Cyclist injured in incident in Hove

Cyclist injured in incident in Hove

Cyclist injured in incident in Hove

First published in News

A cyclist suffered injuries after an incident near Tesco in Church Road, Hove.

The cyclist had a laceration to his eyebrow, grazes to his face and right knee in the incident which happened at about 9.30am.

The westbound carriageway was closed for a short period while police attended.

It is not known at this stage if another vehicle was involved.


MORE:


Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:15am Tue 14 Jan 14

r2dean2 says...

From one cyclist to another, I hope you feel better soon matey.
From one cyclist to another, I hope you feel better soon matey. r2dean2
  • Score: 18

10:50am Tue 14 Jan 14

sean04 says...

far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change
far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change sean04
  • Score: 4

11:06am Tue 14 Jan 14

Indigatio says...

There is also a lot that do not get reported. One evening last week my son was knocked off in New Church Road. he was cycling east to west (with lights and hi vis jacket etc) and a car pulled out from one of the side roads to go straight across, somehow didn't see him, and ran straight into him. Cuts, bruises and a written off bike. Didn't bother to call the Police. The motorist was a rather apologetic clergyman !
There is also a lot that do not get reported. One evening last week my son was knocked off in New Church Road. he was cycling east to west (with lights and hi vis jacket etc) and a car pulled out from one of the side roads to go straight across, somehow didn't see him, and ran straight into him. Cuts, bruises and a written off bike. Didn't bother to call the Police. The motorist was a rather apologetic clergyman ! Indigatio
  • Score: 6

12:49pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved Brighton1000
  • Score: -7

1:13pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Heckler1974 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead? Heckler1974
  • Score: 9

1:21pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or play it safe and dont rely on other road users? What is the harm in travelling 100 yds south to a safe cycle lane? Thats certainly what I do, why negotiate a busy road, that has been made a lot worse by the crazy settings on the traffic lights recently (another green success). Far easier and safer to travel on a designated cycle lane that is away from the road. Its not rocket science, in fact one could almost call it common sense! Or do cyclists lack a bit of that?
[quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or play it safe and dont rely on other road users? What is the harm in travelling 100 yds south to a safe cycle lane? Thats certainly what I do, why negotiate a busy road, that has been made a lot worse by the crazy settings on the traffic lights recently (another green success). Far easier and safer to travel on a designated cycle lane that is away from the road. Its not rocket science, in fact one could almost call it common sense! Or do cyclists lack a bit of that? Brighton1000
  • Score: 7

1:26pm Tue 14 Jan 14

beeprightoff says...

I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing?

The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.
I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing? The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible. beeprightoff
  • Score: -3

1:34pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

beeprightoff wrote:
I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing?

The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.
You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.
[quote][p][bold]beeprightoff[/bold] wrote: I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing? The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.[/p][/quote]You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment. Brighton1000
  • Score: 4

2:37pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Ashles says...

sean04 wrote:
far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change
Any specific suggestions in mind?

Or just 'something'?
[quote][p][bold]sean04[/bold] wrote: far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change[/p][/quote]Any specific suggestions in mind? Or just 'something'? Ashles
  • Score: 2

2:41pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Ashles wrote:
sean04 wrote:
far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change
Any specific suggestions in mind?

Or just 'something'?
As I said, cyclist head south for 100 yards and use the SAFE cycle lane on seafront. I cant see how its so difficult, unless i am missing something
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sean04[/bold] wrote: far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change[/p][/quote]Any specific suggestions in mind? Or just 'something'?[/p][/quote]As I said, cyclist head south for 100 yards and use the SAFE cycle lane on seafront. I cant see how its so difficult, unless i am missing something Brighton1000
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

beeprightoff says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
beeprightoff wrote:
I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing?

The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.
You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.
Pray tell how you are qualified to treat us to all to such intelligent and insightful comments?

I don't have to have been there to know that cyclists are not invisible. If the driver claims not to have seen the cyclist, as was suggested in the previous comment, they can't have looked properly.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beeprightoff[/bold] wrote: I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing? The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.[/p][/quote]You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.[/p][/quote]Pray tell how you are qualified to treat us to all to such intelligent and insightful comments? I don't have to have been there to know that cyclists are not invisible. If the driver claims not to have seen the cyclist, as was suggested in the previous comment, they can't have looked properly. What part of that are you disagreeing with? beeprightoff
  • Score: -4

3:58pm Tue 14 Jan 14

woodie49 says...

Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.
[quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or better still start charging cyclists road tax. woodie49
  • Score: 2

4:00pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

beeprightoff wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
beeprightoff wrote:
I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing?

The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.
You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.
Pray tell how you are qualified to treat us to all to such intelligent and insightful comments?

I don't have to have been there to know that cyclists are not invisible. If the driver claims not to have seen the cyclist, as was suggested in the previous comment, they can't have looked properly.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?
The part that you weren't there so wouldnt know the real circumstances:


1. Did the cyclist go through a red light
2. Did the cyclist move into a blind spot
3. Was the cyclist riding irresponsibly
4. Was a bus blocking the view

Many many possibilities, I am merely pointing out that without the facts you cant instantly blame the motorist. Its called common sense
[quote][p][bold]beeprightoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beeprightoff[/bold] wrote: I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing? The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.[/p][/quote]You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.[/p][/quote]Pray tell how you are qualified to treat us to all to such intelligent and insightful comments? I don't have to have been there to know that cyclists are not invisible. If the driver claims not to have seen the cyclist, as was suggested in the previous comment, they can't have looked properly. What part of that are you disagreeing with?[/p][/quote]The part that you weren't there so wouldnt know the real circumstances: 1. Did the cyclist go through a red light 2. Did the cyclist move into a blind spot 3. Was the cyclist riding irresponsibly 4. Was a bus blocking the view Many many possibilities, I am merely pointing out that without the facts you cant instantly blame the motorist. Its called common sense Brighton1000
  • Score: 11

5:11pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Helen Ariel says...

woodie49 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.
Ha ha troll alert! What's road tax?
[quote][p][bold]woodie49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.[/p][/quote]Ha ha troll alert! What's road tax? Helen Ariel
  • Score: 6

5:13pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Getreal you lot says...

As usual, I expect he ran a red light. Free loading t***. Pay some sort of insurance or belt up. Stop moaning.
As usual, I expect he ran a red light. Free loading t***. Pay some sort of insurance or belt up. Stop moaning. Getreal you lot
  • Score: -9

5:16pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Getreal you lot says...

Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.
Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong. Getreal you lot
  • Score: -9

5:29pm Tue 14 Jan 14

monkeymoo says...

woodie49 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.
Why should cyclists pay Road tax...When no one else does?

It Vehicle Excise duty...you moron!
[quote][p][bold]woodie49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.[/p][/quote]Why should cyclists pay Road tax...When no one else does? It Vehicle Excise duty...you moron! monkeymoo
  • Score: 5

5:30pm Tue 14 Jan 14

monkeymoo says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Ashles wrote:
sean04 wrote:
far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change
Any specific suggestions in mind?

Or just 'something'?
As I said, cyclist head south for 100 yards and use the SAFE cycle lane on seafront. I cant see how its so difficult, unless i am missing something
Do you wheel your bike to the seafront and back then...or do you cycle to it?

Just wondered how you get to and from the cycle lane, that's all!!!
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sean04[/bold] wrote: far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change[/p][/quote]Any specific suggestions in mind? Or just 'something'?[/p][/quote]As I said, cyclist head south for 100 yards and use the SAFE cycle lane on seafront. I cant see how its so difficult, unless i am missing something[/p][/quote]Do you wheel your bike to the seafront and back then...or do you cycle to it? Just wondered how you get to and from the cycle lane, that's all!!! monkeymoo
  • Score: 4

5:34pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Hove Actually says...

Helen Ariel wrote:
woodie49 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.
Ha ha troll alert! What's road tax?
You are very very strange, even for an idiot
They NEVER said there was a "road tax"
they said "START charge cyclists road tax"
[quote][p][bold]Helen Ariel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodie49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.[/p][/quote]Ha ha troll alert! What's road tax?[/p][/quote]You are very very strange, even for an idiot They NEVER said there was a "road tax" they said "START charge cyclists road tax" Hove Actually
  • Score: -3

5:47pm Tue 14 Jan 14

High Wire says...

Hove Actually wrote:
Helen Ariel wrote:
woodie49 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.
Ha ha troll alert! What's road tax?
You are very very strange, even for an idiot
They NEVER said there was a "road tax"
they said "START charge cyclists road tax"
Great - then they can start charging motorists road tax too
[quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen Ariel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodie49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.[/p][/quote]Ha ha troll alert! What's road tax?[/p][/quote]You are very very strange, even for an idiot They NEVER said there was a "road tax" they said "START charge cyclists road tax"[/p][/quote]Great - then they can start charging motorists road tax too High Wire
  • Score: 7

5:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

High Wire says...

Getreal you lot wrote:
Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.
Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads.

And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist?

I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?
[quote][p][bold]Getreal you lot[/bold] wrote: Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.[/p][/quote]Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads. And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist? I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ? High Wire
  • Score: 7

6:06pm Tue 14 Jan 14

High Wire says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
beeprightoff wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
beeprightoff wrote:
I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing?

The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.
You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.
Pray tell how you are qualified to treat us to all to such intelligent and insightful comments?

I don't have to have been there to know that cyclists are not invisible. If the driver claims not to have seen the cyclist, as was suggested in the previous comment, they can't have looked properly.

What part of that are you disagreeing with?
The part that you weren't there so wouldnt know the real circumstances:


1. Did the cyclist go through a red light
2. Did the cyclist move into a blind spot
3. Was the cyclist riding irresponsibly
4. Was a bus blocking the view

Many many possibilities, I am merely pointing out that without the facts you cant instantly blame the motorist. Its called common sense
Well I suppose if you accept that the person telling the story is a complete fantasist then your points 1. to 4. might be relevant.

But given the driver came out from a side road (not "my son went tearing through a red light"), the rider was in hi viz and the driver apologised for the incident you have to go with the likelihood that the driver was to blame

Perhaps re-read the original and see where you went wrong :

"One evening last week my son was knocked off in New Church Road. he was cycling east to west (with lights and hi vis jacket etc) and a car pulled out from one of the side roads to go straight across, somehow didn't see him, and ran straight into him. Cuts, bruises and a written off bike. Didn't bother to call the Police. The motorist was a rather apologetic clergyman !"

If you were actually a commuting cyclist (and not someone who carries their bike all the way through Brighton to get onto the sea front cycle path) you would know that this happens way more often than you would suppose.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beeprightoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beeprightoff[/bold] wrote: I hope the apologetic clergyman was offering to compensate for the written off bike and any damaged clothing? The only way the driver could fail to see a cyclist is if they don't look. Whether wearing high viz clothing and using lights or not, cyclists are not invisible.[/p][/quote]You were there were you? Unless you are a qualified accident investigation office I suggest you keep your ignorant views to yourself to save embarrasment.[/p][/quote]Pray tell how you are qualified to treat us to all to such intelligent and insightful comments? I don't have to have been there to know that cyclists are not invisible. If the driver claims not to have seen the cyclist, as was suggested in the previous comment, they can't have looked properly. What part of that are you disagreeing with?[/p][/quote]The part that you weren't there so wouldnt know the real circumstances: 1. Did the cyclist go through a red light 2. Did the cyclist move into a blind spot 3. Was the cyclist riding irresponsibly 4. Was a bus blocking the view Many many possibilities, I am merely pointing out that without the facts you cant instantly blame the motorist. Its called common sense[/p][/quote]Well I suppose if you accept that the person telling the story is a complete fantasist then your points 1. to 4. might be relevant. But given the driver came out from a side road (not "my son went tearing through a red light"), the rider was in hi viz and the driver apologised for the incident you have to go with the likelihood that the driver was to blame Perhaps re-read the original and see where you went wrong : "One evening last week my son was knocked off in New Church Road. he was cycling east to west (with lights and hi vis jacket etc) and a car pulled out from one of the side roads to go straight across, somehow didn't see him, and ran straight into him. Cuts, bruises and a written off bike. Didn't bother to call the Police. The motorist was a rather apologetic clergyman !" If you were actually a commuting cyclist (and not someone who carries their bike all the way through Brighton to get onto the sea front cycle path) you would know that this happens way more often than you would suppose. High Wire
  • Score: 5

6:51pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ARMANA says...

A ton of metal going 20/30 mph, against a cyclist, only one winner, only one loser, GET THE BUS, Morons, !!!
A ton of metal going 20/30 mph, against a cyclist, only one winner, only one loser, GET THE BUS, Morons, !!! ARMANA
  • Score: -8

7:49pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Max Walls Ghost says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or play it safe and dont rely on other road users? What is the harm in travelling 100 yds south to a safe cycle lane? Thats certainly what I do, why negotiate a busy road, that has been made a lot worse by the crazy settings on the traffic lights recently (another green success). Far easier and safer to travel on a designated cycle lane that is away from the road. Its not rocket science, in fact one could almost call it common sense! Or do cyclists lack a bit of that?
Perhaps he was in Church Road because that's where he lives or perhaps he had some shopping to do or perhaps he was avoiding you.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or play it safe and dont rely on other road users? What is the harm in travelling 100 yds south to a safe cycle lane? Thats certainly what I do, why negotiate a busy road, that has been made a lot worse by the crazy settings on the traffic lights recently (another green success). Far easier and safer to travel on a designated cycle lane that is away from the road. Its not rocket science, in fact one could almost call it common sense! Or do cyclists lack a bit of that?[/p][/quote]Perhaps he was in Church Road because that's where he lives or perhaps he had some shopping to do or perhaps he was avoiding you. Max Walls Ghost
  • Score: 6

9:04pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

monkeymoo wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Ashles wrote:
sean04 wrote:
far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change
Any specific suggestions in mind?

Or just 'something'?
As I said, cyclist head south for 100 yards and use the SAFE cycle lane on seafront. I cant see how its so difficult, unless i am missing something
Do you wheel your bike to the seafront and back then...or do you cycle to it?

Just wondered how you get to and from the cycle lane, that's all!!!
Is that really the best argument you can come up with? I'd say point proven.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sean04[/bold] wrote: far too many cycling accidents in this area around tescos and church road/sackville lights. something needs to change[/p][/quote]Any specific suggestions in mind? Or just 'something'?[/p][/quote]As I said, cyclist head south for 100 yards and use the SAFE cycle lane on seafront. I cant see how its so difficult, unless i am missing something[/p][/quote]Do you wheel your bike to the seafront and back then...or do you cycle to it? Just wondered how you get to and from the cycle lane, that's all!!![/p][/quote]Is that really the best argument you can come up with? I'd say point proven. Brighton1000
  • Score: -2

9:07pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

High Wire wrote:
Getreal you lot wrote:
Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.
Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads.

And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist?

I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?
Jesus, You are odd??!!! NI is a cyclists insurance? WTF. What if they run someone over, Cause an accident, Damage a vehicle? There is no accountability, Nor reprisal for the lack of common sense and courtesy with the majority of cyclists. Im not anti bikes (you are obviously anti car) I just dont see how or why, the minute there is any collision the bike brigade instantly blame the motorist and his ton of metal killing machine, When most of the time its the lack of sense used by cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getreal you lot[/bold] wrote: Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.[/p][/quote]Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads. And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist? I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?[/p][/quote]Jesus, You are odd??!!! NI is a cyclists insurance? WTF. What if they run someone over, Cause an accident, Damage a vehicle? There is no accountability, Nor reprisal for the lack of common sense and courtesy with the majority of cyclists. Im not anti bikes (you are obviously anti car) I just dont see how or why, the minute there is any collision the bike brigade instantly blame the motorist and his ton of metal killing machine, When most of the time its the lack of sense used by cyclists. Brighton1000
  • Score: -2

9:09pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Max Walls Ghost wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or play it safe and dont rely on other road users? What is the harm in travelling 100 yds south to a safe cycle lane? Thats certainly what I do, why negotiate a busy road, that has been made a lot worse by the crazy settings on the traffic lights recently (another green success). Far easier and safer to travel on a designated cycle lane that is away from the road. Its not rocket science, in fact one could almost call it common sense! Or do cyclists lack a bit of that?
Perhaps he was in Church Road because that's where he lives or perhaps he had some shopping to do or perhaps he was avoiding you.
Or perhaps he was never there in the first place and the incident never even happened, Who knows????
[quote][p][bold]Max Walls Ghost[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or play it safe and dont rely on other road users? What is the harm in travelling 100 yds south to a safe cycle lane? Thats certainly what I do, why negotiate a busy road, that has been made a lot worse by the crazy settings on the traffic lights recently (another green success). Far easier and safer to travel on a designated cycle lane that is away from the road. Its not rocket science, in fact one could almost call it common sense! Or do cyclists lack a bit of that?[/p][/quote]Perhaps he was in Church Road because that's where he lives or perhaps he had some shopping to do or perhaps he was avoiding you.[/p][/quote]Or perhaps he was never there in the first place and the incident never even happened, Who knows???? Brighton1000
  • Score: -3

10:31pm Tue 14 Jan 14

High Wire says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
High Wire wrote:
Getreal you lot wrote:
Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.
Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads.

And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist?

I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?
Jesus, You are odd??!!! NI is a cyclists insurance? WTF. What if they run someone over, Cause an accident, Damage a vehicle? There is no accountability, Nor reprisal for the lack of common sense and courtesy with the majority of cyclists. Im not anti bikes (you are obviously anti car) I just dont see how or why, the minute there is any collision the bike brigade instantly blame the motorist and his ton of metal killing machine, When most of the time its the lack of sense used by cyclists.
Pillock
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getreal you lot[/bold] wrote: Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.[/p][/quote]Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads. And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist? I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?[/p][/quote]Jesus, You are odd??!!! NI is a cyclists insurance? WTF. What if they run someone over, Cause an accident, Damage a vehicle? There is no accountability, Nor reprisal for the lack of common sense and courtesy with the majority of cyclists. Im not anti bikes (you are obviously anti car) I just dont see how or why, the minute there is any collision the bike brigade instantly blame the motorist and his ton of metal killing machine, When most of the time its the lack of sense used by cyclists.[/p][/quote]Pillock High Wire
  • Score: 4

10:39pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

High Wire wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
High Wire wrote:
Getreal you lot wrote:
Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.
Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads.

And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist?

I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?
Jesus, You are odd??!!! NI is a cyclists insurance? WTF. What if they run someone over, Cause an accident, Damage a vehicle? There is no accountability, Nor reprisal for the lack of common sense and courtesy with the majority of cyclists. Im not anti bikes (you are obviously anti car) I just dont see how or why, the minute there is any collision the bike brigade instantly blame the motorist and his ton of metal killing machine, When most of the time its the lack of sense used by cyclists.
Pillock
Great come back
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getreal you lot[/bold] wrote: Yet another one bites the dust. I bet he had gone through a red light but yet again the poor motorist is the baddy. Get some insurance or shut up. You lot get the road for free whilst it costs us motorists hundreds of pounds. Nothing but free loaders...that's what cyclist are and then moan when it all goes wrong.[/p][/quote]Checking up on your facts might make you look just a little less stupid - motorists do not pay for the roads. And the cyclist does have insurance - national insurance at a minimum; his (likely) trip to the hospital is covered by that. But explain, how is "not having insurance" some kind of quid pro quo for being knocked over as cyclist? I hope you haven't bred, bit if you have and your kids went to a state school aren't they the REAL freeloaders? What do they deserve ?[/p][/quote]Jesus, You are odd??!!! NI is a cyclists insurance? WTF. What if they run someone over, Cause an accident, Damage a vehicle? There is no accountability, Nor reprisal for the lack of common sense and courtesy with the majority of cyclists. Im not anti bikes (you are obviously anti car) I just dont see how or why, the minute there is any collision the bike brigade instantly blame the motorist and his ton of metal killing machine, When most of the time its the lack of sense used by cyclists.[/p][/quote]Pillock[/p][/quote]Great come back Brighton1000
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

billy goat-gruff says...

woodie49 wrote:
Heckler1974 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved
Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?
Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.
Not even motorists pay 'road tax'! They pay a tax that reflects the environmental damage they do, so on that basis, a cyclist would get a rebate!
[quote][p][bold]woodie49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heckler1974[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Simple answer, Use the bike lane on the seafront? Its 100 yards down and safe as houses for cyclists. Problem solved[/p][/quote]Or perhaps share the roads safely instead?[/p][/quote]Or better still start charging cyclists road tax.[/p][/quote]Not even motorists pay 'road tax'! They pay a tax that reflects the environmental damage they do, so on that basis, a cyclist would get a rebate! billy goat-gruff
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree