders are almost as likely as motorists to cause injury to pedestrians''

''While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles, a rather different picture emerges when "serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled", the paper says. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers''

''A cyclist who caused the death of a man by riding ?furiously? has escaped a jail sentence.

Peter Messen pedalled down a hill at around 25 mph before hitting Gary Green as he loaded his car in preparation for a holiday with his girlfriend. Messen mounted the kerb on his Apollo mountain bike just as Green stepped onto the pavement, knocking him unconscious to the floor. Green died four days later on April 3 last year after suffering serious head injuries.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]Please can you provide some data to support your argument, rather than just spout out the same old tired fact-free rantings. On average, how many pedestrians are killed/injured by cyclists every year, and of these, how many are on the pavement? Since you claim that bicycles are a danger to life you must have this information at your disposal. You must be aware that every year 40-60 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles whilst on the pavement. Indeed, only last week, it was reported here on the OM website that a camper van had mounted a pavement and injured a pedestrian. For some reason, no one really seemed to care about this enough to make a comment. I also hope that you campaign against motor vehicles parking on the pavement with the same level of vitriol as pavement-cyclists. After all, for a vehicle to have parked on a pavement it must have been illegally driven onto it. But, everyone just seems to turn a blind eye to this. Which is surprising given the statistic above. I wonder why this is?[/p][/quote]''CYCLISTS are creating "an army of walking wounded" says The Times, because riders are almost as likely as motorists to cause injury to pedestrians'' ''While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles, a rather different picture emerges when "serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled", the paper says. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers'' ''A cyclist who caused the death of a man by riding ?furiously? has escaped a jail sentence. Peter Messen pedalled down a hill at around 25 mph before hitting Gary Green as he loaded his car in preparation for a holiday with his girlfriend. Messen mounted the kerb on his Apollo mountain bike just as Green stepped onto the pavement, knocking him unconscious to the floor. Green died four days later on April 3 last year after suffering serious head injuries. Brenda Jackson
  • Score: 6

11:09am Tue 13 May 14

cubist says...

almost as likely and drivers have injured more people, whats your point brenda
almost as likely and drivers have injured more people, whats your point brenda cubist
  • Score: 1

11:56am Tue 13 May 14

Brenda Jackson says...

cubist wrote:
almost as likely and drivers have injured more people, whats your point brenda
Point being, cyclists are catching up with motorists regards injuring pedestrians- so it needs nipping in the bud. I realise that not all Cyclists are irresponsible- but I think the majority are.
[quote][p][bold]cubist[/bold] wrote: almost as likely and drivers have injured more people, whats your point brenda[/p][/quote]Point being, cyclists are catching up with motorists regards injuring pedestrians- so it needs nipping in the bud. I realise that not all Cyclists are irresponsible- but I think the majority are. Brenda Jackson
  • Score: -5

12:06pm Tue 13 May 14

Floflo says...

Myron Blatz wrote:
Motorists don't care about cyclists, and many cyclists don't give a fig about pedestrians, children or OAPs - and in Queen Street and Carfax on Oxford, don't give a monkey's gesticulation about anyone! The solution to cyclists and their cycles chained-up all over Oxford is to make them leave their cycles at Park and Rides across Oxford, and then get them to use public transport like other road users.
Bless you.

So your solution to people who 'don't give a fig about pedestrians, children or OAP's' is to get them off their bikes and, presumably, in to other transport, How would that help?

Really Myron. People use all forms of transport. Generalisations like yours are tedious and not helpful.
[quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote: Motorists don't care about cyclists, and many cyclists don't give a fig about pedestrians, children or OAPs - and in Queen Street and Carfax on Oxford, don't give a monkey's gesticulation about anyone! The solution to cyclists and their cycles chained-up all over Oxford is to make them leave their cycles at Park and Rides across Oxford, and then get them to use public transport like other road users.[/p][/quote]Bless you. So your solution to people who 'don't give a fig about pedestrians, children or OAP's' is to get them off their bikes and, presumably, in to other transport, How would that help? Really Myron. People use all forms of transport. Generalisations like yours are tedious and not helpful. Floflo
  • Score: -1

1:14pm Tue 13 May 14

grandconjuration says...

Brenda Jackson wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
Please can you provide some data to support your argument, rather than just spout out the same old tired fact-free rantings. On average, how many pedestrians are killed/injured by cyclists every year, and of these, how many are on the pavement? Since you claim that bicycles are a danger to life you must have this information at your disposal.

You must be aware that every year 40-60 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles whilst on the pavement. Indeed, only last week, it was reported here on the OM website that a camper van had mounted a pavement and injured a pedestrian. For some reason, no one really seemed to care about this enough to make a comment.

I also hope that you campaign against motor vehicles parking on the pavement with the same level of vitriol as pavement-cyclists. After all, for a vehicle to have parked on a pavement it must have been illegally driven onto it. But, everyone just seems to turn a blind eye to this. Which is surprising given the statistic above. I wonder why this is?
''CYCLISTS are creating "an army of walking wounded" says The Times, because riders are almost as likely as motorists to cause injury to pedestrians''

''While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles, a rather different picture emerges when "serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled", the paper says. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers''

''A cyclist who caused the death of a man by riding ?furiously? has escaped a jail sentence.

Peter Messen pedalled down a hill at around 25 mph before hitting Gary Green as he loaded his car in preparation for a holiday with his girlfriend. Messen mounted the kerb on his Apollo mountain bike just as Green stepped onto the pavement, knocking him unconscious to the floor. Green died four days later on April 3 last year after suffering serious head injuries.
I'm not sure what you aim to achieve by selectively quoting these statistics. They show that...

1. Cyclists and pedestrians do collide, but these collisions occur less frequently that those between motor vehicles and pedestrians.
2. The vast majority of collisions between cyclists and pedestrian occur on the road.
3. The majority of collisions between cyclist and pedestrian is the fault of the pedestrian through walking into the road without looking (you omitted this part).
4. Almost all deaths of a pedestrian on the pavement are the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
5. Only 2% of pedestrian casualties are as a result of a collision with a cyclist, the remaining 98% are from motor vehicles (you missed this bit out too).

The article in The Times was titled "Motorists and cyclists create an army of walking wounded"; again, you've edited this to suit your own argument. Here's the article:

http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3986
796.ece

As for the story, this sad incident happened in 2007, which goes to show how rare such a collision is. Maybe you can provide the names of the 12,000 people killed by motor vehicles since this incident was reported.

"Point being, cyclists are catching up with motorists regards injuring pedestrians- so it needs nipping in the bud."

An excellent idea. Surely then, one way to reduce pedestrian injuries is reduce the number of cars and increase the number of bicycles?
[quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]Please can you provide some data to support your argument, rather than just spout out the same old tired fact-free rantings. On average, how many pedestrians are killed/injured by cyclists every year, and of these, how many are on the pavement? Since you claim that bicycles are a danger to life you must have this information at your disposal. You must be aware that every year 40-60 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles whilst on the pavement. Indeed, only last week, it was reported here on the OM website that a camper van had mounted a pavement and injured a pedestrian. For some reason, no one really seemed to care about this enough to make a comment. I also hope that you campaign against motor vehicles parking on the pavement with the same level of vitriol as pavement-cyclists. After all, for a vehicle to have parked on a pavement it must have been illegally driven onto it. But, everyone just seems to turn a blind eye to this. Which is surprising given the statistic above. I wonder why this is?[/p][/quote]''CYCLISTS are creating "an army of walking wounded" says The Times, because riders are almost as likely as motorists to cause injury to pedestrians'' ''While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles, a rather different picture emerges when "serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled", the paper says. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers'' ''A cyclist who caused the death of a man by riding ?furiously? has escaped a jail sentence. Peter Messen pedalled down a hill at around 25 mph before hitting Gary Green as he loaded his car in preparation for a holiday with his girlfriend. Messen mounted the kerb on his Apollo mountain bike just as Green stepped onto the pavement, knocking him unconscious to the floor. Green died four days later on April 3 last year after suffering serious head injuries.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what you aim to achieve by selectively quoting these statistics. They show that... 1. Cyclists and pedestrians do collide, but these collisions occur less frequently that those between motor vehicles and pedestrians. 2. The vast majority of collisions between cyclists and pedestrian occur on the road. 3. The majority of collisions between cyclist and pedestrian is the fault of the pedestrian through walking into the road without looking (you omitted this part). 4. Almost all deaths of a pedestrian on the pavement are the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 5. Only 2% of pedestrian casualties are as a result of a collision with a cyclist, the remaining 98% are from motor vehicles (you missed this bit out too). The article in The Times was titled "Motorists and cyclists create an army of walking wounded"; again, you've edited this to suit your own argument. Here's the article: http://www.thetimes. co.uk/tto/public/cyc lesafety/article3986 796.ece As for the story, this sad incident happened in 2007, which goes to show how rare such a collision is. Maybe you can provide the names of the 12,000 people killed by motor vehicles since this incident was reported. "Point being, cyclists are catching up with motorists regards injuring pedestrians- so it needs nipping in the bud." An excellent idea. Surely then, one way to reduce pedestrian injuries is reduce the number of cars and increase the number of bicycles? grandconjuration
  • Score: 5

1:53pm Tue 13 May 14

Brenda Jackson says...

''The article in The Times was titled "Motorists and cyclists create an army of walking wounded"; again, you've edited this to suit your own argument''

Wrong again, I put in the piece/s I thought relevant.
''The article in The Times was titled "Motorists and cyclists create an army of walking wounded"; again, you've edited this to suit your own argument'' Wrong again, I put in the piece/s I thought relevant. Brenda Jackson
  • Score: 6

1:54pm Tue 13 May 14

locodogz says...

Brenda Jackson wrote:
Floflo wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Floflo wrote:
Brenda Jackson wrote:
Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!!
I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license.

In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.
''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford''
Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them.
Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed.
This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :)
Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.
Cycling is hooliganism? I think you need to get out more.
I would 'get out more' -If it were not for all the dangers posed by irresponsible maniacs on bikes. There, see, it's anti-social behaviour too!
Btw, do you have lights/brakes/a bell? I think I know the answer, but you're probably the exception to the rule.
Most will have brakes and some lights. Bells aren't considered cool though.......
[quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brenda Jackson[/bold] wrote: Lycra louts have already taken over the footpaths where they are a nuisance and danger to life and limb, so now they should be given the freedom of the roads as well? On yer bike!![/p][/quote]I hate to disappoint you but cyclists, in common with several other categories of road user, are already free to use the roads. As they rarely cause damage to life or limb that they don't need a license. In regard to lycra if you do any sport I suspect you'll understand why it's worn - you may even start to enjoy wearing it yourself.[/p][/quote]''Streets which PRIORITISE cyclists over motorists could be trialled in Oxford'' Silly idea, and it would only encourage cyclists to believe even more that the rules of the road do-not apply to them. Venture out on the dark streets of Oxford at your own risk, as I often have to do- and there are numerous individuals more often than not with poor or no lights at all brushing past on a PEDESTRIAN pathway at speed. This is not 'Sport' this is hooliganism, and the 'Lycra' jibe is because it sits well with Louts in this instance. TBH Many of the offenders wear Denim not lycra, so perhaps it might be less hurtful if I referred to them as 'Denim dunces'? :) Imo Cyclists should be forced to pay road and pathway tax, carry an i.d. and make it mandatory to have a bell to warn of their presence.[/p][/quote]Cycling is hooliganism? I think you need to get out more.[/p][/quote]I would 'get out more' -If it were not for all the dangers posed by irresponsible maniacs on bikes. There, see, it's anti-social behaviour too! Btw, do you have lights/brakes/a bell? I think I know the answer, but you're probably the exception to the rule.[/p][/quote]Most will have brakes and some lights. Bells aren't considered cool though....... locodogz
  • Score: 10

2:30pm Tue 13 May 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Only 5 comments in and "road tax" is being mentioned. Who'd have thought it?
The only mention of "car Tax" was by olafpalme who obviously did not read Mr Ceeps comment
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Only 5 comments in and "road tax" is being mentioned. Who'd have thought it?[/p][/quote]The only mention of "car Tax" was by olafpalme who obviously did not read Mr Ceeps comment The New Private Eye
  • Score: 4

2:54pm Tue 13 May 14

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

I came here for the comments.
I came here for the comments. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 24

2:54pm Tue 13 May 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Only 5 comments in and "road tax" is being mentioned. Who'd have thought it?
The only mention of "car Tax" was by olafpalme who obviously did not read Mr Ceeps comment
Hooray, New Private Eye joins the discussion.

I thought you'd be too busy reading the Highway Code after our last exchange; replacing the fictional version in your head with the real version. Tell me, have you been behaving properly around cycle lanes recently, paying particular attention to Rule 183?
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Only 5 comments in and "road tax" is being mentioned. Who'd have thought it?[/p][/quote]The only mention of "car Tax" was by olafpalme who obviously did not read Mr Ceeps comment[/p][/quote]Hooray, New Private Eye joins the discussion. I thought you'd be too busy reading the Highway Code after our last exchange; replacing the fictional version in your head with the real version. Tell me, have you been behaving properly around cycle lanes recently, paying particular attention to Rule 183? grandconjuration
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Tue 13 May 14

melyn am byth says...

locodogz says..

Most will have brakes and some lights. Bells aren't considered cool though......

I rail at any cyclist who passes me from behind on a footpath or cycle path, it shocks me, it annoys me, and I vent my spleen at them,
I have a bike, it has a bell, I use it when approaching pedestrians from behind.
In this weather I will normally be wearing a blue waterproof jacket with a black backpack... Mr. Cool you have been warned.
locodogz says.. Most will have brakes and some lights. Bells aren't considered cool though...... I rail at any cyclist who passes me from behind on a footpath or cycle path, it shocks me, it annoys me, and I vent my spleen at them, I have a bike, it has a bell, I use it when approaching pedestrians from behind. In this weather I will normally be wearing a blue waterproof jacket with a black backpack... Mr. Cool you have been warned. melyn am byth
  • Score: -3

1:33pm Wed 14 May 14

tinsel84 says...

I think that all such a scheme would do is create more friction between motorists and cyclists.

I am a motorist myself and don't ride a bike. Perhaps I will one day and lose some of this gut. I cannot understand why there has to be this "motorists vs cyclists" debate everytime there is is an article on here in relation to cycling. There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists. I would say that 99% of cyclists I see when I'm in the city do stop at redlights and seem to ride considerately. I have very rarely come into conflict with a cyclist when walking or driving in the city, although I have witnessed some very dangerous manouvres by both cyclists and motorists!

I strongly believe that we need more infrastructure for cyclists, good quality cycle paths and perhaps legislation to enforce their use when they are available .

An elitist driver is no better than an elitist cyclist in my view. I think that everyone needs to show each other a bit of consideration. This scheme however, is not the answer.
I think that all such a scheme would do is create more friction between motorists and cyclists. I am a motorist myself and don't ride a bike. Perhaps I will one day and lose some of this gut. I cannot understand why there has to be this "motorists vs cyclists" debate everytime there is is an article on here in relation to cycling. There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists. I would say that 99% of cyclists I see when I'm in the city do stop at redlights and seem to ride considerately. I have very rarely come into conflict with a cyclist when walking or driving in the city, although I have witnessed some very dangerous manouvres by both cyclists and motorists! I strongly believe that we need more infrastructure for cyclists, good quality cycle paths and perhaps legislation to enforce their use when they are available . An elitist driver is no better than an elitist cyclist in my view. I think that everyone needs to show each other a bit of consideration. This scheme however, is not the answer. tinsel84
  • Score: 13

5:33pm Wed 14 May 14

locodogz says...

tinsel84 wrote:
I think that all such a scheme would do is create more friction between motorists and cyclists.

I am a motorist myself and don't ride a bike. Perhaps I will one day and lose some of this gut. I cannot understand why there has to be this "motorists vs cyclists" debate everytime there is is an article on here in relation to cycling. There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists. I would say that 99% of cyclists I see when I'm in the city do stop at redlights and seem to ride considerately. I have very rarely come into conflict with a cyclist when walking or driving in the city, although I have witnessed some very dangerous manouvres by both cyclists and motorists!

I strongly believe that we need more infrastructure for cyclists, good quality cycle paths and perhaps legislation to enforce their use when they are available .

An elitist driver is no better than an elitist cyclist in my view. I think that everyone needs to show each other a bit of consideration. This scheme however, is not the answer.
Please can you refrain from interrupting this thread with your fair and well reasoned points. You'll only annoy the zealots.....


......oh and you'll probably get asked to produce statistical evidence for your 99% figure.....anecdotal don't cut it here!!!!
[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: I think that all such a scheme would do is create more friction between motorists and cyclists. I am a motorist myself and don't ride a bike. Perhaps I will one day and lose some of this gut. I cannot understand why there has to be this "motorists vs cyclists" debate everytime there is is an article on here in relation to cycling. There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists. I would say that 99% of cyclists I see when I'm in the city do stop at redlights and seem to ride considerately. I have very rarely come into conflict with a cyclist when walking or driving in the city, although I have witnessed some very dangerous manouvres by both cyclists and motorists! I strongly believe that we need more infrastructure for cyclists, good quality cycle paths and perhaps legislation to enforce their use when they are available . An elitist driver is no better than an elitist cyclist in my view. I think that everyone needs to show each other a bit of consideration. This scheme however, is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Please can you refrain from interrupting this thread with your fair and well reasoned points. You'll only annoy the zealots..... ......oh and you'll probably get asked to produce statistical evidence for your 99% figure.....anecdotal don't cut it here!!!! locodogz
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Fri 16 May 14

thomashenry says...

tinsel84 wrote:
I think that all such a scheme would do is create more friction between motorists and cyclists.

I am a motorist myself and don't ride a bike. Perhaps I will one day and lose some of this gut. I cannot understand why there has to be this "motorists vs cyclists" debate everytime there is is an article on here in relation to cycling. There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists. I would say that 99% of cyclists I see when I'm in the city do stop at redlights and seem to ride considerately. I have very rarely come into conflict with a cyclist when walking or driving in the city, although I have witnessed some very dangerous manouvres by both cyclists and motorists!

I strongly believe that we need more infrastructure for cyclists, good quality cycle paths and perhaps legislation to enforce their use when they are available .

An elitist driver is no better than an elitist cyclist in my view. I think that everyone needs to show each other a bit of consideration. This scheme however, is not the answer.
99% of cyclist in Oxford stop at red lights???!

hahahahahahhahahahah
ahahahah

Good one.
[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: I think that all such a scheme would do is create more friction between motorists and cyclists. I am a motorist myself and don't ride a bike. Perhaps I will one day and lose some of this gut. I cannot understand why there has to be this "motorists vs cyclists" debate everytime there is is an article on here in relation to cycling. There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists. I would say that 99% of cyclists I see when I'm in the city do stop at redlights and seem to ride considerately. I have very rarely come into conflict with a cyclist when walking or driving in the city, although I have witnessed some very dangerous manouvres by both cyclists and motorists! I strongly believe that we need more infrastructure for cyclists, good quality cycle paths and perhaps legislation to enforce their use when they are available . An elitist driver is no better than an elitist cyclist in my view. I think that everyone needs to show each other a bit of consideration. This scheme however, is not the answer.[/p][/quote]99% of cyclist in Oxford stop at red lights???! hahahahahahhahahahah ahahahah Good one. thomashenry
  • Score: -3

4:39pm Sat 17 May 14

jroc says...

Right, 1st off I agree that laws concerning cyclists must be brought in line with laws and rules concerning all other road users, and i believe cyclists should by law have their bikes and equipment MOTed regularly. Also regular cycling proficiency refreshers, which would be useful for drivers and motorcyclists as well.
Most cyclists ignore red lights and pedestrian crossings in the city. Fact. I ride a motorcycle daily and see it all the time.
Pedestrians are notoriously bad road users. What happened to the Green Cross Code adverts on TV and radio? Replaced by car adverts, and mobile phone adverts encouraging people to walk around looking at their device and not where they are going!!
About two thirds of drivers are actually skilled enough to be on the roads. There is too much pressure to be able to drive, it should be law that if you do not pass your driving test within 3 tries then you should not be allowed to drive. Full stop. Even then, a refresher should be taken every few years.
People would use public transport if it was a) not so ridiculously expensive ( it should be say 25p per mile, any time of day, anywhere in the city, 50p per mile for taxis?) and b) it was fit for purpose ie reliable!! I see way too many buses with only 3 0r 4 passengers... what a waste of time , money and road space!! For what reason do we need 2 bus companies running services every 8-10 minutes, everywhere? And then when you really need one they dont turn up!!! Manage them properly!
In fact if all this was managed properly, rather than skirting around the real issues with "bus lanes" "cycle streets" and an over-abundance of traffic lights perhaps one day Oxfords transport system may indeed start to resemble its European counterparts!!
Rant over.
Right, 1st off I agree that laws concerning cyclists must be brought in line with laws and rules concerning all other road users, and i believe cyclists should by law have their bikes and equipment MOTed regularly. Also regular cycling proficiency refreshers, which would be useful for drivers and motorcyclists as well. Most cyclists ignore red lights and pedestrian crossings in the city. Fact. I ride a motorcycle daily and see it all the time. Pedestrians are notoriously bad road users. What happened to the Green Cross Code adverts on TV and radio? Replaced by car adverts, and mobile phone adverts encouraging people to walk around looking at their device and not where they are going!! About two thirds of drivers are actually skilled enough to be on the roads. There is too much pressure to be able to drive, it should be law that if you do not pass your driving test within 3 tries then you should not be allowed to drive. Full stop. Even then, a refresher should be taken every few years. People would use public transport if it was a) not so ridiculously expensive ( it should be say 25p per mile, any time of day, anywhere in the city, 50p per mile for taxis?) and b) it was fit for purpose ie reliable!! I see way too many buses with only 3 0r 4 passengers... what a waste of time , money and road space!! For what reason do we need 2 bus companies running services every 8-10 minutes, everywhere? And then when you really need one they dont turn up!!! Manage them properly! In fact if all this was managed properly, rather than skirting around the real issues with "bus lanes" "cycle streets" and an over-abundance of traffic lights perhaps one day Oxfords transport system may indeed start to resemble its European counterparts!! Rant over. jroc
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree